Skyrim Official Trailer is a disappointment

[LeopoldCrank]

At least with the Skyrim trailer it was game play footage. In Witcher 2, they tried to perk your interest with a sub-par introduction to the plot, rather than what you could expect from the game itself. Plus, Witcher was never my thing. No character creation and they call it a hardcore rpg? Sounds a little odd to me. By that token, you may as well call Assassin's Creed a hardcore rpg, since the game is theoretically open world, and you can technically kill anyone.

 

Most JRPGs don't let you customize your character all that much either, but I don't think they're any less "pure" for it.

 

I'm just saying that I don't think that it can be called a 'hardcore rpg'. It's an rpg, I don't question that. Just the same as I dispute calling most jrpgs as hardcore. While we are at it, let's call Fable a hardcore RPG.

 

I just don't think it should be put it in the same category as any of the Elder Scrolls, (even Oblivion :P)

[Alcrin]

Not to mention the absolutely laughable daily schedules that are supposed to make the world feel alive. LOL, all NPCs leave their houses and go to work at the exact same time. They look like robots on rails.

 

Wait, by "at the same time" do you mean "within an in-game hour" (which is actually fairly realistic) or "streets go from barren to flooded within 2 seconds?"

 

(I haven't played either Witcher game.)

 

I'm just saying that I don't think that it can be called a 'hardcore rpg'. It's an rpg, I don't question that. Just the same as I dispute calling most jrpgs as hardcore. While we are at it, let's call Fable a hardcore RPG.

 

I just don't think it should be put it in the same category as any of the Elder Scrolls, (even Oblivion :P)

 

Well, what features would you say make an RPG "hardcore?"

[jhardingame]

streets go from barren to flooded within 2 seconds?

 

This. Seriously.

[LeopoldCrank]

 

I'm just saying that I don't think that it can be called a 'hardcore rpg'. It's an rpg, I don't question that. Just the same as I dispute calling most jrpgs as hardcore. While we are at it, let's call Fable a hardcore RPG.

 

I just don't think it should be put it in the same category as any of the Elder Scrolls, (even Oblivion :P)

 

Well, what features would you say make an RPG "hardcore?"

 

1. A completely open world, with a near-completely non-linear plot. By that, I don't mean that you do the main quest, but can follow it through different paths. I mean to the point that you can never do the main quest and still feel like you've played a satisfactory game.

 

2. A character creation system with limited personal backstory. Obviously I don't mean game lore here, I love worldly back-story. What I want is to have a character who I can create my own story for. Yes, in the Elder Scrolls game you start in prison, but you are never told why you are in prison. That's up to you to decide. Did you murder a wealthy politician? Were you framed for a crime you didn't commit? Then you can extrapolate on that. You can be a good Samaritan, take it in your stride and forget it ever happened. Perhaps the experience made you timid, and unable to converse properly with people. Perhaps you decide who you were framed by. Then, you can decide to take revenge if you so choose. The possibilities are endless.

 

These are my biggest problems with Witcher 2, the plot is determined, and the extent to which you can alter it is pretty much limited to who you bring into a certain dungeon, with only a few instances where you can dramatically affect the plot.

 

The other thing it does is reduce gameplay from the 300+ hours you can get from Elder Scrolls games (I've clocked over 450 in all Morrowind saves and about 200 in Oblivion) to 30.

 

Finally, and many people are probably going to disagree with me on this last point, graphics need to be completely secondary to game play. Witcher 2 is beautiful, I'll happily admit it. But in spending so much time on graphics meant that it restricted its ability to enter the hardcore genre. Considering it was only in development for a bit over 3 years (the original Witcher was released late October 2007, then consider patching and bug fixes) the developers needed to make a decision where to place their eggs. Some, obviously, were placed in the RPG basket, but a lot of them were put in the graphical basket, which while pleasing to the eye, restricted their ability to be truly free-roam.

 

Just my thoughts, feel free to disagree

 

EDIT: Bugfixes (aka smoothed out the typos XD)

Edited August 13, 2011 by LeopoldCrank

[Alcrin]

Err, that's a synopsis of TES. You're free to have your own opinions but saying a game isn't "hardcore" unless it's exactly like one very specific franchise in a sea of WRPGs is a bit restricting.

 

Besides, the open-world model of TES has its own intractable problems, problems that are easily solved within a railroaded plot. This is not to say the open-world model is inferior: It's a trade-off.

 

The main issue is connectivity. Experiences are more satisfying when we feel like what we did mattered, like it had consequences. The problem is it's very difficult to have meaningful, far-reaching causation if you let the player literally do anything. Take Oblivion for example. What happens if you sneak into someone's house at night and murder them? Aside from the potential bounty on your head and the person's absence from the game world, absolutely nothing changes. There are all kinds of ways the other NPCs could react to this to make it meaningful: That person's close friends and family could go into mourning, depression, or even commit suicide themselves. People become a lot more fearful at night, thinking they might be next. Some people might stay up all night worrying you'll come for them if they fall asleep. Their sleep deprivation and paranoia could reflect itself in the dialogue and increase as more and more murders take place, with everyone in town trying desperately to make sense of what's going on.

 

Now, it would be easy enough to implement this one set of consequences for this one particular set of actions. The problem isn't that any one of them would be too hard to do, it's that doing all of them is impossible. To have the same type of connectivity and feeling of consequence that you get in a railroaded game while still giving the player total freedom means you have to go into that much detail to handle every possible thing the player could try. What if they decide to block a passage of a major highway? What if they poison a well somewhere? What if they decide to just take the millions of gold pieces they've earned over the adventure and just give it away to a random set of townspeople? There's a practically infinite number of things you have to plan for.

 

The connectivity problem is not unsolvable but it is unpatchable: You have to either reduce freedom or reduce consequence. You cannot, easily, have both (but you can have neither, as many terrible RPGs prove). The real solution is the ability to spin engaging plots and environments dynamically: The designers just put a few interesting things to attract the player's attention and the "weaver" creates an engaging story in response to whatever the player tries, the same way a good DM in a game of D&D can quickly adapt and take an adventure in whatever direction the players decide to go in and still make things exciting. Needless to say, we are nowhere close to being able to implement such a technology. For now, the trade-off simply has to be made, and I don't think it inherently makes a game inferior or "softcore" to make one rather than the other.

[alphaomega1]

there is many game which their ART-STYLE are so amazing....its make me REGISTER to thier site downloading the game and than.....WOW THIS IS SO BAD BAD GAME I EVER SAW!

 

so trailers its nothing comparing to gameplay...

i played WITCHER2 and i have to say this is bad game, booring like hell with pathetic sex scens every 10 minuts with 60 years old fag(witcher) with 20 years old *censored*.

[LeopoldCrank]

You misunderstand me. I'm not saying it is an inferior game by any means. There is nothing to say that hardcore rpgs and normal ones are any better than one another. It's just a classification. And their are plenty of games which follow that formula, not just Elder Scrolls. Even something like Two Worlds, as terrible as it was, would be better suited to hardcore rpg.

[marharth]

What Alcrin said.

 

Would like to point out the mass effect series is pretty much a 3rd shooter without the massive choice options. It also didn't have character creation (well very limited character creation.)

 

Mass Effect is one of my favorite game series, it doesn't need all of those things to be considered a good RPG in my eyes.

[Alcrin]

You misunderstand me. I'm not saying it is an inferior game by any means. There is nothing to say that hardcore rpgs and normal ones are any better than one another. It's just a classification. And their are plenty of games which follow that formula, not just Elder Scrolls. Even something like Two Worlds, as terrible as it was, would be better suited to hardcore rpg.

 

Ah, my apologies. Where I come from, "not hardcore" means "unplayably terrible." Let's go with a different terminology then... how about an "Open" RPG (with connectivity sacrificed for choice) vs. a "Closed" RPG (with choice sacrificed for connectivity). To me that sounds more neutral and more indicative of the actual distinction.

[LeopoldCrank]

You misunderstand me. I'm not saying it is an inferior game by any means. There is nothing to say that hardcore rpgs and normal ones are any better than one another. It's just a classification. And their are plenty of games which follow that formula, not just Elder Scrolls. Even something like Two Worlds, as terrible as it was, would be better suited to hardcore rpg.

 

Ah, my apologies. Where I come from, "not hardcore" means "unplayably terrible." Let's go with a different terminology then... how about an "Open" RPG (with connectivity sacrificed for choice) vs. a "Closed" RPG (with choice sacrificed for connectivity). To me that sounds more neutral and more indicative of the actual distinction.

 

Ok, you have a deal. Sorry, that was always the classification I was used to. Living in a sheltered country town in the middle of Australia can do that to a guy :P I'll use the accepted terms from now on