Dexter111 said:
It's funny that this is supposed to be that game "saving" everyone from the horrible "Modern Warfare 3", when they have so much in common... from the amount of marketing put into it to gain "mass market appeal", to the propensity of Bethesda to keep remaking that one game since 1994 being afraid that if they change too much they could "lose the formula".
I can say with certainty that the only thing that has been kept consistent from the 5 games of the Elder Scrolls series is that you are a hero who is special that goes around adventuring and becoming stronger and who solves the problem put forth at the start of the game. Also, its a primarily first person rpg. Other than that, major changes have been made over time to the gameplay, graphics, story, characters, setting, enemies, sidequests and just about everything. If you want to go into specifics, please go right ahead.
Dexter111 said:
What it also shares is the amount of fanboyism towards the brand and the ability of people to talk away their continuously broken game mechanics - like leveling systems, scaling, loot systems, UI, AI and whatnot.
No game is perfect, least of all large-scale rpgs. I personally got into the Elder Scrolls series around Oblivion and thought it was a nice game. Good, but not even close to great. I then played the shivering isles expansion which I enjoyed tremendously. After playing through oblivion, I was curious about other games in the series and lo and behold I found morrowind. An awful looking game with bad physics(implying of course it had any physics), barely any voiced characters, hilariously awful animations and a bad menu and weapon switching system. But despite all this, its still one of my favorite games of all time. Why? Well, what you seem to have forgotten is that which constitutes a good game: A good or great game is one in which the good aspects make you overlook its flaws and enjoy it regardless of them. I very much enjoyed morrowind because of the design of the world, the writing and the sheer freedom provided. So this part of your post really confused me, because surely games you enjoy have flaws and in conversation you probably attempt to talk them away while emphasizing the good parts, don't you? And if you say: "My favorite games don't have flaws." Then you are simply delusional.
Dexter111 said:
But my main problem with their game was and still is this so called "organic world", fun fact: Bethesda didn't even have any dedicated Level-designers till Skyrim came around:
http://www.made2game.com/articles/Features/The-Elder-Scrolls-V-Skyrim/26218/The-Elder-Scrolls-V-Skyrim-hands-on-What-a-difference-a-level-designer-makes/ (they also said this in their Making Of video that also was on YouTube).
What is your point? You seem to be saying that you dislike skyrim and then you point out how they finally decided to start making the dungeons better and more unique. Do you not like the fact that they finally decided to make their dungeons better?
Dexter111 said:
Their way of designing the world and dungeons is still that of the late 80s and early 90s, where you just stick some wall textures and set pieces together, throw it through some randomizer and a few algorithms and maybe let a human being rearrange some of them for a bit and add a bit of fluff and voilá... 120 dungeons to explore!
And your proof for this is...nothing. Hm, interesting. Also, are you saying Skyrim is doing this or another Elder Scrolls game? Because I could have sworn you just posted a link talking about how Bethesda has been working to improve their dungeons.
Dexter111 said:
The only difference between now and then is that they're using higher resolution and higher polygon assets and it looks prettier, but they've basically kept making the same game in different iterations and with a few new features since 1994, although I can give them that they at least made a bunch of progress with Skyrim... and at least discovered verticality and a few other things.
You just pointed out how they improved their level designs and now you're saying all they've done is improve the graphics. You really shouldn't poke holes in your own arguments, its unhealthy.
Also, please tell me what new features they have added since 1994.
Dexter111 said:
It's fun for a while though till I'm feeling that in my journey through Blandistan they are just starting to waste my time yet again, that I've been to this small village before, that I've entered this house for a few hundred times before with that exact same table and that chair and that armoire aligned the exact same way, that I've explored and killed dozens of moving things in a cave just like this before, that I've endured the inane ramblings of some NPC sounding similar and saying similar things before and that I've done that "fetch" or "kill" quest a few times by now and so on...
I don't even know what to make of this part. You can't honestly tell me you've played skyrim and thought it was bland. It sounds like you're playing a completely different game, to be quite honest. It genuinely sounds like you went inside and outside one house and one cave a few hundred times. Also, if you truly want to boil it down, most quests in video games are "fetch" or "kill" quests.
Dexter111 said:
It's also interesting that he poo-poo's the lack of Multiplayer, cause during almost any of those moments I felt that if they at least added Co-Op to their games it might make it bearable for a little longer as I could extract fun out of that instead of the immediate game (which might be sub-par, like a lot of people do in many MMOs).
I would actually like to side with yahtzee and agree with a phrase he said but a few videos ago. Something along the lines of "We don't want multiplayer twats walking in and ruining our nice little singleplayer game." I personally equate the Elder Scrolls series to a series of storybooks in which you write your own story. If you don't enjoy story and immersion and lore in a game then I don't think the Elder Scrolls Series is for you. You seem to enjoy other people more than a good story, so maybe you should just play TOR or some other MMO.
Dexter111 said:
The Witcher 2 has like 14+ GB of assets, RAGE had 24GB... they've put 3-5+ years of meticulous detail work into making their worlds breathing out of every pore with lots of unique stuff and hand-designed levels and they're both orders of magnitude smaller than "Skyrim", but even one or two major parts of those games contain more "content" than Skyrim does with all of its "large world" and all of its assets fitting in around 5GB, because aside from procedural algorithms to grow that grass and this plant on that specified terrain type, this is how they are likely designing most of it...
As long as we're making stuff up or assuming things like you did with this statement, maybe we can pretend The Witcher 2 and RAGE were both good games. Also, I would once again like to bring up the link that YOU, YOURSELF POSTED THAT SAID BETHESDA HAD IMPROVED THE QUALITY AND UNIQUENESS OF THEIR DUNGEONS. http://www.made2game.com/articles/Features/The-Elder-Scrolls-V-Skyrim/26218/The-Elder-Scrolls-V-Skyrim-hands-on-What-a-difference-a-level-designer-makes/
You can't imply that Skyrim's dungeons and world aren't hand designed or good when you previously posted a link that contradicts you.
Also, for the part in which you say that parts of those two games have more content than skyrim does: Ok, I'll bite. Tell me what content these games have. Please then tell me if they were well done and if they added anything to the games, either story or gameplay wise. And you might as well also write me an essay on it followed by a nice 3 course meal.
Dexter111 said:
Personally, I'd rather play any other number of games, from Batman: Arkham City, Saint's Row 3, L.A. Noire to yes even Battlefield 3 or Star Wars: The Old Republic (I ended up rather enjoying the Beta and Pre-Ordering it) as I was able to extract a lot more enjoyment out of any of those than Skyrim.
Then go play those games. Obviously the Elder Scrolls series is not for you.