Jimquisition: How Skyrim Proves The Industry Wrong

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT
 

tippy2k2:
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...

They ARE of great quality. imagine about 100 dungeons each with its own layout, basic setting, sometimes some dungeons even have interweaving storylines. or the serial killer at windhelm. or the slaughtered family near winterhold. thats just 2 examples of SOOO much shit youll find. good shit too, there isnt any half assed ones. really, the main quest doesnt even FEEL like a main quest apart from the fact of it having more detail weaved into it(more interactions, better dialogue).

The problem many game developers seem to have is this idea that a game needs to have other types of gameplay mashed in so other types of players will buy it. Why did LA Noire, a game praised for its well-done interrogation sequences, need the final sequence to be an action one? It'd be like a Pheonix Wright game that ended with an arbitrary fist fight.

When you try to please everyone at once, it only frustrates everyone who might not want the other parts, or who find the added bits to be sorely lacking. I'm looking at you, Battlefield 3. If you didn't care about single player, just be a multiplayer only game!

wooty:
Even though I always often hear that Skyrim is the best game ever and now it proves the industry wrong......it still sadly couldnt hold my attention for more than 3 days.

i feel ya. everyone plays League of Legends, but i HATE THAT fucking game. like, i know its good quality, i do, but i just cant fucking like it. specially after seeing what it does to people. i havent seen one single LoL player have fun while playing it. theyre always stressing out, or raging out. but thats just my experience with it.

and its not the best game ever. its just a good game for what it does.

One problem is that the execs are responding to the load vocal minority (coincidentally the same groups that US politicians respond to) that demand multiplayer or co-op in games. You don't have to look hard and you will find people that want co-op added to TES V so that they can enjoy it with their friends.

kiri2tsubasa:
One problem is that the execs are responding to the load vocal minority (coincidentally the same groups that US politicians respond to) that demand multiplayer or co-op in games. You don't have to look hard and you will find people that want co-op added to TES V so that they can enjoy it with their friends.

thats just an addiction. i enjoy TES V fine with a friend, i can be playing and he can just be next to me talking about it, and vice versa. and i dont need him barging in my game with his char. not saying its a bad thing, just that its not worth the trouble.

No, Jim Sterling is right about nothing, he insults random people that say things to cover their ass that everyone is well aware of, and he does so to try to seem smarter than the majority who already knows this. Cod players are NOT the majority they are the casual players. And we all knew Skyrim was gonna be huge.

Of course, The Elder Scrolls had their own unfortunate run-in with multiplayer; it was called Battlespire. So perhaps in part it's about not making other companies' mistakes when you've already had your own chance to learn that they are mistakes, another luxury not every developer gets.

I'm as tired as anyone of the "We only make sequels to proven properties or games that are derivative of others' successes" attitude, but I'm less than convinced that more uncertainty about how to proceed is likely to lead to innovation rather than just hesitation to release much of anything. Until we address the problems inherent to the risks of developing big games, companies are going to continue looking for a largely non-existent "sure thing".

I completely agree. I wish video game developers would make games because they love to make games, not to just make money.

My major complaint with Skyrim is it being one part Oblivion, one part WoW.

The infinite quest thing is BS. All they are are a constant go here, kill/steal that, return and the only difference being the location and who the target is. The only reason to do it is money, you never get any tangible benefit. It's all for the sake of stat grinding.

The dragon thing is BS. Outside the last boss, every one of my friends can one shot a dragon, and have 60-70 souls that will never get used. After a while, they just become an annoyance.

The magic system, while pretty, was gimped so that the spell creator and more spells can be DLC later.

The console ports have been buggy as all hell, and while many of you smile from your tower of the "PC MASTER RACE", not everyone can afford a gaming computer.

Skyrim is a good game, but don't take examples from it.

Im not comparing Skyrim to CoD because of the gameplay mechanic of die and retry. I compare Bethedsa to activision for slapping a somewhat fresh coat of paint onto an existing well selling formula and letting the fans irrationally herald it as the single greatest advent since the exact same thing was released this time last year. I am sorry, but If you cant see something smacking you in the face like a purple rubber dildo Nothing I will do will make that easier. Just because one is unable to comprehend what they read does not make it illogical or incomprehensible for everyone especially when all it takes to start a verbal blood war is simply to imply (not even directly say) something that poses anything from the TES series in a less than glorious light.

I stand by what I say. Skyrim didnt prove the industry wrong. The witcher 2 might have done what Jim Suggested. Dark Souls might have done what Jim suggested, but outside of selling CoD level well, Skyrim did nothing positive but reinforce many of the negatives the industry faces right now. Sorry, I disagree with Jims (or any TES/Bethesda fanboy for that matter) rose colored glasses view of skyrim.

I'm...going to go buy Skyrim now. Like, right now. Bethesda owes you a marketing fee, Jim. I've been on the fence about this game and I'm always looking to get into new genres that I've never tried before. Thank you Jim for helping me make an informed decision.

I was sold at the "single player game with many hours of game-play and no multi-player" part.

theriddlen:
I don't get Skyrim.
It has no atmosphere. It has no interesting characters. It has no important overarching goals (well, there are dragons, but you kinda lose belief that they can actually cause damage after slaughtering dozen of them without any effort). It is ugly and lacks any color besides grey. It's buggy to the point of not being able to finish some quests. And despite all of that I've been playing it for 55 hours and want more.

Well, Skyrim is one of those games that encourages you to use your imagination instead of relying on predetermined imagination of developers. You are who you want to be. And it definitely has atmosphere. You just need to allow yourself to be immersed without expecting the game to tell you want to do every step of the way. It's kinda old school in that way.

pokemon lets you fly dragons

so you can only kill them and not tame them?

I'm not even a fan of the Elder Scrolls series, but even I can appreciate what Skyrim represents, for the reasons Jim has outlined. Also, y'know, the fact that it's not even an FPS.

So, now that a big-name, big-profile, A-list title has done all this, is there a chance other publishers might start following suit?

Thank-you jim, for improving the world.

in fact thank f for jim, frankly.

its not always the industry that wants to put MP all the time in to games, its the people who say a game is only good if it has MP.
i read in few forums that people complained about mirrors edge for example, because it has no MP or even shadow harvest, people said they will not buy it because it has no MP or co-op. so as mass effect. these are the once who should really get blamed for being such retards.
im not saying jim is wrong, he is absolutely right, just want to point out.
sometimes i do enjoy some MP games and i do enjoy playing MW3 so far. every now and then playing it is alright. but still doesnt beat a good SP game like half life.

its good to hear that skyrim is doing well and does not follow other companies with the MP stuff, but it still will not convince me to get it because i was never in to this fantasy and magic stuff.

Sylocat:

So, now that a big-name, big-profile, A-list title has done all this, is there a chance other publishers might start following suit?

No.

At best, they will try and copy it, including online, online passes, restrictive DLC and many corners cut.

Lesson not learned, in short.

Adam Jensen:

Well, Skyrim is one of those games that encourages you to use your imagination instead of relying on predetermined imagination of developers.

You are correct, sir. I hereby award you +5 internets.

I just hope Bethesda allows the same freedom in the next Fallout game. Being railroaded into a single backstory kills any chance of actually creating a character that's your own.

NameIsRobertPaulson:
My major complaint with Skyrim is it being one part Oblivion, one part WoW.

The infinite quest thing is BS. All they are are a constant go here, kill/steal that, return and the only difference being the location and who the target is. The only reason to do it is money, you never get any tangible benefit. It's all for the sake of stat grinding.

I found some of them interesting. While it may have been great if all dungeons were related to side quests that was something I didn't quiet like. Because I would have to check if some were in oblivion to see if I could just do it for the sake of exploration or If I should wait at the risk of missing a vital part of a side quest. Besides for those with lake of motivation it can convince them to try out a few dungeons they had added without a specific quest. Going towards that even some who had no relation just had interesting stories you can discover and make of what you will from bodies or journals.

The dragon thing is BS. Outside the last boss, every one of my friends can one shot a dragon, and have 60-70 souls that will never get used. After a while, they just become an annoyance.

There's a few variations of dragons that are unleashed as you advance at levels. Despite the fact I'm a level 38 I have had some close calls with dragons. Granted the starting ones (Blood Dragon And Normal) Are Easy.

The magic system, while pretty, was gimped so that the spell creator and more spells can be DLC later.

I don't see them doing that at least as a complete DLC in itself. More so what would be the motivation for people who play it on the PC when they can just make more spells using the tool set.

The console ports have been buggy as all hell, and while many of you smile from your tower of the "PC MASTER RACE", not everyone can afford a gaming computer.

That's because they wait for major bug fixs for the console (At least from what I Heard) The amount of updates they can do is limited, or costs a lot more money. The good thing is that they are actively preparing to help.

Skyrim is a good game, but don't take examples from it.

I beg to differ, what mistakes they made should be taken into account in order for future games of the same type or their next game. Things that did well should also be taken into account in order to even improve of keep within the game.

But that of course is a contrast opinion to yours, In a attempt to share view points from different angles.

All hail Jim, but eh keep your pants on brother.

It really is nice to see that dedication and quality paid of for Bethesda. Unfortunately parts of the industry will probably learn the lesson that they need to copy Skyrim to be successful. We can hope more developers will focus on doing their own thing, and create a good market based on that.

jacobythehedgehog:

MB202:
I've heard of Skyrim, if only because everyone won't shut up about it.

There is a reasons why people won't shut up about it. It is a brilliant game. Not to say it is just an amazing game none the less

Interesting... I WAS going to try it out, if only to play as one of those lizard people creatures... But since the game's in first-person, I don't see the point...

No Jim, I do not want to do sex with you. You're not my type.

Im not a fan of skyrim at all

but Im glad it exists for thease reasons

Great review, however the thing to consider is that the game industry's criticisms are based on some other factors as well.

For one, you have to ask how much Skyrim took to develop compared to some of those big shooter games, and how many copies it needed to move before it became profitable in comparison to some of these other games raking in the dough.

What's more the gaming industry is all about maximizing profits, not just making a profit, but the biggest profit possible, hence why they decide to strangle people for every possible thing they can, and focus on relatively easy and cheap multiplayer modes to sustain the game, multiplayer is the future not so much because it's actually what players want, but because it's cheaper than creating tons of single player content with a lot of voice acting, innovation, and scripted events.

Skyrim is doubtlessly a success, but I'd imagine a lot of people are going to look at it and decide that they could make more money by investing in other types of games than to try and emulate what it did. At the end of the day is Bethesda going to wind up making more profit off of this game than someone who invested a similar budget accross a couple of shooter games?

I think the issue is simply that Bethesda might be selling out to an extent by aiming their games at an increasingly casual audience by reducting their complexity, but at the same time they are still interested in making the games they want to make, and the fans want, rather than immediatly running after whatever is making the most money right at the moment.

That said, it remains to be seen what is going to happen with Bethesda. You'll notice they have started publishing shooters... like Rage. While Rage seemed to get a very mixed response it remains to be seen if that's a trend that is going to continue and if Bethesda decides it's better to try and publish or create shooters rather than work on new products.

As far as "Saint's Row 3" goes, I have been playing it due to getting irritated in Skyrim due to some bugged quests... namely Velehk Sain's treasure, I found the island for it but have literally spent hours wandering around trying to get the thing to spawn before deciding "F@ck this" and taking a break for the last few days before I put my fist through
my monitor. I'm hoping a patch will fix it soon, as something like this makes me concerned about proceeding due to what else might be glitched, etc.

I do tend to agree that SR3 is small in scope compared to the previous games, and seems to largely be recycling a lot of the basic material from SR2 without adding in anything new. I was hoping it would be as much of an improvement on SR2 as SR2 was from SR1, but really it's nothing that impressive. It's fun, but to be honest I've become wary of purchusing SR4 should they release one.

At any rate, I plan to return to Skyrim shortly, and so far it's definatly my nominee for game of the year. It's the ONLY game that didn't fall short of it's promises. I don't care for some of the simplification and specific design choices, but I knew about most of that beforehand, and otherwise it's actually exceeded a lot of my expectations. Fix some glitched quests, maybe beef of Destruction Magic a bit (easpecially at early levels) and rebalance a few of the monsters (ie I don't think a couple of high end bears should be tougher than a Dragon if they fight. The Dragons are fine as they are, but some of the monsters need to be nerfed a bit).

Also, very nice Plushie Skyrim Hat, I have no idea where that came from.

MB202:

jacobythehedgehog:

MB202:
I've heard of Skyrim, if only because everyone won't shut up about it.

There is a reasons why people won't shut up about it. It is a brilliant game. Not to say it is just an amazing game none the less

Interesting... I WAS going to try it out, if only to play as one of those lizard people creatures... But since the game's in first-person, I don't see the point...

you never tried oblivoin or fallout 3?

first person is optional (I would never play game in first person unless i had too)

MB202:

jacobythehedgehog:

MB202:
I've heard of Skyrim, if only because everyone won't shut up about it.

There is a reasons why people won't shut up about it. It is a brilliant game. Not to say it is just an amazing game none the less

Interesting... I WAS going to try it out, if only to play as one of those lizard people creatures... But since the game's in first-person, I don't see the point...

I play as them in Third Person??? You defiantly can play in a third person mode that is very usable

Good episode but nothing we haven't heard. I like when you do episodes that are more unique and original.

I thought jim just pointed out the obvious or rehashed things other people have said in a more ignorant over the top way, but I was wrong. He also manages to give bad examples for good points.

You act like call of duty doesn't have replay ability, or that the multi player makes games replay able in some instances, or games like assassin's creed added what everybody thought was going to be a horrendously idiotic mp into a great experience that let them experience the game in a new way. The most obvious though is assuming skyrim can unseat Call of duty... the games are aiming for mostly two different fucking audiences.

Vault101:

MB202:

jacobythehedgehog:

There is a reasons why people won't shut up about it. It is a brilliant game. Not to say it is just an amazing game none the less

Interesting... I WAS going to try it out, if only to play as one of those lizard people creatures... But since the game's in first-person, I don't see the point...

you never tried oblivoin or fallout 3?

first person is optional (I would never play game in first person unless i had too)

It is? Well, good, I don't like playing in third person.

I've never wanted to punch someone in the face while simultaneously agreeing with them.

This is true wrt Skyrim, but I'm not convinced it is particularly predictive. A bit like pointing to Harry Potter and saying "look, writing is easy."

Actually, Bethesda already proved all this with Morrowind and Oblivion.

DressedInRags:

leviadragon99:
Mmm-hmm, I've long been an advocate of single player over multiplayer.

On the respawning Dragons though, it can get a little annoying when I'm going about my buisiness and trying to turn in a quest in a major settlement when the third dragon in as many game days raids the same place...

You think that's bad? try handing all your questing gear over to your secret spy-mate and donning nought but dainty boots and a silken jacket in order to infiltrate a party full of mincing toffs.... only to have a dragon come crashing down, making the quest-giver go into cowardice mode (and incapable of speaking to you for some reason) while the person you just gave your fucking greatsword to is busy ignoring you and getting stuck in the scenery, leaving you to take down a dragon with your firsts.

And that's why I conjure my own weapons...

Ah yes, fantastic points, Skyrim really is a game that deserves it success for these very reasons, it's why I've given the game my respect, it didn't completely sell itself out to make as much money as possible and by doing so it made plenty of money. Hopefully some of the industry will see that there is a more honorable path to success and follow in Skyrim's footsteps. Also we might have tons of COD clones now but maybe we'll see more games similar in some ways to Skyrim and seeing as the Fallout and Elder Scrolls games are probably my favorite series I wouldn't be completely opposed to that.

 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