The World of Skyrim Means Nothing...

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Jitters Caffeine:
If I want to use my imagination in a standard fantasy world, I'll wait til my next D&D session.

If your D&D games are "standard," you're playing with a boring DM, lol. There should never be anything mundane or default about fantasy--the very word means the opposite everything the aforementioned stand for.

Jitters Caffeine:
all I can do is wait for the engine to be made into a Fallout game.

Why the hell would you want that ?

Jynthor:
My only problem with the world is the characters.
Name me one memorable character you met in Skyrim.
Yeah, thought so.

Interesting characters off the top of my head:
M'aiq the Liar
Cicero the Jester/Assassin
Sheogorath the Mad
Barbas the Talking Dog
Saadia, the woman running from the Red Gaurd
Astrid, leader of the Dark Brotherhood
Babette, the 300 yr old vampire in the form of a young girl

Y'know here's a novel idea, when you find out you don't like something, even after sinking some time into it, have you tried... Shrugging and moving on? Just try it, you'll feel the burning to moan and complain for a little while but it will fade once you find something else.

I've had to move on from having my entire life destroyed and restructured, but oh no, something about SKYRIM offends you enough to write a page of flaws? Oh dear. Time to step back.

On a similar note, enough Skyrim whinging, this horse is dead, either you like it, or go find something in the pile of endless 'things to do in life' to occupy your mind with instead.
Complaining about factors that are of personal preference are the most inane and senseless wastes of time ever.

Nothing is perfect. Ever. Nothing. Something better will always come along but nothing will be perfect. So why be contrived little nagger about it. Some people 'like that sort of thing'. A game that caters perfectly to your tastes must exist somewhere so search harder instead of knit rifling through a popular title. If it doesn't, send more chocolates and roses to your developer of choice.

Don Savik:

I've met tons of people in the games that have a grey stance on the war. What game are you playing?

Also its a war, there are usually 2 sides. You're trying to overcomplicate things here.

I don't know, I think New Vegas handled their Civil War plot line a little better. There were two sides, but four outcomes. Sure, the Legion was almost comically evil on the outside, but they seemed to have an end goal that was more than "Let's kill the NCR". It seems like to me that they wanted to make the Stormcloaks and Imperials so ambiguous and "technically not the bad guys" that they're both just uninteresting.

Something else I like is how the Legion and NCR have more differences beyond just wearing different armor. Their very manner of speaking is different, and the way they talk to you is different than the other side. Not to mention that every faction tends to favor different weapons. The Powder Gangers will focus on things like small arms fire and explosives, later on they'll start getting Plasma weapons. The Legion Assassin Squads will usually have a guy with a VERY strong melee, usually a Ripper or Super Sledge, backed up with a couple guys with higher caliber submachine guns and maybe a guy with explosives. NCR Bounty Squads will favor more traditional "military" looking weapons like Sniper Rifles and Assault Carbines as well as Hunting Revolvers. Just makes your engagements more interesting when you have to do more than backpeddle to win a fight.

That's just me though. Just seems like when a game totes a universe with wildly varying races, there would be more variety in your fights with them.

Doom-Slayer:
In a game dedicated to that sort of freedom, it possibly could be done. Would a large studio capable of making such a game put that much effort into a fairly niche feature. No.

Niche feature... I'm guessing you're not overly familiar with the ME franchise. The SINGLE most common criticism leveled against ME3 - specifically at its ending, but in general as well - was that there was not enough consequence for your actions. And believe me, there was more consequence for my actions in ME3 than there was in Skyrim. Entire races were wiped out right in front of my eyes simply because over the course of the last two games I failed to take every opportunity to make them see reason. All characters from those races died. Other characters talked about this event. Suffice to say, it was a big deal.

And people - not just me - were still dissatisfied with how much consequence there was. So saying that it's a niche feature, implying that there's no market for something like this, is more than a little out of touch with what's going on in gaming, I think.

Was this sort of thing even remotely likely to appear in Skyrim, or will even modders do it? No. Why? Because freedom on that level is simply too convoluted and complex in a world that large. By even asking for a 10x smaller world to trade for that complexity, you are asking for a different game.

Quite simply if that sort of complexity is what you want, then look elsewhere, because this is not the game for it. It was never promised, it was never expected by the majority, and if you DID expect it, then thats a problem with your expectations and not the game. The game is not trying to have that level of complexity or that level of character depth or story focus, its like calling out Tekken for not having enough RTS elements.

This is a more reasonable rebuttal, I think. But even so I have to ask you: what do you see Skyrim-like games looking like 10 years from now? 20 years? How are they different? Just better graphics, bigger towns to explore, or are there other things going on as well?

I find it very hard to believe that the game worlds are going to remain at the same level of (non-existent) depth. So you might say that all I'm doing is trying to speed up the inevitable. Because I really, really, really want to play Skyrim 5.

.No.:
When you go to sleep at your house or an inn, you should be able to be killed in the middle of the night. When you eat, your food should be able to be poisoned. When you go exploring, you should be attacked by a miniature army of people seeking revenge. Your Housecarl should be able to be murdered while defending your home, and your house should be ransacked. You could lock the door, but that won't stop people from picking the lock. That'd be showing genuine consequences.
All or nothing, right?

As long as it's fun. Exciting. Interesting. Thought-provoking. Whatever. Then, absolutely! If the game developers can find a way to make going to sleep and worrying about locks getting picked fun, why in the world would any of this stuff be a bad thing?

And if you can think of a reason why a world with more meaningful interactions with and amongst NPCs might be a bad thing, I'll eagerly hear you out.

Anthraxus:
Why the hell would you want that ?

All things considered, the Skyrim engine is new and shiny. Way better than the Oblivion engine. I'm not saying I want that god awful abortion of a level up system Skyrim has, just the shiny new engine and the possibility of dual wielding in my Fallout game.

Grey Day for Elcia:
If your D&D games are "standard," you're playing with a boring DM, lol. There should never be anything mundane or default about fantasy--the very word means the opposite everything the aforementioned stand for.

Well, if I've got a game with Orcs and Elves, I want it to be fun. But unfortunately, the "fantasy" genre has become stagnant with tropes that seem to pop up in every "fantasy" game. Forced racism to make us sympathize with "non-human" races, the very idea of orcs, and every game being seemingly set in medieval Europe, ect. I understand that TES is supposed to have this deep interesting Lore, but you just don't seem to see it. You just read about it and hear about it, so it PLAYS like just another standard fantasy game.

Jitters Caffeine:

Grey Day for Elcia:
If your D&D games are "standard," you're playing with a boring DM, lol. There should never be anything mundane or default about fantasy--the very word means the opposite everything the aforementioned stand for.

Well, if I've got a game with Orcs and Elves, I want it to be fun. But unfortunately, the "fantasy" genre has become stagnant with tropes that seem to pop up in every "fantasy" game. Forced racism to make us sympathize with "non-human" races, the very idea of orcs, and every game being seemingly set in medieval Europe, ect. I understand that TES is supposed to have this deep interesting Lore, but you just don't seem to see it. You just read about it and hear about it, so it PLAYS like just another standard fantasy game.

I definitely know what you mean.

I make sure everyone creates their own race and that there is no mention of "standard" classes or races in any game I play. I'm so sick of elves being fair skinned pricks or little people in forests, dwarves being miners and humans being some jack-of-all-trades, master of none. Drop them all from our fantasy vocabularies, I say.

My main problem with Skyrim, as with every Bethesda game, is that the land just feels dead.
It's pretty, but it's obvious that its populated with soulless automatons instead of people. People who glitch into walls and say the same 5 lines of dialogue.

I have trouble getting immersed into that world, and I find most of my enjoyment coming from killing dudes, sure that's fun but it doesn't really draw me into the world. I want to venture into the city and not have people notice me and stop in their tracks to spout their inane dribble that I've probably already heard from another guy with the exact same voice. I want to believe that these people are actually people instead of bits of data doing what their programming tells them to, and sometimes failing at that and glitching out.

Basically, in Bethesda games I'm very aware that I'm playing a game instead of exploring a living breathing world, and interacting with its citizens, and that's not even getting into the glitches. Oddly enough I find myself more immersed when the people stand ram-rod still, don't talk to me and just wait for me to walk by them so they can give me a quest.

But, still a fun game, still the best Bethesda game I've played, and the problems I have with it were more severe in previous games (Fallout 3, Oblivion). So, I guess it means that they're getting continually better.

Grey Day for Elcia:

Jitters Caffeine:

Grey Day for Elcia:
If your D&D games are "standard," you're playing with a boring DM, lol. There should never be anything mundane or default about fantasy--the very word means the opposite everything the aforementioned stand for.

Well, if I've got a game with Orcs and Elves, I want it to be fun. But unfortunately, the "fantasy" genre has become stagnant with tropes that seem to pop up in every "fantasy" game. Forced racism to make us sympathize with "non-human" races, the very idea of orcs, and every game being seemingly set in medieval Europe, ect. I understand that TES is supposed to have this deep interesting Lore, but you just don't seem to see it. You just read about it and hear about it, so it PLAYS like just another standard fantasy game.

I definitely know what you mean.

I make sure everyone creates their own race and that there is no mention of "standard" classes or races in any game I play. I'm so sick of elves being fair skinned pricks or little people in forests, dwarves being miners and humans being some jack-of-all-trades, master of none. Drop them all from our fantasy vocabularies, I say.

While they were still pretty generic, I really liked the way Dragon Age: Origins handled Dwarves. They weren't just "short people who live underground that mine", but they have a Caste system and were somewhat immune to Magic because of their handling Lyrium. It was different enough to make them interesting. Their Elves were still "tree people" but they were handled in a way that was refreshing since the Dalish, who were the elves that proudly lived in the forests and shunned the more "civilized" world, hated the "City" elves, who were lucky to be even treated as second class citizens most of the time. There was a little more dynamic to the relationship there beyond just "HUMANS HATE ELVES".

Jitters Caffeine:

Anthraxus:
Why the hell would you want that ?

All things considered, the Skyrim engine is new and shiny.

Wouldn't you rather have something that actually provided some good combat, FFS ?

Fuck new and shiny. Gameplay over graphics, remember ?

Anthraxus:

Jitters Caffeine:

Anthraxus:
Why the hell would you want that ?

All things considered, the Skyrim engine is new and shiny.

Wouldn't you rather have something that actually provided some good combat, FFS ?

Fuck new and shiny. Gameplay over graphics, remember ?

Well, Oblivion didn't have particularly engaging combat either, but they made Fallout 3 and New Vegas out of it. I'd say they could make a Fallout game out of Skyrim fairly easily. I've actually heard a couple rumours that people have found Fallout data in Skyrim, so if that's true, it means that the engine could be easily adapted.

I could get into this, go on about the problems I had with skyrim, but I think I'll just go play Dark Souls.

pure.Wasted:

Niche feature... I'm guessing you're not overly familiar with the ME franchise. The SINGLE most common criticism leveled against ME3 - specifically at its ending, but in general as well

The two situations are different. The original situation you gave is consequences for seeing condequences on a far smaller scale. For the Mass Effect example you have consequences for your decisions with the buildup of 3 games. And yes I can agree that was a total failure of closure because you didn't see these consequences almost at all. That being said, that is very different to being able to see the consequences of killing a group of people, or even sometimes of just completing one quest. You might say that there wasn't as greater set of consequences for some missions or for the story missions in Skyrim, but its simply not practical in a game of that scale. The difference is because in Mass Effect, the story IS the game so seeing the consequences of your actions is key. In Skyrim, planning out these elaborate consequences for the major decisions you can make becomes incredibly convoluted, because a lot of the time, players might not even experience that content.

pure.Wasted:

But even so I have to ask you: what do you see Skyrim-like games looking like 10 years from now? 20 years? How are they different? Just better graphics, bigger towns to explore, or are there other things going on as well?

I find it very hard to believe that the game worlds are going to remain at the same level of (non-existent) depth. So you might say that all I'm doing is trying to speed up the inevitable. Because I really, really, really want to play Skyrim 5.

My last point basically leads into this. They will become what you want. Thats not a maybe or an "if" its a will. Skyrim has made great steps into the breadth of content, there are some really cool quests and really in depth storytelling for something as simple as a cave full of bandits.

There are essentially two ways games like Skyrim can develop. Either by expanding on the "standard" amount of content and story telling, focusing on character depth and plot etc, or expand on content to give a huge amount for players to do.

Mass Effect does the first option while Skyrim does the second. In the future what will happen is games will be able to do both, taking a huge volume of content but being able to develop it to the level that you want. Right now though its mostly on or the other or a mixture. So in short, be patient :)

Jitters Caffeine:

Anthraxus:

Jitters Caffeine:

All things considered, the Skyrim engine is new and shiny.

Wouldn't you rather have something that actually provided some good combat, FFS ?

Fuck new and shiny. Gameplay over graphics, remember ?

Well, Oblivion didn't have particularly engaging combat either, but they made Fallout 3 and New Vegas out of it. I'd say they could make a Fallout game out of Skyrim fairly easily.

Yea, and Fallout 3 and Vegas' combat sucked too. Vegas was good DESPITE the engine.

I'd rather have the Fallout 1/2 engine, if it was either or.

so what if most of the characters in skyrim are brainless mountain hicks with nothing interesting going on in their lives? to me that makes it more realistic than most games, take mass effect 3 for example, where commander shepard just happens to run into every important citizen from every species in the same 5 recurring rooms of a citadel of billions and just happens to turn up every important reaper fighting artifact in the galaxy.

Emiscary:

Here's why: every RPG you've ever played casts you as an immortal unstoppable badass with magic powers clothed in artifacts drawn from the hoary mists of legend- who's forced to put up with the nonsense of unwashed peasants, nobly sacrifice himself when prompted and fall in love with whatever perky set of tits first walks on set.

Ahem, Both Dark and Demon souls would like to have a word with you alone, and in private. Dont mind the 50 lb axe and Club respectively being wielded by each. Surely thats just there for ornamental purposes.

A: You are not immortal, your dead.
B: Your about as frail as a bubble boy
C: Even if you are badass theres something even more so right around the next corner.
D: No peasants to deal with
E: No love interest

So yeah, not "every" RPG. Most? yes, all? Nope. So yes. Go play Souls, either one. Then you really wont care that much about skyrim any more because the only failing the souls games has is being damn near devoid of a story, and after playing it long, you wont care what level of story Bethesda has to offer because youll be content with anything.

Anthraxus:

Jitters Caffeine:

Anthraxus:
Wouldn't you rather have something that actually provided some good combat, FFS ?

Fuck new and shiny. Gameplay over graphics, remember ?

Well, Oblivion didn't have particularly engaging combat either, but they made Fallout 3 and New Vegas out of it. I'd say they could make a Fallout game out of Skyrim fairly easily.

Yea, and Fallout 3 and Vegas' combat sucked too. Vegas was good DESPITE the engine.

I'd rather have the Fallout 1/2 engine, if it was either or.

Unfortunately, the era of the "Tactical, Turn-Based, Isometric adventure RPG" has long passed. While I loved Fallout 1 and 2, I adore the Combat in Fallout 3 and New Vegas. It's not perfect, but it works with the new genre the series has become. I'd say the way they made the different factions in New Vegas behave differently when you fight them made the combat somewhat tactical again. You have to consider WHO you're fighting before you start shooting. The Legion begaves differently than the NCR, both are different than the Khans and Fiends, and they're all different than the Brotherhood or Boomers. They all favor different weapons and have armor of varying qualities. I loved having to consider my tactics when a Legion Assassin Squad would show up because I had just been fighting Cazadores, and my tactics of "PUNCH THE FUCK OUT OF THEM!!" doesn't always work against a squad who have set up with a Super Sledge, a Grenade Rifle, and a couple 12.7 SMGs.

wurrble182:
so what if most of the characters in skyrim are brainless mountain hicks with nothing interesting going on in their lives? to me that makes it more realistic than most games, take mass effect 3 for example, where commander shepard just happens to run into every important citizen from every species in the same 5 recurring rooms of a citadel of billions and just happens to turn up every important reaper fighting artifact in the galaxy.

All things considered, Shepard is THE kind of person that would run into all the most important people in the Citadel because he's pretty goddamn important. In ME1, he's the first Human Spectre and in charge of tracking down Space Hitler. In ME2, he's just come back from the dead and is trying to unravel the mystery of what's happening to all the colonies that are disappearing, all while working for a group that's considered terrorists. In ME3, he's THE go to person on Reaper knowledge. He's pretty much THE most important person in the galaxy during that time.

Why do people want to kill kids so badly? I don't understand the appeal... maybe I'm not a psychopath or even a sociopath...

Explain this to me OP, cause I don't get it.

These games would be so good if they had freedom AND interesting characters and quests. Right now it's like an action adventure. A hack n' slash hiking simulator.

s69-5:
Why do people want to kill kids so badly? I don't understand the appeal... maybe I'm not a psychopath or even a sociopath...

Explain this to me OP, cause I don't get it.

I don't think it's the desire to kill kids exactly, but more about there being NPCs that are inexplicably immortal. I personally don't care, because I'm not the kind of person who goes into murder spasms and kills a town full of people, even in games I actually like. The argument eventually just became the "I want kids to be killable" against the "You're just psychopaths" sides of the argument.

s69-5:
Why do people want to kill kids so badly? I don't understand the appeal... maybe I'm not a psychopath or even a sociopath...

Explain this to me OP, cause I don't get it.

There are very few people who want to "openly" kill kids (but they just do it for the perverted lolz), but most just find that its 'bad game logic' that when a dragon is toasting and killing everybody else, a kid can just randomly run around on fire and not die.

I've seen in once instance, a giant being lead into town, kill all the guards, men and women in a single hit, but launch a kid into next Tuesday but the kid just gets up and continues to run around unfazed.

It would be great if we didn't need to post a new thread about this every time someone realises it.

Skyrim is shallow. It sold well because it looked shiny and had good marketing.

Westaway:

SmashLovesTitanQuest:
Fuck Skyrim. Just wait... You just wait...

Until SureAI unveil Projekt 5 and descend from the fucking heavens to make another total conversion and fucking beat Bethesda and their pathetic effort on a budget of 2 cents and a piece of string.

I love it when people come in and say that the modders make better games than the devs, it's honestly ridiculous. The two games I've seen it the most for are Bethesda games and Minecraft. It's so silly I'm having a hard time phrasing how wrong you are. Wait a minute, let me think about how to say this.

...

Ok. This is going to come out as condescending. You do realize how hard it is to make a game, right? Can you fathom how much time and money it takes to make a COMPLETE game? From SCRATCH? Every movement? Every noise, from footsteps to swords clanging? Every line of code? Modders don't have to deal with that shit. They just take games and make them better, because they have free time. The devs are amazing game creators; they made the fucking game. They probably could make the game better, but they probably ran out of time.

I'm willing to bet my whole bank account that most modders couldn't make a game as good as Skyrim even if they had a whole dev team, millions of dollars and three years.

Said it before and I will say it again; theres two parts to a game. The technical bit (engine, etc) and the actual GAME part. Modders beat Bethesda at the game part every time.

So yes, they do make better games. Do they make better engines? Could they make better engines? Probably not. But when it comes to gameplay, story, and the likes? They make better games every time.

So chill the fuck out. No one ever claimed SureAI built a Cryengine 4.

Hmm, I just finished playing Batman Arkham Asylum and Arkham City over the last 2-3 weeks, back to back. I have to say that I really liked the characterisation of the Joker, particularly when he's calling Batman and leaving messages on his 'answering machine' - obviously there's plenty of existing material to draw upon, but the the little details that flesh him out, and the classic humour, really blow away any characterisation done by Bethesda. Now that the Skyrim engine is looking so nice, I hope that they can now put a lot of work into developing more compelling characters, stories and get decent acting - voice and otherwise. They seem to be taking that more seriously over time, but I think they could learn a lot from the Batman games and GTA IV to start with, and look further afield at TV and stage acting/stories and develop a level of narrative sophistication, like Rockstar appears to be aspiring to.

SajuukKhar:
snip

Wow, thanks for not spoiling the main storyline, I mean it's not like it would be really fucking annoying or anything.

SmashLovesTitanQuest:

Westaway:

SmashLovesTitanQuest:
-snip-

-snip-

-snip-

I assume you're not forgetting the part where they make money with game. Being able to work freely without deadlines, the business side of making a game and having to make/improve/fix the technical part means modders have much more time to make what they want to make.

I'm just thankful mods have something that allows them to exist.

Murmillos:
But here I am.. typing baffled, that as much as you defend the bullshit of The Elder Scrolls lore/gameplay/logic, you are unwilling to accept that the developers that it would be cool that logic of the world make it so that one has to use two different weapons. One for man, one for monsters....

Because that isn't cool, or smart, that's just stupid.

I can understand needing a silver weapon to like fight ghosts, or do extra damage against shit like werewolves, but needing an entire extra blade for the sole reason of "we made it that a sharp blade can't do anywhere near as much damage as an equally sharp blade because its not made out of a special "anti-monster" material is just dumb.

Its a fucking sword, like I wouldn't care if one did slightly more damage to monsters then the other, but NEEDING a 2nd sword just to fight monsters is fucking dumb, and arbitrary. It just exists to create FALSE complexity by imposing an BS and unreasonably stupid limit on the player.

Rikomag132:

Wow, thanks for not spoiling the main storyline, I mean it's not like it would be really fucking annoying or anything.

Dude its been 6 months, get over it. Its like getting pissed if someone says Snape killed dumbledor.

Anthraxus:
I agree with QTE's and the over use of cutscenes, but dice rolls and turn based combat/tactical rpgs is the shit. (when done well especially)

I like to relax, plan out my moves, strategize when I play rpgs. Take a swig of brandy between turns, maybe. Not have to be all tensed out and having to use my reflexes & mash buttons. That's for when I want to play an action game see. And if I'm gonna do that, I'd rather play one with actual decent combat, like Dark Souls or Severance, say. I like games that have an identity, not jacks of all trades, masters of none.

I can't stand dice-roll and turn-based things mostly because those games lack urgency during combat.

I mean I get were people say Skyrim lacks urgency in its MQ, because it does, but really turn-based games are the single least urgent form of combat ever, you can sit there for 4 days in the middle of a fight and never die because you haven't taken your turn, thus the enemies cant do anything.

Yeah it gives you time to "plan shit out" but if your original plan doesn't work there's no form of negative consequence for that because you can just sit there for infinity planning a better next move.

In Skyrim if you fuck up, your fucking death because you just aggored like 6 Dragur death-overlords who now bum-rushed you and are attacking you at once, you actually have to face the consequences of fucking up instead of getting a infinite time ti sit around and plan.

Furthermore you cant be a jack-of-all-trades in Skyrim, without perks in a skill tree yeah you may have it at 100 but that doesn't mean much of anything.

Eddie the head:

They do tell you what happens to the hero of Oblivion you can talk to him in Skyrim. He or she just turns into Sheogorath in every way. Yeah I guess the Shivering Isles did happen. If you are wondering how you know this Sheogorath mentions in his quest in Skyrim about how he was there when Martin turned into a "Dragon god."

I know he is Sheo, but other people dont. People see him as the Sheo that always has been, and have forgotten his past.

Shoggoth2588:

Just saying; I shouldn't, as an Imperial, be able to waltz into a Stormcloak encampment. There should be some sort of conflict. I should be yelled at, at the very least. It isn't that the people of Skyrim have their own stances on the War but...well, there doesn't seem to be anything war related happening until you pick a side (not counting the near execution).

.............. You do get yelled at for wearing imperial armor in a stormcloack camp and vise-versa

Beat14:

SmashLovesTitanQuest:

Westaway:

-snip-

-snip-

I assume you're not forgetting the part where they make money with game. Being able to work freely without deadlines, the business side of making a game and having to make/improve/fix the technical part means modders have much more time to make what they want to make.

I'm just thankful mods have something that allows them to exist.

Of course modders have more time and freedom. Does it matter? Not really.

I'm just looking at two finished products: Skyrim and Nehrim, and saying which one is better. IMO of course. Which one had more time in development or money behind it is irrelevant, its the game that matters.

SmashLovesTitanQuest:

Of course modders have more time and freedom. Does it matter? Not really.

I'm just looking at two finished products: Skyrim and Nehrim, and saying which one is better. IMO of course. Which one had more time in development or money behind it is irrelevant, its the game that matters.

Because the limitations that the respective content makers have to work under don't matter, nor should they be taken into consideration when reviewing each maker's final product ?

I am not really sure if you actually believe what you just said or not.

SajuukKhar:

Murmillos:
But here I am.. typing baffled, that as much as you defend the bullshit of The Elder Scrolls lore/gameplay/logic, you are unwilling to accept that the developers that it would be cool that logic of the world make it so that one has to use two different weapons. One for man, one for monsters....

Because that isn't cool, or smart, that's just stupid.

I can understand needing a silver weapon to like fight ghosts, or do extra damage against shit like werewolves, but needing an entire extra blade for the sole reason of "we made it that a sharp blade can't do anywhere near as much damage as an equally sharp blade because its not made out of a special "anti-monster" material is just dumb.

Its a fucking sword, like I wouldn't care if one did more damage to monsters then the other but NEEDING a 2nd sword just to fight monsters is fucking dumb, and arbitrary. It just exists to create FALSE complexity by imposing an BS and unreasonably stupid limit on the player.

I think the internal logic of the series says that the Silver Sword is supposed to be used against Monsters because the metal itself is comparably delicate to a Steel Sword, so the "magical" nature of the metal being much more useful against monsters where the Steel Sword, which is much stronger, is more utility to Humans and non-magical creatures. Admittedly, I don't know anything about the series itself to back that up, it's just my personal speculation and observations on the series seemingly trying to inject some semblance of "pseudo-science" along side the magic of the world.

Iron Criterion:

pure.Wasted:

Iron Criterion:

Unfortunately we don't have the technology to pander to the whims and desires of the depraved.

I only went for the evil version because it had already been brought up. I play paragons 90% of the time, so just substitute severed fingers with hiring a bard to follow me on my journeys and then sing about my great deeds in a tavern, so the entire fucking realm can know how epic I am, so I can use my influence to overthrow the evil king and open up some free elections.

Don't have the technology for it yet, all right, that's fair. But that's like setting out to build a game that can be enjoyed purely for its photorealistic beautiful scenery... back on the SNES. You have to understand that what you're doing is impossible, and that you need to pick up the slack elsewhere.

Give me a strong plot, give me compelling characters, mystery and intrigue and plot twists and drama... and everywhere else, freedom. Sure.

Don't get me wrong it is enjoyable to play as an evil bastard - my latest Skyrim build is a serial killer; but there will always have to be limitations,because quite simply being evil is the one of most imaginative things you can be. And there's no way developers could let you do whatever twisted thing you wanted, it would just be too much of an undertaking.

I guess the best thing we could hope for would be to give a few more ways of being evil.

Didn't Hannibal Lecter once explain that the biggest thing that separates serial killers from everyone else is their imagination?

Point is, he's right. Here's a rule of thumb for "evil" character design: give me the option to escalate things.

Ever notice how all RPGs have an "intimidate" function, but it could very easily be relabeled "bluff" because you're forbidden from following through on your threats? Here's a thought: intimidate should be followed by "vicious beating", and then "dagger to the throat".

And as for the elaborate torture scenarios described above? You don't *NEED* to be Ramsay Bolton, but when it comes to characters who've given me personal cause to be pissed off? The one's who've kidnapped me, harmed my loved ones, that kinda thing? Give me the chance to savor the moment. I don't need to parade my enemies down the town square, but I'd *love* an opportunity to hear them beg a little after I've left them in a broken heap on the floor. Also the "money shot" in scenes like that are a perfect opportunity to include some gore in the game. When I'm upset with someone, I don't mind watching a blade pass through their esophagus slowly. Point of fact I kind of enjoy it.

Oh, and the "WON'T YOU PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!?" people: I wanna be able to kill the kids in Skyrim because the kids in Skyrim are universally spoiled/whiny brats who seem hell bent on engendering my ill will- and are fully capable of fucking me over by witnessing my crimes, yet can't be silenced. Ever. I have to listen to this line:

"Oh look, another wanderer here to lick my father's boots. Good job."

Every. Fucking. Time. I wanna visit Whiterun. Every time. And if it's not the prick kid calling me a lickspittle, it's the dumbass kid telling me how he likes to practice with his fists, or the brat kid telling me to go cook her dinner.

I already don't much care for kids. They're brainless proto-humans who're convinced that because their teachers/parents are nice enough not to beat them that they're untouchable and infallible. The kids in Skyrim are without exception irritating caricatures of the very worst kinds of children. And the game's mechanics when it comes to crime/violence are set up to allow them to fuck me over (IE: they're the witnesses that're impossible to get rid of). And they all have the same voices. Which remind me of a: stoned pre pubescent Macaulay Culkin and a Prom Queen who's had her toe stepped on by a horse respectively.

SajuukKhar:

SmashLovesTitanQuest:

Of course modders have more time and freedom. Does it matter? Not really.

I'm just looking at two finished products: Skyrim and Nehrim, and saying which one is better. IMO of course. Which one had more time in development or money behind it is irrelevant, its the game that matters.

Because the limitations that the respective content makers have to work under don't matter, nor should they be taken into consideration when reviewing each maker's final product ?

I am not really sure if you actually believe what you just said or not.

No, they should not.

Do you remember Gothic 3? It was so buggy, it was literally not playable. 50% of players could not even get the game to launch. Why was it so buggy? Because the studio working on it were rushed to hell and back and went through some financial problems.

So, does that excuse the bugginess of Gothic 3? Of course not. When reviewing a final product, the quality of the product matters, not what went on in development.

The Elder Scrolls became really shallow from Oblivion onward. Daggerfall had more characterization in the form of immutable 2-D sprites that tapped their foot for all eternity and communicated through yellow on grey text. I was genuinely interested in what was going on. I really hope the graphics race ends soon, though the introduction of new consoles may make that no more than a dream.

SmashLovesTitanQuest:

No, they should not.

Do you remember Gothic 3? It was so buggy, it was literally not playable. 50% of players could not even get the game to launch. Why was it so buggy? Because the studio working on it were rushed to hell and back and went through some financial problems.

So, does that excuse the bugginess of Gothic 3? Of course not. When reviewing a final product, the quality of the product matters, not what went on in development.

Considering that the quality of the final product, and what happened in development, are intrinsically related, yes it should be taken into account.

did I EVER say that having a crappy development cycle gives a 100% write-off for its problems? no.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 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
Registered for a free account here