Why do people like Elder Scrolls games?

[O maestre]

wow conrad wentzel you come off as both opinionated and narrow minded all in the space of a few lines.

like the choir of others have already stated its all about tastes. the elder scrolls offer a world that is completely free of linearity, where sandbox is king. not only is the game world open but so is the narrative, which relies a lot more on your imagination.

the downside is that there is very little cohesion, like you mentioned if you take all the quests as a whole there is very little red thread keeping it all together.

i tend to view TES games much like sagas and stories ancient medieval heroes, in the context of ,what if all those heroes were in fact the same person, a lone traveller that is more of an archetype than an actual person.

it is a very different experience just to wander about the land and have the narrative completely in your hands, both back story and motivation. gameplay wise that means that 95% of the time its just fooling around or wandering which is where the "fun aspect" is present for me. granted i would like a TES game where the world is more reactive, but i wouldn't want anything resembling cohesion or linearity.

TES games are not perfect and have a lot of shortcomings, both mechanically and storywise, but they are definitely unique, i cannot think of any other game series that allows you to make your own adventure.

but i have digressed far from the main point which is that this type of game is not for you fine, that does not mean its crap. the reasons i stated above are in fact what TES games do best and very reason i spend hours on them, i haven't even finished the main quest or had more than two characters, because that is not my motivating factor in the game.

i have no idea if you read my entire post or not, but regardless of preference i would advise you to be more tactful in the future, not because you may cause offence, but merely so that peoples opinion of you isn't that of a self-centered teenager, i do not know if you are one or not, but that is how your post made me perceive you.

 

[Mr Cwtchy]

snip

You started addressing my points then went off on a pointless rant. Chill pills might be called for.

The mountains was just an example, any kind of landscape works for me. I've lost count of the times I've been heading to a place and gotten distracted by ruins, or a cave, or even just a suspicious looking enemy camp.

With regards to linear dungeons, to be frank I don't give a shit. The thrill from exploring underground areas never gets old for me.

Overall, Skyrim is not a perfect game. But the combat works, the backstory is decent and it's main strength, the huge open world where you can go anywhere is extremely well done. Obligatory IMO.

 

[Reaper195]

I like the games because they give me a vast open world environment, with many different species and cultures and religions to explore. There are also many, many quests. I've only played the games on console, and the only mods I've seen on PC that actually seem worth it are graphical upgrades.

But then again, I love games that are A: Open world and B: game universe's which are not one thing like the real world. I play video games for fun, entertainment and escapism.

 

[Revolutionary]

TLDR:
basically We like them because they appeal to our particular tastes, and if you think they are objectively bad then that's a fundamental difference that we cannot resolve and should move on.

 

[Polite Sage]

And before you bash me as a hater, let me tell you an example of a good free roam RPG. One that's recent too and sorta from your beloved Bethesda. Fallout: New Vegas.

A good free roaming game with actually good RPG mechanics, okay combat and most of all, they delivered what was promised. A world that reacts to your actions. Complete too many quests in the Trip? "Too bad buddy, you're too famous to buy my illegal stuff, I might get caught.", says the gun dealer. Join the Legion? "Okay, fuck you Courier. You damn terrorist." says the NCR.

Join a faction that your followers don't like? They tell you to piss off or become outright hostile. Tell Veronica that you slaughtered the Brotherhood, her only family? She goes for blood. I could come up with many more examples. What did Bethesda do with the Fallout series?
"Over two hundred endings."

 

[Lazy Kitty]

Well, Open world, sandboxy; fantasy RPGs like TES are just my kind of game.
You get to be who you want to be, doing what you want to do.
Plus they've got amazing mod support, so wih a bit of knowhow, you can truely do whatever you want.

 

[Xaio30]

So why do people like these games? Their crap!

The Elder Scrolls games are much like the GTA series; Sandbox with story sprinkled on top. And in the same way GTA lets me play around cities as a psychopath with weapons (fun!) Elder Scrolls gives me the best available world in which to fantasy-roleplay to my heart's desire.

That is why I love those games.

 

[Benni88]

I think the Elderscrolls games have always had a scope that other games have never been able to match. The playable area is far larger and more open than almost all similar games. The advantage of this is that it can be really fun to go and get lost in the wild. The disadvantage is that plot events may be less tailored/directed due to the number of additional variables which are influenced by the player's behaviour.

I've always been an elderscrolls fan, and will continue to be, as the freedom that bethesda games allow to the player is remarkable and something i still find very enjoyable.

 

[Bizzare Logic]

Actually, it was the Obsidian team that they hired to write New Vegas, not Bethesda proper. New Vegas is a fun game, but it's darn near unplayably buggy and crash-prone even after the patches that stopped it from deleting your save data.

It does a lot of things right, but it also does a lot of things very wrong and feels very "patchy" in places, following after that same old Obsidian feel. The writing is stronger than what Bethesda usually does, but by contrast the beginning of the game is much more linear and you have to play the system (or be really lucky) to bypass the initial "Wasteland Tour" it wants you to go through. If you do bypass the detour, you'll wind up too low a level to survive out there and probably wind up doing the detour-related quests anyway. The tops of the mountains are actually blocked by impassable barriers, where in the Bethesda games they let you cheese your way over them if you can.

And really, the endings aren't even that vastly different. It's really just four or five endings, with an added sentence depending on your karma, and then a list of all the factions you helped and where they are now. By contrast, the Bethesda games let you continue to adventure even after you win, so there's not really been need for "Endings".

Like I said, New Vegas is good - but it's not really much better than Skyrim.

 

[Amaror]

Oh god this AGAIN?
When will people get over the fact, that their personal opinion is NOT everyones opinion and is NOT a fact.

 

[Mirroga]

It's probably because the Elder Scrolls series play as the most faithful version of a Dungeons and Dragons Video Game. It has a linear storyline but you can faff about and annoy the DM...I mean avoid the railroad...I mean it's just a game which has a main storyline but has a heavy emphasis on freedom and exploration. There's few games right now that can give you so much freedom while having a wide world to explore.

 

[Polite Sage]

I don't know how you people can go on about "freedom" when there is almost none.
Only "freedom" there is, is the pretty looking overworld. What if we take that away? What is left?

Every dungeon, every quest is linear as hell with only one option that leads to success. What about dialogue choices? They all lead to same conclusion no matter what you do. What about gameplay? That boils down to whether you want to kite mobs with a sword, bow or magic bolts. What about the freedom in towns? They're just fetch quest and gear selling hubs.

So what is Skyrim without it's overworld? A first person dungeon crawler that has only ashes of non-linearity and RPG elements left. Every quest is always the same. Only thing that changes is what order you want to play them in or which ones you want to skip. What's the difference in Companions' dialogue if I join them before or after saving Skyrim? None. I am still referred as the "guy no one has never heard about". What about a world where almost every single NPC is an essential?
That's the "freedom" that Skyrim offers.

The overworld itself is not that good either. Looks good, but is plagued with same random encounters (every 3rd being a dragon encounter) over and over again. There is no feel of true exploration while every area is a copy pasta from the last one, and no reward or reason for doing so. All you're going to get is that your gear looks more swag.

This is what I was referring to with "pretty things" and "bling bling". Skyrim looks better than it's predecessors but that's all they improved with this installment. It's a good looking game that did nothing to improve the core gameplay mechanics that made the previous games good. Instead, it scrapped most of them and thus Skyrim actually has way less content than Morrowind OR Oblivion.

Sure, you can climb that mountain. For what reason? For sightseeing? I can see no other reason to do so, unless you're on another linear fetch quest. If you want a good walking and sightseeing simulator you should try out Space Engine or Dear Esther. At least those are not filled with sad excuses of "RPG elements that change the very fabric of reality".

 

[Zburator]

The lore of Skyrim and the Elder Scrolls in general is great, I must admit. The Daedra Gods are lovingly designed and many of the cultures such as the Dwemer and Dummer are awesome.

On the flip side, the script writing is freaking terrible and it brings me to my incredible hatred for what the RPG genre is becoming. The choices presented are hollow and have little effect on how the world reacts, the character relations (particularly the marriage system) is unprecedentedly bad and your character is by far, the biggest doormat of all time. Seriously! He agrees to anything he is asked, choice is piss all in the end.

I'd take my closed-off, yet meaningful RPG world like Dragon Age over an open, soulless, RPG world like Skyrim any day. I have 126 hours clocked in Skyrim and nothing to feel from it but shame.

That said, I'd sum the Elder Scrolls like this.

The Lore writer deserves a medal.

The Script writer deserves a bullet.

/rantfirstpost

 

[Mirroga]

I don't know how you people can go on about "freedom" when there is almost none.
Only "freedom" there is, is the pretty looking overworld. What if we take that away? What is left?

There has been few games where you can actually do stuff that veers away from the norm. I find it nice that a game would let me finish my mission whatever way I want even if it involves killing the one who gave my mission simply because he pissed me off. But I suppose that kind of freedom is not enough.

EDIT: But I suppose there's still no game in this time and age expansive enough that the mission giver would respond to my dark, sarcastic actions of presenting his child's head when my mission is to save said child. And then follow it up with a lie to start a whole riot or genocide.

 

[Polite Sage]

There has been few games where you can actually do stuff that veers away from the norm. I find it nice that a game would let me finish my mission whatever way I want even if it involves killing the one who gave my mission simply because he pissed me off. But I suppose that kind of freedom is not enough.

"Veering away from the norm" is supposed to be Skyrim's selling point. And whatever is the mission you're talking about? Disregarding quests objectives usually leads to some of these:

-You simply can't, the quest giver is an essential and you're forced to complete the quest the way he wanted.
-You can kill the quest giver, but no one gives a shit. Simply put, Quest Failed.
-You leave the quest in an eternal Quest Log limbo. No NPC gives a shit.

I can imagine there being one or 2 such quests that allow you this, but in a game that prides itself in "freedom" this should be a norm and not a rare exception for some longer quest lines.

 

[piinyouri]

Skyrim must've ran over darkmind35's dog, and burned their mother at the stake.


Anywho, they are fun. They always, have always had problems, both technical and otherwise, but they have always been fun in spite of them.

That's my answer.

 

[Thatrocketeer]

I don't know how you people can go on about "freedom" when there is almost none.
Only "freedom" there is, is the pretty looking overworld. What if we take that away? What is left?

Every dungeon, every quest is linear as hell with only one option that leads to success. What about dialogue choices? They all lead to same conclusion no matter what you do. What about gameplay? That boils down to whether you want to kite mobs with a sword, bow or magic bolts. What about the freedom in towns? They're just fetch quest and gear selling hubs.

So what is Skyrim without it's overworld? A first person dungeon crawler that has only ashes of non-linearity and RPG elements left. Every quest is always the same. Only thing that changes is what order you want to play them in or which ones you want to skip. What's the difference in Companions' dialogue if I join them before or after saving Skyrim? None. I am still referred as the "guy no one has never heard about". What about a world where almost every single NPC is an essential?
That's the "freedom" that Skyrim offers.

The overworld itself is not that good either. Looks good, but is plagued with same random encounters (every 3rd being a dragon encounter) over and over again. There is no feel of true exploration while every area is a copy pasta from the last one, and no reward or reason for doing so. All you're going to get is that your gear looks more swag.

This is what I was referring to with "pretty things" and "bling bling". Skyrim looks better than it's predecessors but that's all they improved with this installment. It's a good looking game that did nothing to improve the core gameplay mechanics that made the previous games good. Instead, it scrapped most of them and thus Skyrim actually has way less content than Morrowind OR Oblivion.

Sure, you can climb that mountain. For what reason? For sightseeing? I can see no other reason to do so, unless you're on another linear fetch quest. If you want a good walking and sightseeing simulator you should try out Space Engine or Dear Esther. At least those are not filled with sad excuses of "RPG elements that change the very fabric of reality".

0/10

Try harder. Most if not all the things you said here can be said about New Vegas, which according to you is a "Bethesda Game Gone Right". And your arguement about a No Overworld thing is stupid. Its a sandbox game. It's supposed to be mostly overworld.

OP: It's fun. What else kind of reason do you need?

 

[elvor0]

There has been few games where you can actually do stuff that veers away from the norm. I find it nice that a game would let me finish my mission whatever way I want even if it involves killing the one who gave my mission simply because he pissed me off. But I suppose that kind of freedom is not enough.

"Veering away from the norm" is supposed to be Skyrim's selling point. And whatever is the mission you're talking about? Disregarding quests objectives usually leads to some of these:

-You simply can't, the quest giver is an essential and you're forced to complete the quest the way he wanted.
-You can kill the quest giver, but no one gives a shit. Simply put, Quest Failed.
-You leave the quest in an eternal Quest Log limbo. No NPC gives a shit.

I can imagine there being one or 2 such quests that allow you this, but in a game that prides itself in "freedom" this should be a norm and not a rare exception for some longer quest lines.

Look, there seems to one main thing you're overlooking; it's a video game. There is only so much they can put in the game before it starts to collapse under it's own code.

One day I'm sure we'll have complete and utter freedom, but your "oh everything is just do this, then do that, then do that" can be applied to every game in existence if you want to boil it down to the simplicity you're stating in all of your posts. There is no game in existence that offers the amount of freedom you think Skyrim should have, because it's not technologically feasible to do so. Just think of the amount of man power and resources you'd need to have that level of fidelity and choice in everything in the game.

You seem to be under the impression that video games are magic, and that the magic coders can just will things into existence, and that by not allowing complete and un-negated freedom to do anything that your imagination dreams up is just them slacking in the wizarding department. Yes I know that's me being extremely hyperbolic, but your points and complaints are completely infeasible for current gaming technology to account for.

Relative to most games Skyrim has a lot of freedom. You seem to be confusing the concept of freedom in games with total control and allowance to do whatever. Of course there is going to be some constraints because no developer can ever make a game that offers anything and everything the player could possibly think of doing. This isn't D&D, where you can just make up the results, because every game in inexorably bound to what's in the code.

You want freedom, then you complain that people that enjoy climbing mountains for the sake of it are stupid. Do you not see how contradictory that statement is? I climb that mountain because I can, because I can sit on top of and check out the view, merely because I can and because it's there. Why do anything, you're still doing anything just for the sake of it if you want to view things like that.

And your statement about New Vegas is total bull; "over two hundred endings!", that's not true and you know it isn't, there's about five endings and the odd change in text at the ending monologue, that's not two hundred endings.

Seriously, I cannot stress this enough: Think about the amount of Manpower and resources you need to be able to make a game with that much choice. The voice acting, the coding, the graphics, animations, dialogue options etc etc.

 

[theblindedhunter]

The thing that had me picking up Skyrim and has me loving it is not so much what the Elder Scrolls games do but what they try to do. There's such an effort and attention put into the world, and a certain degree of passion for their lore, their characters, and those things that I appreciate. And no one else tries quite as admirably to give their players an entire world to wander through and discover.
They have never gotten everything right, and notably the combat is always almost unbearably lackluster, but they fail with such an effort that I can't help but appreciate them for it.

 

[Polite Sage]

Look, there seems to one main thing you're overlooking; it's a video game. There is only so much they can put in the game before it starts to collapse under it's own code.

One day I'm sure we'll have complete and utter freedom, but your "oh everything is just do this, then do that, then do that" can be applied to every game in existence if you want to boil it down to the simplicity you're stating in all of your posts. There is no game in existence that offers the amount of freedom you think Skyrim should have, because it's not technologically feasible to do so. Just think of the amount of man power and resources you'd need to have that level of fidelity and choice in everything in the game.

You seem to be under the impression that video games are magic, and that the magic coders can just will things into existence, and that by not allowing complete and un-negated freedom to do anything that your imagination dreams up is just them slacking in the wizarding department. Yes I know that's me being extremely hyperbolic, but your points and complaints are completely infeasible for current gaming technology to account for.

Relative to most games Skyrim has a lot of freedom. You seem to be confusing the concept of freedom in games with total control and allowance to do whatever. Of course there is going to be some constraints because no developer can ever make a game that offers anything and everything the player could possibly think of doing. This isn't D&D, where you can just make up the results, because every game in inexorably bound to what's in the code.

You want freedom, then you complain that people that enjoy climbing mountains for the sake of it are stupid. Do you not see how contradictory that statement is? I climb that mountain because I can, because I can sit on top of and check out the view, merely because I can and because it's there. Why do anything, you're still doing anything just for the sake of it if you want to view things like that.

And your statement about New Vegas is total bull; "over two hundred endings!", that's not true and you know it isn't, there's about five endings and the odd change in text at the ending monologue, that's not two hundred endings.

Seriously, I cannot stress this enough: Think about the amount of Manpower and resources you need to be able to make a game with that much choice. The voice acting, the coding, the graphics, animations, dialogue options etc etc.

With "200 hundred endings" (notice the "") I was referring Tod Howard's blowjob review where HE, THE MAIN DEVELOPER exclaimed that *FALLOUT 3* had over 200 endings. Cleared up? Howard and his team are knowns liars. Someone screencapped and put together all the bullshit they promised to fans through official channels.

None of the points I mentioned are "infeasible with current tech". F.ex. the barbarian. Easy. Use the same follower code for a while and BANG, add a timer or trigger for a backstab. Not hard at all. Maybe takes a minute or two to code. And what about everything else? Bethesda simply opted for the bling bling, instead of real content. I'm not saying OH GOD EVERYTHING IS POSSIBLE, I'm saying that Skyrim performs much poorer than it's predecesors in pretty much everything other than graphics department.

>voice acting
Easily achieved with a few more lines. There are PLENTY of games (most namely visual novels) that consist nothing than 40 hours of voice acting and still have MUCH MUCH smaller budget.
>the coding
Like my barbarian example. It's not hard, just copy pasta a few lines of code that's already done and maybe add few voice files. Or if an "essential" dies, just add some more lines that say "quest failed" and maybe some other reprecussions depending on the person killed. new Vegas achieved this pretty well.
>the graphics
Like I said, Bethesda went for a wider audience and needed all the bling bling they could get on the expense of actual gameplay and freedom.
>animations
Exactly how hard it is to add a few more animations? Even modders can do a better job than Bethesda in week. Though I'm not doubting Bethesda's capability, they just were lazy. Plus, you can use the same animations for many different NPCS.
>dialogue options
What is like every other good RPG ever made? They manage branching dialogue and have way more text and voice than Skyrim's one line "le knee arrows". Skyrim has much less voice acting than you actually think. Most of it is just repeated lines.