Do we mod Skyrim purely because it sucks?

[JimboUK]

2 hours ago, InDarkestNight said:

The reason sequels dominate is because they're less risky. Any new IP is a gamble, sequels less so since as long as most of the prior games are good, it'll turn a profit even if its bad. This trend started in the 2000s during the great recession. People quickly started complaining about this, since it felt like the same few games were being re-made over and over. it stuck though since it simply proved the better business strategy. Before this, sequels were rare. Long-running series were few. Now it seems all games are expected to generate endless sequels, even on the freak occasion a new IP comes out. New IPs are more frequent now, though they rarely seem to get much attenion, possibly because the gaming landscape is so overcrowded with titles now.

Yes and it's only going to get worse as budgets increase and investors get even more risk averse, it's exactly what we've been seeing in the movie industry as well. The obvious answer is smaller games with smaller budgets, they could take a few risks then.

[Worf640]

I mod starfield because it doesn't suck in fact it makes the game way better the mods are made by people who truly are passionate about the game and no vanilla skyrim doesn't suck its how bethesda made a blank canvas for artists to create on to exspand the universe

[ScytheBearer]

5 hours ago, JimboUK said:

I think games being a "bland indistinguishable homogenized gelatinous mass" is one of the problems, at least in the AAA space, we're seeing the same things over and over again, another Call of Duty, another Ubisoft reskin, there's very little that's new or anything that will get people excited, which might explain this https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/just-66-titles-saw-80-percent-of-all-playtime-in-2023-most-older-games-like-fortnite-or-gta-5 

I need to read a Writing for Dummys book, because I obviously failed to effectively communicate my point. 

I wasn't talking about games within franchises or game studios being a "bland indistinguishable homogenized gelatinous mass".  I was talking about ALL games EVERYWHERE becoming a "bland indistinguishable homogenized gelatinous mass".  Every game from every studio being like every other game from every other studio.  No more unique games, just the same game from every game maker every time.  No more GTA nor Fallout nor Call of Duty nor Sim nor Minecraft nor any other title.  Just the same "bland indistinguishable homogenized gelatinous mass" of all games in one.  You only need to ever buy one game to have them all. 

And that is the direction entitled game players are pushing things when they demand that game studios take bits of other games/studios and graft them onto their most recent release.  Make the settlement building in Starfield more like SIM 3.  Make the Combat in Starfield more like Call of Duty.  Make the creatures in Starfield more like Monster Hunter.  It's no wonder these entitled players think games suck.  They can't put down the last game long enough to enjoy the current game. 

And that was my point.  Enjoy games for the game itself and stop trying to make every game into a "bland indistinguishable homogenized gelatinous mass".

[InDarkestNight]

'For Dummies' books? I thought those were discontinued long ago? I've only seen them in second-hand stores, and they're all really bad dated.

That said, there has been a strong push towards catering to casual gamers for a while. They're simply the larger demographic, and nobody likes to play a game that's too hard for them. I admit, I would prefer it if they made games for all skill levels. Nobody enjoys games that are too hard or too easy (I did return a game once in the 90s that was too easy for me, croc if you care to know), but not everyone is the same skill level. They really should come up with some rating system to relay the difficulty of a game. Of course, these days they're increasingly pandering to disabled players, such as ones who are deaf or legally blind. Perhaps such a thing will come?

[showler]

There's probably a lot of reasons why games aren't as diverse anymore.

One that occurs to me is that console controllers sort of became standardized several generations ago.  Which wound up with video game controls being fairly standardized.  People expect the controls to be a certain way and coming up with "novel" controls schemes is much like coming up with a "novel" control scheme for the car you design.

Plus, there aren't really any huge leaps in games anymore.  We're basically waiting for smart NPCs now.  Everything else is such a miniscule change it barely registers.  Or worse adding "more realistic" graphics can actually make the game harder to play.

So, no great leaps combined with the huge game backlog most people have is causing a loss in excitement for new games.  You can tell me that this new game does something different from the games I've played, but I already have hundreds of games in my catalog that do something different that I've never gotten around to playing.  Why should I be excited for your game?

[InDarkestNight]

Honestly, I always saw a keyboard as superior to a controller. In the early 2000s when I was a teen, I used that to argue why I prefered PC games over console games, even though I was a console gamer throughout the 90s, and I still continued to play my ps2 even well into the ps3 era. I admit though I have since bought a controller for my pc, because I find its easier to play some of my games with it than a keyboard. I first bought it for Sonic Generations. Recently I've found its more convenient for Injustice. Still, I rarely plug it in. I did try to use it with Skyrim, but I didn't do that for long since it doesn't have enough buttons to have a favorites menu (the thing is an off-brand logitech controller that's specifically designed to make the computer think its an xbox controller for the sake of compatibility). Besides, its nigh impossible to aim a bow with an analogue stick, and I rarely play(ed) melee characters!

Standardization always comes about, look at happened with cars (I will admit though I prefer the more creative designs of older cars, now cars all look essentially the same). I do remember all the different control schemes games used to have. There was no standard, so you didn't think anything of it at first. It was normal to learn a new control scheme everytime you switched. Besides, 3d games required completely different controls from 2d games, so everyone was having to learn the new setup. The recent game Snake Pass was meant to recreate the unusual and new control schemes the first 3d games had. However, as time went on, it became apparent that some were better than others, inevitably leading to standardization. I never saw that as a loss though; I've always found some older control schemes really annoying, even ones I used to be used to. Besides, why does it matter which button is mapped to jump or attack? It doesn't change what you're doing on screen. I will say though my favorite control layout was the original Ape Escape. It was even one of the few games to use the r3 and l3 buttons. If you don't know what those are, the joysticks themselves doubled as buttons, though nobody noticed this thinking that you could click them was just a fault of the design. Very very few games used them; Ape Escape is the only one I know of.

[Guest deleted222677589]

I strongly agree with every single point you made about Skyrim and about other games. Those are the same thoughts and feelings. I was very surprised when I found this just now. Congrats on having a free mind. People rarely think freely these days.