Bethesda shifting focus more and more.

[Zaldir]

I don't find "simplification" as some people call it to be a bad thing depending on what aspects of the game are affected. There is a difference between frustrating and difficult, confusing and complex, etc. Most changes that people perceive as "dumbing down" or "simplification" of the game is just the rational evolution of a game franchise and that evolution can be good or bad. Skyrim seems to be making all the right choices from what we have seen so far. They streamline aspects of the game that where clunky and dated like the meaningless classes and unused talents, bring back some aspects from earlier titles people liked such as the discovery and immersive RPG elements, all the while doing something new that is distinctly "Skyrim".

 

A lot of people have this pessimistic hipster mindset that all change is bad, that if anything is made more fluid and efficient it is for stupid people, that streamlining any aspect of a game franchise is somehow an attempt to appeal to some sub human playerbase, that if something is not as grindy, frustrating, annoying, time consuming, and inefficient as possible than it is for casuals. Some people get some sense of gratification from complaining about any and everything that is popular. It goes back to the hipster mindset,"Oh man Obscene Japanese RPG 4 only sold 10k copies because of grindy buggy gameplay and terrible game mechanics? It is the best game ever and I am so cool because no one else plays it." "What Elder Maps 5: Dragons sold 10 million copies because of smooth streamlined dynamic gameplay, graphics, and an already large fan base? Must be garbage made for casuals."

 

One thing people have been whining to no end about is Skyrim having 18 skills vs. Oblivion's 21 and Morrowind's 27, yet did you ever seriously use Hand-to-Hand? Speechcraft? How about Mercantile? I would rather have the less than interesting skills melded into the more lucrative ones. If I wanted I could make up 120 different skills off the top of my head but it wouldn't make them any good. Would you rather have 18 well fleshed out skills that evolve with different perks to your play style or dozens upon dozens of lackluster skills you won't find yourself using? A lot of these changes just make sense like rather than have 2 or 3 different skills for bladed weapons you have a single ability to govern those same skills but the one skill through perks can be specialized to create as much if not more variety in a far more efficient format.

 

There have obviously been game franchises that have made changes not for the better such as Dragon Age 2 or World of Warcraft (In my opinion anyway but that's just me) but I wouldn't be too worried about Skyrim. Don't let other people ruin your fun. Many forums and boards on the internet are cesspools of negative sniveling little teenagers that think hating fun with a passion makes them game critics or something. Go into every game with an open minded positive attitude regardless of other opinions, game ratings, or changes. If you go into something expecting the worse and purposely trying to nit pick out every single tiny flaw you can think of you will never enjoy another game as long as you live.

The best post I've read in a long while! Thank you!

 

I agree with you on every point, but I'm afraid, like you said, people have an obsession to complain about things, no matter what. If no one were starving on the whole planet or there was world-peace, people would find a reason to complain about that too

[Ghogiel]

 

One thing people have been whining to no end about is Skyrim having 18 skills vs. Oblivion's 21 and Morrowind's 27, yet did you ever seriously use Hand-to-Hand? Speechcraft? How about Mercantile? I would rather have the less than interesting skills melded into the more lucrative ones. If I wanted I could make up 120 different skills off the top of my head but it wouldn't make them any good.

This can be viewed as a failing not in the skill but in the gamplay engine. If Ob actually had a economy or a living world where speechcraft or mercantile would be relevant, then we wouldn't be having this conversation.

 

The only reason why those skills aren't useful is because the gameplay is shallow enough that they become fairly worthless in comparison to combat skills, and don't have context because you really can only fulfil most quests one way, and money is irrelevant.

 

My only gripe is that they might be pussying out of a real challenge in terms of game development. Still Skyrim looks set to be the best in the series imo...

[brokenergy]

and coming from me, who enjoyed Dragon Age 2, that's saying something.

 

that you have bad taste?

 

Halororor is correct though. Oblivion was nothing more than a modder's dream rather than an actual game and I expect Skyrim to be no different. I don't mind modding but when it reaches to the point that you need mods to make a game better then you know that the developer has failed to make a memorble game. The fact that you disrepect some else's opinion doesn't give you the right to say what is bad taste. And NAPALM, I'm a "hardcore" fan of the DA series and I loved DA2. Gaider gets a high-five from me. DA2 was too ambious and failed the same ways as AP.

[hector530]

and coming from me, who enjoyed Dragon Age 2, that's saying something.

 

that you have bad taste?

 

Halororor is correct though. Oblivion was nothing more than a modder's dream rather than an actual game

 

a lot of game reviewers sure love something that isnt an actual game. http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/the-elder-scrolls-iv-oblivion. reviewed without mods. my point is that youre saying oblivion is bad?, bad for you but its not bad.

Edited June 7, 2011 by hector530

[Nakia]

I believe in the KISS principle. I thought Oblivion had too many spells if I used a dozen on a regular basis that was a lot. As far as skills went I chose my major ones and then filled in were needed with the minor ones. I hated that speechcraft game but I did use it because it did help you in dealing with people. The economic system was poor in my opinion. I would rather see resources used for good game playthan on skills and spells you either do not need or don't have thetime to develop them until later in the game. I had one game were my Breton Mage became so powerful I had to use console to 'damper' her down or the game even at difficult was boring. :rolleyes:

 

It is fascinating how people judge a game before it even comes out, no demo even. I loved Morrowind and Oblivion and spent years playing them. Oh not all the time but frequently. I have no idea how many hours real time I spent on those games. Why shoudn't I expect Skyrim to give me just as much enjoyment? I am sure I won't like everything but that is my personal taste. What I love someone else may hat; what I hate someone else may love. There is no perfect game because we are individuals with individual likes and dislikes. No developer can please everyone all the time.

 

Complaing about a game that has not been released yet is in my opinion just plain unreasonable. We will all have things to complain about after we play a couple of games. :dry: We will also have things we love and I hope some of us remember to let Bethesda know about the things we love. Why is it so easy easy to be negative and so hard to be positive.

 

Thank you, Bethesda, for themany hours of pleasure you have given me and I look forward to many more. Also, a thank you to the modders who expanded that pleasure for me. Your work is appreciated and thanks to TESNEXUs's rating reminder I do give a postive rating to mods.

[JimboUK]

and coming from me, who enjoyed Dragon Age 2, that's saying something.

 

that you have bad taste?

 

Halororor is correct though. Oblivion was nothing more than a modder's dream rather than an actual game

 

a lot of game reviewers sure love something that isnt an actual game. http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/the-elder-scrolls-iv-oblivion. reviewed without mods. my point is that youre saying oblivion is bad?, bad for you but its not bad.

 

I'm not sure why anyone attaches any importance to the opinion of paid reviewers, they've shown time and again that they are no better than player reviews, in fact they tend to be worse because they only play an hour or two before passing judgement. Oblivion was bland, had terrible dialogue, a disjointed world and treated the player like an idiot. When Todd "let the player win" Howard admits it was dumbed down then it must have been bad.

[NAPALM13092]

and coming from me, who enjoyed Dragon Age 2, that's saying something.

 

that you have bad taste?

 

Halororor is correct though. Oblivion was nothing more than a modder's dream rather than an actual game and I expect Skyrim to be no different. I don't mind modding but when it reaches to the point that you need mods to make a game better then you know that the developer has failed to make a memorble game. The fact that you disrepect some else's opinion doesn't give you the right to say what is bad taste. And NAPALM, I'm a "hardcore" fan of the DA series and I loved DA2. Gaider gets a high-five from me. DA2 was too ambious and failed the same ways as AP.

 

You are right I can't speak for everyone obviously but as a huge fan of the first Dragon Age I found 2 to be a disaster. I wouldn't say it was to ambitious as much as it was a rushed product banking on a franchise name to generate sales. Like I said though that is just me after countless playthroughs of Origins and Awakening I have only played through Dragon Age 2 once and do not feel compelled to do so again. They did a lot of things right but it just fell short in too many aspects in my opinion.

[NAPALM13092]

 

One thing people have been whining to no end about is Skyrim having 18 skills vs. Oblivion's 21 and Morrowind's 27, yet did you ever seriously use Hand-to-Hand? Speechcraft? How about Mercantile? I would rather have the less than interesting skills melded into the more lucrative ones. If I wanted I could make up 120 different skills off the top of my head but it wouldn't make them any good.

This can be viewed as a failing not in the skill but in the gamplay engine. If Ob actually had a economy or a living world where speechcraft or mercantile would be relevant, then we wouldn't be having this conversation.

 

The only reason why those skills aren't useful is because the gameplay is shallow enough that they become fairly worthless in comparison to combat skills, and don't have context because you really can only fulfil most quests one way, and money is irrelevant.

 

My only gripe is that they might be pussying out of a real challenge in terms of game development. Still Skyrim looks set to be the best in the series imo...

 

You do make a good point and I am not oppose to things like Mercantile or Speechcraft if the game better supports those features like you said. Still I would rather see things like that be a secondary type of skill that everyone can work on rather than take away from combat skills. An example of what I mean is Fallout 3 and Fallout New Vegas actually made Speech useful but to get it up to par you had to take away from more critical skills like Guns, Sneak, Explosives, Etc. I would like to see two skill pools. You have your combat stuff and then you have the non-combat stuff such as Speech, Bartering, Repair, Smithing, Alchemy, Mining, Cooking, or whatever. They can be leveled independently of each other so you don't have to be a wet noodle to be a cook or have the social skills of a brick to be a master marksman. That's my take on it anyway.

[Zaldir]

and coming from me, who enjoyed Dragon Age 2, that's saying something.

 

that you have bad taste?

 

Halororor is correct though. Oblivion was nothing more than a modder's dream rather than an actual game

 

a lot of game reviewers sure love something that isnt an actual game. http://www.metacriti...ls-iv-oblivion. reviewed without mods. my point is that youre saying oblivion is bad?, bad for you but its not bad.

 

I'm not sure why anyone attaches any importance to the opinion of paid reviewers, they've shown time and again that they are no better than player reviews, in fact they tend to be worse because they only play an hour or two before passing judgement. Oblivion was bland, had terrible dialogue, a disjointed world and treated the player like an idiot. When Todd "let the player win" Howard admits it was dumbed down then it must have been bad.

Well, this is your opinion, and mine is almost the opposite of that.

Reviewers don't mean anything to me at all, as I am the one who is going to play and enjoy the game, not some totally random stranger who I have no clue as to what he likes, dislikes and what kind of person it is.

 

Howard just did what Microsoft did, before the release of a new game, admits that the previous game did not meet the expectations. Exactly the same as Microsoft said about Vista when Win7 arrived. It's just one more way to sell a product, by saying it is sooo much better than the last one. ;)

[JimboUK]

and coming from me, who enjoyed Dragon Age 2, that's saying something.

 

that you have bad taste?

 

Halororor is correct though. Oblivion was nothing more than a modder's dream rather than an actual game

 

a lot of game reviewers sure love something that isnt an actual game. http://www.metacriti...ls-iv-oblivion. reviewed without mods. my point is that youre saying oblivion is bad?, bad for you but its not bad.

 

I'm not sure why anyone attaches any importance to the opinion of paid reviewers, they've shown time and again that they are no better than player reviews, in fact they tend to be worse because they only play an hour or two before passing judgement. Oblivion was bland, had terrible dialogue, a disjointed world and treated the player like an idiot. When Todd "let the player win" Howard admits it was dumbed down then it must have been bad.

Well, this is your opinion, and mine is almost the opposite of that.

Reviewers don't mean anything to me at all, as I am the one who is going to play and enjoy the game, not some totally random stranger who I have no clue as to what he likes, dislikes and what kind of person it is.

 

Howard just did what Microsoft did, before the release of a new game, admits that the previous game did not meet the expectations. Exactly the same as Microsoft said about Vista when Win7 arrived. It's just one more way to sell a product, by saying it is sooo much better than the last one. ;)

 

We don't have to take Howards word, we can see from Fallout 3 that back then they were already moving in the right direction. The game was still over simplified but it didn't hand everything to the player on a plate, stats actually meant something, failure was now possible, we had proper speech checks rather than an idiotic minigame and they even threw in a few choices where there were none whatsoever in Oblivion. The only thing that got worse was the dialogue, it went from poor in Oblivion to atrocious in FO3.