Will Skyrim be remembered?
- Thread starter retyopy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Jim and Adam Sessler... Your serious? Oh well, I can't convince Opinion, its almost impossible to give a low score to a very hyped game, due to hate mail, and basically being shamed by the industry, even at risk of not getting future review copies. Remember when the PR team said that anyone who gave their game a low score would not receive review copies in the future? Review scores = almost meaningless and review critism = non-existent.King of the Sandbox said:
One, I disapprove of your off the cuff disregard for Mr. Sessler. You're obviously not familiar with his opinions and efforts to improve the game industry and media. I would suggest looking up some of his independent opinions on his blog or on youtube.Aprilgold said:
Secondly, if I were a reviewer, and I gave a game a bad score, it'd deserve it, and I'd not be too worried about receiving advance copies of that dev anymore. And what about reviewers that don't put out reviews until after launch, rendering review copies pretty much moot?
And that last little figure in your post there, with the 'math'? If you looked it up, you'd see that Mr. Sessler, and I, agree with you, to a point.
I will give you kudos for recognizing that you can't force someone to change their opinion, though.
No software (except the absolutely simplest of simplest like a 'Hello World' program) is shipped without bugs. What matters is whether or not the bugs stand out, and in Bethesda games, they just happen to do.King of the Sandbox said:
Mind you, i applaud Skyrim for it's bugs not messing up the gameplay despite being so apparent, but by contrast, i only found very few bugs in say, Modern Warfare 3, and those were really hard to spot in the first place.
Skyrim is a huge improvement on Morrowind and Oblivion, but they still have a while to go.
Skyrim doesn't have as much content as people applaud it for. It has a lot of exploration with the chance of random encounters (who aren't particularly interesting in the first place, fight one pack of wolves or bandits, fought them all). That's it.
Mind you, I'm not saying it has little or average content. Skyrim does have a lot of content, but not even close to as much as people credit it for.
In fact, even Baldur's Gate 2 had at least as much content. Unlike Skyrim, they just didn't pad it out with exploration and traveling. There is a reason the game takes up less than 6 gigs of space in the first place compared to the 12-14 GB you find in games like Modern Warfare and BF3.
Now you are just making lousy excuses. Those are actually the kind of bugs you would have expected them to solve DURING the testing phase since they are much more easy to reproduce.
The Xbox 360 saves disappearing is excusable because they seem to have real problems tracking them down. The slowdowns, not so much.
No, because they improved a lot upon it.
They shouldn't, however, be 'ignored' or 'dismissed' to the point that you're doing it.
It's a great game, and i won't say the praise it gets is undeserved, but i wouldn't call it a benchmark as long as they have so many things to fix. Baldur's Gate is still the benchmark for which i hold up RPG's, because unlike Skyrim it still manages to do quite a few things better, most apparently having proper PACING with little to no gameplay-padding and an inventory-system that didn't make me want to puke. I feel it's appropriate to quote Yahtzee here when he said that his biggest problem in Skyrim was finding vendors who still had money left so he could sell to them, because ironically that was also one of my biggest problems.
Perhaps my perception of the bugs/glitches isn't isn't as tinted as others, as I've not had any real ones to speak of in my 155+hours of gameplay.Athinira said:
/shrug
And I'm there with ya with Baldur's Gate 2. My second favorite rpg of all time (now). The only things that give Skyrim the edge over it, to me, are the dynamic encounters (Oh some angry cave bears!... oh, they're being hunted by hunters!... oh and look a dragon wants to play too!) and the presentation (I was one of the people that liked the orginal Fallouts, and was pleased to see their world finally rendered in 3d in the sequels). Oh, and the fact that the thing that makes you 'the one' in Skyrim gives you much funner powers. That's right... funner.
It will be remembered for a while. It's a great example of an open world rpg, but it's not a great example of a video game. It's not revolutionary in the entire video game world, but in western rpg's I believe it will be remembered for quite some time. Just like all Eldar Scrolls Games.
Really? Because i found the combat in Skyrim monotonous no matter what i played, be it mage, archer or melee fighter. It all played almost the same to me, and there wasn't much challenge involved except chugging health and mana potions against the more powerful enemies. In fact, the most challenge i found in Skyrims combat was when playing as a melee class with the capability of blocking, which made the gameplay somewhat interesting. Only problem here is that i wanted to roleplay a mage since I'm bored of the melee-role from other RPG's, and as a mage, your job is to simply hold down both mouse buttons and spew fire on everything around you until it dies or you run out of mana.King of the Sandbox said:
No thank you, I'll take Baldur's Gate's combat system that actually involves some strategy and tactics. Where you have to plan around the encounter, have to lower a mages defenses to be able to kill him, where you might consider pre-buffing before combat to counter specific enemies and their abilities and where you can actually use clever tactics against stronger enemies to try and defeat them (to the point of directly abusing the characteristics of certain spells in a clever way). Skyrim so far has only challenged my ability to block and backpedal, which i (sorry to say it) don't consider interesting gameplay.
It will be remembered on PC because of the mods. People still play Morrowind and Oblivion because of the awesome mods, so as soon as the CK is out, you can bet that mods will make sure this game stays fresh for years.
I disagree. Many times I've had to reload a save and go in with a different strategy, which reminded my greatly of Baldur's Gate 2.Athinira said:
Like the time a Forsworn mage just kept one shotting me with ice spikes. After a few tries of berserker/kamikazee tactics, I thought better and started laying rune traps around corners I could lead him around. I could summon minions (atrinochs, familairs, undead) to draw fire while I tested which of my offensive spells was most effective. I could lace an arrow with poison and try and stealth snipe him with my bow.
So, yeah, like I said, I had no problem with that in Skyrim. /shrugs
![])rStrangelove](https://eg-forums-escapist-data-bucket.fra1.digitaloceanspaces.com/data/avatars/l/125/125479.jpg?1621029148){kind=avatar}
Yes, but not for the right reasons imo:retyopy said:
- dragons flying backwards
- let childs be killed via mods because its realistic
- dragons killed too easy whereas big animals stomp you into the ground
I know that, I don't find him to be the pinnacle force pushing for change, I find someone like Total Biscuit to be more in that category, Moviebob and the Extra Credits crew.King of the Sandbox said:
Thats a very, very rare case, since the people publishing your review would be pushing you to give out the review before the game is out, sine its free publicity, which is more money.
The whole reviewing scene, as a whole, is terrible. And once again, I blame hype. Get enough people hyped for what is shit and people will still defend that shit with their lives. It happens all the damn time, every time a triple A title is released. You can't really argue this, I was almost punched for saying that I didn't like Skyrim. Its just consumerism, its like the two leading brands of X thing fighting off, one side will completely hate the other but their the same thing.
Back to 'Will Skyrim be Remembered?' I don't think it will be remembered and teh best, but as it was good for its time, since their just going to make 30 more until the series is milked free.
Oooook. I'd never punch someone for not liking Skyrim, that's dumb.Aprilgold said:
The thing is though, is that if it's a AAA title... it kind of goes without saying that it has fans. That seems a hefty burdon to place solely at Skyrim's feet alone.
And what about Yahtzee? His review wasn't out until two weeks after release and he's gushing about it, bugs and all. In that case, he's a pretty influential minority.
I'll admit that I'm not that far in the game yet (i think I'm only 50-60 hours in), so I'm apparently not be at the point where those enemies show up yet, but the game SHOULD have introduced such combat to me earlier then. Skyrim is considered to be a ~250 hour game, but if it's only a handful of enemies that challenge you in that way, then that leaves the question about what to do with the remaining 249 hours.King of the Sandbox said:
Even the dragons i fought so far (which are considered to be some of the games big baddies) I've defeated by emptying all my mana into them, and then putting a wall between me and them until it regenerated.
Sure there probably exists a lot of clever tactics you CAN use in Skyrim, but if you don't have to in the first place 99% of the time, then why bother?
Exploration. Trading. Reading lore. Skill-improvement. Fireballing goats/people/trolls off of cliffs. Etc. (too much to list here.)Athinira said:
Yeah, that's generally how it goes. Plus or minus a few arrows and shouts. Just wait until you have to fight on on the slim precipice of a mountain ledge, nearly a mile off the ground.
Or two at once. Or an elder dragon. Or a named dragon.
Uhm... role-playing? People remember that, right? I'm not the only one... right?
Then i consider it ironic that Baldur's Gate allows me to do all the things you just mentioned (trade, explore lore, level up or just go nuts), roleplay and at the SAME time give me interesting combat in more than 1% of the enemy encounters in the game.King of the Sandbox said:
Yes there is a lot to do in Skyrim beyond combat, but combat is still a big part of the game, and they at least SHOULD have attempted to make it more interesting.
I just don't feel that there is any challenge to the combat whatsoever (and by challenge I'm not saying that i never die, I'm saying that you can get by with the same routine over and over and over, and even in cases where you die you can just change the routine slightly and get it on the second try), so the game has to hold up on the other elements alone, and while those elements are still strong, you can't call a game benchmark material when you have to start putting up excuses for the combat and instead advice me to go do something else (like you just did). You can't just tell me to go ignore the combat because it sucks. It's still a part of the game.
The great thing about Skyrim is that it's more than the sum of it's part, which is what makes it a good game. It's just a shame that it's individual parts aren't that great by themselves.