Jimquisition: How Skyrim Proves The Industry Wrong

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT
 

Ah, now I remember who Jim reminds me of, Paul Bearer! Only without the ugly face and weird moustache of course.

http://psd-dreams.de/render.php?image_id=32330&sessionid=94ea42ef534ac542cc158271a699b275

Its the suit and little red tie that does it. Really is a distinctive look for a husky gentleman. Jim Stirling would be a good wrestling name too.

Anyway, its an obvious point when you think about it that you ain't going to outselling Call of Duty by making a slightly crapper of version of Call of Duty. More of a risk to make something different like Skyrim, but the profits are there for those who make calculated risks (note: a calculated risk is different to a batshit insane idea).

Did anyone else notice how Jim referenced Regular Show?

Anywho...I don't entirely agree. What Skyrim did works for Skyrim because it's an RPG. There are more genres than just FPS and RPG.

I love the inane shouting.

Seriously though, I'm a Skyrim fanboy. Wait, that didn't come out right. I agree wholeheartedly on the multiplayer point. No doubt more companies are going to jump on the bandwagon now that LoL has more subscribers than WoW. But the time I will squeeze out of Skyrim will trump that that I spend in Summoner's Rift 10 fold, perhaps 100.

Also the argument has been made before to make games that people want to play as a novel way to avoid DRM. I purchased it on Steam to avoid all the falderal of Windows games, but if it really has no online junk that just goes even further to prove the point.

So Skyrim has no multiplayer and no online pass and this proves the people claiming that running multiplayer on online servers costs money wrong? So not being able to pay for something that doesn't exist means anything?

Everything else was fair enough. Skyrim was is just another place and another type of game though. It does cool things but it's not always the sort of game I want to play.

Aureliano:
Bad? Never said it was bad. Boring? Well, how many people does something have to bore to be boring? It bored me, and I can't be the only one, so I suspect it's a boring game.

Wait, what kind of reductionist view is that? Opinions, man! Learn the word!

Seeing as 97% of the site are gushing uncontrollably over this game, and how it's not boring them, saying that 'it bored some people ergo it's boring' is a frankly bizarre statement.

"Hey, man, I got hit by a car crossing the road. And I'm sure that other people have got hit by a car crossing the road. So when you cross the road you must get hit by a car..."

EDIT: Got distracted for a mo there;

OT: Yeah pretty much agree with you...end made me chuckle.

Jim, you must be a miracle worker.

Somehow, everything you said made such complete sense that I think our only solution to helping the game industry get on the right track is by putting you in charge. I will admit, the first episodes you did... I really disliked. But, not only did you improve.. you're seriously becoming the best informing gamer I have ever seen (if I can call you that).

I may not want to have sex with you, but I would certainly throw you a party. And we'd all wear soft helms from Skyrim and yell FUS RO DAH!! ...Ah, that would be epic. And have a dragon pinata to whack.

Hi psychonauts

Good episode :)

While I loved this video because skyrim is one of my favourite games evar...
Battlefield 3 isnt COD !
Yes EA are marketing it to fuck like its the new COD, but im pretty sure BF has been around longer. Just saying. Someone had to.

Aureliano:

Bad? Never said it was bad. Boring? Well, how many people does something have to bore to be boring? It bored me, and I can't be the only one, so I suspect it's a boring game.

Ah yes, if something bores someone in some fashion, it cant be fun, that makes sense.

Vindication for Bethesda and Elder Scrolls fans, indignation for just about everyone else in the industry.

And double-vindication for me, because even though I'm a huge fan of Saint's Row 2, I went for Skyrim instead because it seemed to be offering more that was relevant to my interests.

vivster:

it's an open world game for at least 50+ hours... of course it doesn't need an online mode

Of course, he's arguing against people who say ALL games need an online component, so that argument falls flat.

and of course because it does not need an online pass because there is no such thing as server fees

Catwoman is single-player content locked behind an online pass. Sorry, but server fees are bullshit.

where do you come from to assume that any of that can say anything about any other game?

Reality?

Magnicon:
ITT: Gaming hipsters with no standards for real quality.

ITT: People with no clue what a hipster is.

The Diabolical Biz:
Opinions, man! Learn the word!

Seeing as 97% of the site are gushing uncontrollably over this game, and how it's not boring them, saying that 'it bored some people ergo it's boring' is a frankly bizarre statement.

I like the fact that you tell him to learn the word "opinions" then call one a "frankly bizarre statement."

Since "boring" is subjective, it falls to opinion. He is certainly stating his. It really doesn't look like he's misrepresenting it as anything else.

Zachary Amaranth:

The Diabolical Biz:
Opinions, man! Learn the word!

Seeing as 97% of the site are gushing uncontrollably over this game, and how it's not boring them, saying that 'it bored some people ergo it's boring' is a frankly bizarre statement.

I like the fact that you tell him to learn the word "opinions" then call one a "frankly bizarre statement."

Since "boring" is subjective, it falls to opinion. He is certainly stating his. It really doesn't look like he's misrepresenting it as anything else.

What? You completely missed the point of what I was trying to say...if someone states their opinion as fact and is vastly reductional it is pretty bizarre.

But hey, man, that's just my opinion...

So... what, this game is like the games industry's Jesus or something?

VincentX3:
The ending made me go WTF big time.
Other than that...

IN YOUR FACE CALL OF DUTY! >=P

Don't you mean in your face BF3? That was the game trying to directly compete with Call of Duty.

In your fucking face EA, and DICE.

Sonic Doctor:
What I find hilarious is that in a Skyrim thread yesterday, somebody commented that they wanted multiplayer. Whoever you are, you are not helping, be happy with single player because that is what it is all about.

He might have been referring to having a partner in the single player campaign so you can go slay dragons together and harass the populace. If you feel like killing each other then there's no stopping you and you don't need any sort of deathmatch mode to do it.

It's more of the kind of multiplayer style with how open the game world is on average. Skyrim is a perfect candidate for co-op or even MMO if the code is more tightly woven.

It also proves PC isn't dead, and it proves that they DO PAY FOR THEIR GAMES. At least a quarter million people playing Skyrim on PC at once (according to Steam). And Ubisoft is skittish that their piece of crap port won't sell 50,000 copies, and the DRM! Go die in a fire, Ubi.

The ending scared the shit out of me. Yet I still wanted to do a sex with him.

It was like every girl I've ever dated but in a viking helmet. So, like every girl I've ever dated, basically.

Awesome video as well. I hope Skyrim's success does change the industry for the better, but I'm not optimistic enough to believe it will.

I think Skyrim would actually make great multiplayer, not MMO but joinable co-op.

Also I don't see the similarities between COD and BF3 apart from them being modern first person shooters. If you scrap the singleplayer that is and hell, why should every multiplayer game have a shitty tacked on singleplayer campaign?

GonzoGamer:

"And hell, we don't even need for it to work properly. It can freeze, crash, stutter, and lock up quests, and they'll still buy it purely on hype."
That's what I'm afraid of.

That's the thing Jim. Bethesda is one of the only companies I would be willing to pay an extra $10 to if they could promise that the game would actually work. EA and the rest of them can of course go fuck themselves with their $10 passes.

And yes, while I do regret buying Saints Row 3 (I had no idea it had an online pass or had half the game carved out for dlc before buying it: saints row 2 was so generous by comparison), I'm still glad I waited on Skyrim. I'll get it after they've patched it up a bit.

That's an epic ending too; I want some of what Jim's smoking.

Everyone always cries out that Bethesda games are always the buggiest things ever released and so Skyrim must be buggy too and yet, I've put 70 hours into Skyrim and outside of a few CTD's that have stopped over the last week, considering the size of the game it's the least buggy thing I've played this generation. Granted, I can only speak for the PC version, but I've probably only encountered one or two bugs in my entire play-time and none of them have effected the actual game in any way (apart from a dragon falling through the planet and respawning dead at its altar).

Take it with a grain of salt, obviously, because everyone always seems to experience a different number and type of bugs when it comes to Bethesda games, but I can honestly say that in my experience, Skyrim is pretty damn stable.

OT: Well, do I really need to say anything? Five pages in this thread, nobody except me is going to read the entire thing. Suffice to say, I agree with you Jim, like I usually do.

CardinalPiggles:
So... what, this game is like the games industry's Jesus or something?

VincentX3:
The ending made me go WTF big time.
Other than that...

IN YOUR FACE CALL OF DUTY! >=P

Don't you mean in your face BF3? That was the game trying to directly compete with Call of Duty.

In your fucking face EA, and DICE.

Nope I still mean COD =P
That game is the equivalent of cancer

The Diabolical Biz:

Aureliano:
Bad? Never said it was bad. Boring? Well, how many people does something have to bore to be boring? It bored me, and I can't be the only one, so I suspect it's a boring game.

Wait, what kind of reductionist view is that? Opinions, man! Learn the word!

Seeing as 97% of the site are gushing uncontrollably over this game, and how it's not boring them, saying that 'it bored some people ergo it's boring' is a frankly bizarre statement.

"Hey, man, I got hit by a car crossing the road. And I'm sure that other people have got hit by a car crossing the road. So when you cross the road you must get hit by a car..."

EDIT: Got distracted for a mo there;

OT: Yeah pretty much agree with you...end made me chuckle.

That's a great point there. Next time people are ranting and raving about a game that you find boring, take comfort in the fact that it's just your opinion and you just don't understand how much you really should enjoy that game.

Edit: Also, I love that crossing the road example. Because much like an accident in the street, the game was not working as intended when I found it boring. For everybody else though it plays totally differently and is really fun like Bethesda designed it to be!

About the hat: GAME had them in store for the employees, we had some spare, so the brave customers who asked for them received them. I loved mine.

Nice job Jim.

GraveeKing:
He's right, he's cute he- oh he just went OTT at the end, I was just about to take my pants off too.
Other than being OTT he has a point. And I think the truth is - ALL of the games industry know about this crap, it's just big businesses want their lovely money and budgets and all profit...
And um actually, I know the sales figures sounds impressive... but well GTA 4 sold 6million copies in the first week and to this day around 22 million total. I'm sure Skyrim will hit that figure or near enough it eventually, I'm just saying 3.5 million ISN'T that much compared to total shit other games like CoD.
It just depends on the audience - they add multiplayer to games when they don't rack enough profit. Then again with that said - who DOESN'T want Skyrim multiplayer?!

you realize it's 3.5 million IN TWO DAYS right? It's probably a crapload more now.

Aureliano:

The Diabolical Biz:

Aureliano:
Bad? Never said it was bad. Boring? Well, how many people does something have to bore to be boring? It bored me, and I can't be the only one, so I suspect it's a boring game.

Wait, what kind of reductionist view is that? Opinions, man! Learn the word!

Seeing as 97% of the site are gushing uncontrollably over this game, and how it's not boring them, saying that 'it bored some people ergo it's boring' is a frankly bizarre statement.

"Hey, man, I got hit by a car crossing the road. And I'm sure that other people have got hit by a car crossing the road. So when you cross the road you must get hit by a car..."

EDIT: Got distracted for a mo there;

OT: Yeah pretty much agree with you...end made me chuckle.

That's a great point there. Next time people are ranting and raving about a game that you find boring, take comfort in the fact that it's just your opinion and you just don't understand how much you really should enjoy that game.

Nahh, I'll just realise that there's a difference between 'It bores me' and 'It's boring'.

One is stating my opinion as an opinion, and one is stating my opinion as a fact.

Most of the bugs are funny anyway. For instance, after spending a good half a day in a dungeon, I exit to find a dead mammoth crammed upside down and planted so deep that it looked like a series of hairy shrubs, with no visible explanation for how it ended up there.

He hit the nail on the head: These big companies want to turn games into "services" that require buying extra DLC, fees, steam-like apps, and logins to play.

I'm hopeful people will notice, but I doubt it. Releasing full games isn't as profitable as releasing a game for full price and then nickle-and-diming you for extra money

viranimus:
Im rather disapointed. I saw the title of this and thought YES! Finally some good points to be made.

Yet after watching it, All he really said boiled down to common knowledge that morons tend to fall into and get duped into believing and astoundingly enough, defending.

I guess it makes sense, you have to educate beyond idiocy before you can expect enlightenment.

I mean Jim, you do realize that Bethesda actually did more damage, than good, right? You realize that Bethesda has evolved into the RPG equivalent of CoD, right? Its sort of like Taco Bell, You can order a burrito, a taco, a chalupa, a Qeacolipca, or any other mexican sounding food item from their menu and you realize its still just beef, shell and cheese. The only difference is the manner of which it is assembled. So by supporting Skyrim, your really just reinforcing that which is wrong with the industry, because they are just taking the working formula from CoD and reassembling their own version that fits with their design.

Yeah Bethesda is just like CoD, I love the new Elder Scrolls every year, the fact that each time it's on the same engine with no improvements to graphics or gameplay.

I am going to presume that the 'working formula from CoD' it has taken is that it sells well?

You realise your post said nothing right? Bethesda is like CoD (because?) and Bethesda making RPGs is like buying Mexican food. Good attempt at an anti-Bethesda response.

And the CoD formula isn't even bad, it wouldn't be widely popular and successful if its formula didn't work, not that that has anything to do with Skyrim anyway, since it isn't remotely like CoD.

A single player open world RPG made by a reputed developer with a strong name to back it up and an already large following sold a lot?!

THE INDUSTRY IS WRONG.

I don't fucking get how Skyrim selling well proves fuck all. That was the most retarded straw man I've ever heard. Unless you want everything ever released to be a single player open RPG, which takes a shit ton of resources.

What I do agree on is that multiplayer isn't necessary for a game to sell well. I just think Jim's points are stupid and carry no weight this episode.

Jim is a smart fucking cookie, I just wish he weren't so annoying.

Looking through this thread, I'm starting to think I was the only one rolling my eyes at his points (yes I know, you're never the ONLY one, shush).

The only point I feel he is correct on is the online pass thing (and that's only because Batman just tried it with a single player component, before that, I don't think we ever had to worry about single-player online passes). If it wasn't for Batman throwing it out there, my eyes would be rolling at that too.

The multi-player thing is something being said by developers putting multi-player into their games. Plenty of companies are not going that route and not blabbing at the media about how it is the future. The only reason it's at the forefront now is because a few developers are saying it's the future. With that said, I bet Skyrim would be a blast if you did add a second person...

The "Be like Call of Duty" argument doesn't work because the game can "Be like Oblivion". It's a sequel, so it's got the advantages of being a sequel working in it's favor that an original IP won't have.

Lastly, the length of the game's main quest is only approx. 30 hours (granted, is a good sized game in today's market). Yes, there is a ton of side stuff to do and self populating quests, but I can't imagine they're going to be of great quality. This is one aspect where I hope I'm wrong since that's a sweet idea in theory but how many times can I fight the same re-spawning dragon before even that loses its charm?

Maybe I'm just cynical in my old age of 25...

50 hours in, and I've only just met they Greybeards. If the game can keep this up, I'll have 100 hours clocked before I'm anywhere near the finale.

And when I finally do beat the game, not a single motherfucking moment will have been spent playing online. Bethesda, I've said some mean things about you in the past - and they're still relevant, really - but I love you for this game. What a perfect way to teach the collective games industry a much-needed lesson.

You know what... I started playing Skyrim and though to myself... Self, Jim was right I HATE ENTERING CODES... this is what playing a video game should be. Then he did this video. Didn't have to watch it to know what he was going to say.

Though I hope that more video games start to go back to this style of game design I am also hoping they do one more thing that they did in Skyrim... Add More Dragons. All video games need dragons. Even if it is a steampunk dragon, a dragon in a dream sequence, or hell a Komodo Dragon. Doesn't matter as long as they add more.

I disagree with a few things. The first being your first point. While it is true that not EVERY game needs multiplayer, you forgot to factor in a lot of things about the situation. The first is that Skyrim is a sequel to a wildly popular franchise. It's not going to be surprising when it sells well. That's be like being surprised the Mass Effect 2 sold well because it didn't have multiplayer (and I'm not going to comment on MP being in 3). While it may make the point that franchises don't need MP, not having it can hurt games that either don't have a massive fanbase already or a new IP.

There's also the fact that Skyrim is nearly infinitely replayable. Of course that's not a bad thing by any means, but that's not something that every game can realistically do. Skyrim is from a series and a dev team known for having giant open worlds with various quests and things to do. That means that it has an edge over games with a tighter focus that wouldn't work as open world.

My example of this is Alan Wake. I loved Alan Wake. But after I beat it, I sold it. Why? Because there was nothing to do after that point. I loved playing through the single player mode, experiencing the story and the moments it had. But once you've done it, there's no incentive to do it again. You know the story and plot. You know how things happen. There are things to get, but most of them are pointless overall. And you know what? I can't think of how they could add replayability. They could have added MP of course. But it would have likely been awful and out of place. And because of that lack of replay value and being quite different from many games (not an FPS, not an RPG, story-based, and fairly slow in terms of build-up), it didn't sell well and became cheap fairly quickly.

That arguement also goes into the 'online pass' arguement a bit. While I do think online passes are stupid overall, I think many games do get it right. And I'm going to go back to Alan Wake again to show as an example. If you bought the game new, you got the first DLC free. It wasn't just some half-assed add-on already on the disk, and at the same time you didn't need it in any way to fully enjoy the game. So not all 'buy new' incentives are bad.

Overall, you did have many good points (though the live action parts of the video where you acted like an ass made the video annoying as usual for me). But most of what you said are things that almost everyone, especially here, find obvious and will agree with completely because they all say it over and over again anyways.

So Jim where do you get all that cool swag? I want to know, that stuff makes things sexible. And before you laugh at Jim dragon shout you know you do it too when you play the game.

Despite Skyrim's massive commercial success, I just *know* that at one point somebody at Bethesda or Zenimax will say "Sure, we sold eleventy billion copies, but we could've sold eleventy trillion copies if it weren't for all those fucking PC pirates!"

I haven't played Skyrim yet, so I'm assuming that little spazz-out that Jim had at the end was Skyrim-related?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here