Feelings of Disappointment

[headbomb]

There are some things that disappoint me on the technical level with Skyrim, but animations and voice acting certainly isn't one of them [so far].

 

Animation has always been one of Bethesda's weaker point, and Skyrim certainly is one hell of an improvement over Fallout / Oblivion / Morrowind. Are the animations perfect? Some are a bit off (like finisher moves), but they are certainly nothing I'd call bad, and they do compare very nicely with AAA titles such as Mass Effect, Deus Ex, The Witcher 2, ... , and they certainly beat those of GTA IV, etc... even if they might fall a bit short of Uncharted 3 or Battlefield 3, as those games are strongly dependent on presentation [which means mocap for nearly everything, and there's a lot less things to mocap since those games have much smaller scopes]. The only real thing that could significantly be improved in terms of animation are the bad rag doll physics, which are still kinda crappy [damn you consoles / Bethesda's reuse of old physics code].

 

As for voice acting, you're dealing with a game the size of Skyrim, voiced by 70 people. From all the videos I've seen so far (which is pretty much everything except leaked intro footage), I have nothing but praise to give there. Only thing that could put a small dent in my giddiness is if they didn't get the Dark Elf guy ("I'm watching you... scum." / "Move along outlander...") from Morrowind to spew his xenophobic hate at us.

Edited October 31, 2011 by headbomb

[Xochen]

Directed to the OP.

 

I think the reason you feel a bit disappointed is BECAUSE (as you said yourself) you are this huge fan, and by expecting even more out of TES by looking at all the other genres of game for the past years, you've maybe been accustomed to some degree of "polish" or perfectness. Whereas other people look at skyrim ( mainly myself ) and take it out of context of what it really is.

 

The game will never be perfect, the animations will always be a problem for beth, they said it themselves, ai, animation, and environment will always be their biggest cookie to chip off and make right. But what i do KNOW, is that despite its flaws ( which every game has by the way ) Skyrim will be a game that will blow fans away with its story and freedom. I just think you might have put it on too high of a pedestal, and it now has all the more reason to hit the floor with your expectations.

[PSQGL]

Directed to the OP.

 

I think the reason you feel a bit disappointed is BECAUSE (as you said yourself) you are this huge fan, and by expecting even more out of TES by looking at all the other genres of game for the past years, you've maybe been accustomed to some degree of "polish" or perfectness. Whereas other people look at skyrim ( mainly myself ) and take it out of context of what it really is.

 

The game will never be perfect, the animations will always be a problem for beth, they said it themselves, ai, animation, and environment will always be their biggest cookie to chip off and make right. But what i do KNOW, is that despite its flaws ( which every game has by the way ) Skyrim will be a game that will blow fans away with its story and freedom. I just think you might have put it on too high of a pedestal, and it now has all the more reason to hit the floor with your expectations.

 

Duly quoted in its entirety.

The big problem with games like these is the hype.

Take Fable for a shining example: all three chapters.

I played them, and though they were, all in all, good games, all the fuss made by Molyneux didn't compare with the ACTUAL finished product.

Especially Fable III.

[johnangel]

Me too.

I feel I deserve way better from a series I actively supported with my money, time and mouth to mouth advertisement.

[Zeppilus]

I agree with the OP and others to some extent, particularly about hype and expectations being to great. However, I will add my two cents. Firstly, a disclaimer: I am an avid TES fan and PC user, and don't mean to incite unrest.

 

I am sick and tired of hearing people say "at least we'll have mods" when they struggle to find the benefits of the PC version. It is undoubtedly true, and as an unashamed PC supremacist (I need to be able justify an expensive PC!), I like to convince myself that mods and the feeling of satisfaction from seeing my expensive PC in action is worth it. However, when I think about it, it is a bit ridiculous, for several reasons.

 

Firstly: I congratulate and adore Bethesda for its great construction set and mod support. Best of any series ever (big claim, have no idea if it is true: guessing it is, judging on size and activity of Nexus). BUT, saying that if the game has flaws they will all be fixed and the game will be generally improved by mods is silly. I don't think it is unreasonable to expect that the developer fix the flaws itself (I realise that they release patches, but much is still left to the mod community), and make the game with PCs in mind in the first place. For example, you wouldn't allow a car manufacturer to sell flawed cars then expect you or others to fix them and improve it yourself, would you?

 

Secondly: I loved mods in Oblivion. I had well over 100, and it was a real strain on my then-rig. Playable, at maximum settings, but a strain. However, it was not a strain because Bethesda made Oblivion to be a real test of PCs, but because I had so many mods and texture packs etc. I would have liked to see Skyrim made to honestly push systems, rather than focusing on maximising who can play it. The Witcher 2 was a vast game, highly polished (with very good update support), and it was an honest strain on my PC's graphics and processing power. It shows that it wouldn't be impossible for Bethesda to make, originally, Skyrim as a graphics intensive game. I realise that mods can do great things (even so, the texture packs don't come out quickly), but is it too much to expect that the developer make the game use some of the technology of its time?

 

I have no doubt that Skyrim will be great to play. I actually hate myself for being disappointed about it before it is even released. I just wished that they spent a little longer, or re-prioritised, to enable DX11 and really take advantage of what PCs can offer. If people say that they have really optimised the game for the (dated) power of consoles, then that means they haven't done a thing to optimise the graphics for PCs. I fully intend to play Skyrim for at least 3 years - I have played Oblivion since release, for between 200-600 hours. If the graphics aren't up to 2011-12 standards, what will it be like in 2013-14?

 

To conclude: 1) more should be expected of the dev 2) modders should be augmenting and improving the game, rather than fixing it or bringing it up to what it should have been originally 3) it would be great if they spent more time making Skyrim take advantage of PC tech. Can anyone really argue with that logic? It is no less true just because Skyrim will be a fun game. Gameplay and graphics are not mutually exclusive. Or am I completely mistaken?

 

PS. Does anyone know if Skyrim will launch with DX10/11, or whether they will release a patch that enables it in the future? Or will we leave it to the modders to do what Bethesda should do?

[babis8142]

All I have to say is that the freedom Bethesda games provide can only be compared to the freedom Rockstar games provide (like gta) and those aren't even rpg. So take it or leave it! For me it's a good tradeoff. Bethesda has spoiled me and now I play games like DA2 and I feel like it hasn't lasted long enough and that it's very linear lol.

Damn you Bethesda!!

Edited October 31, 2011 by babis8142

[Sprouts]

Don't like what you see? Don't buy it and don't play it. Simple.

[Ghogiel]

the animations aren't bad.

 

As I know a little something on this subject, are actually well done for the most part, though I do have a several very specific things to critique.

Rightfully BGS has been criticised for their kinda crappy animations in the past. Partially do to the animations and partially due to tech they used. In Skyrim every animation set for just about everything is actually more realistic and detailed. Has better blends and more complex scripted state machine, and a lot more realistic world interaction. basically they pulled their finger out. It's not without a corner cut here or there. Foot sliding has been dramatically reduced because of the HBT they used for the engine, but still occurs on occasion for a couple reasons. But in real time play it's hardly there compared to before. When I played the demo I found it noticably improved interaction, but did agree with reviewers who commented that combat feel quite similar to Ob... but it's much less clunky and has a bit more juice to it imo. you'll see what I mean.

 

Now there is a lot of instances of actors attaching and detaching objects and using them in the world, something that had limited use in previous games, like brooms and eating utensils, now there it's much more extensive use, all the jobs and tons of random events . It's a big plus to the animation engine they are using, it stream lines the process of adding this kind of animation.

 

The dragons animation state machine is probably going to be the THE benchmark for modders to be looking at, I never saw one as the were removed from the demo, but the footage... all the blends, transition anims, scripting in the state machine, How it can attach and detach actors and throw and drop them... it all very well done and smooth for a real time AI controlled creature. Honestly guys, it's seriously cool stuff.

 

It's just better.

 

The character models, another subject I might know a little something about, are one of my favourite improvements. The art design especially on the races, after seeing it in action ALL the races look good. The cringe factor from oblivion is no more. It's all round the best effort the studio has made. Their level design was already quite good at the time of OB, but F3 owned it, and now, I dare say it's even better.

 

tl;dr there are some gripes to be had with the animations and character models. But on the whole it's so much better than any of their previous titles, and it is not a subtle change, it's a very large improvement.

[Zinro]

I agree with the OP and others to some extent, particularly about hype and expectations being to great. However, I will add my two cents. Firstly, a disclaimer: I am an avid TES fan and PC user, and don't mean to incite unrest.

 

I am sick and tired of hearing people say "at least we'll have mods" when they struggle to find the benefits of the PC version. It is undoubtedly true, and as an unashamed PC supremacist (I need to be able justify an expensive PC!), I like to convince myself that mods and the feeling of satisfaction from seeing my expensive PC in action is worth it. However, when I think about it, it is a bit ridiculous, for several reasons.

 

Firstly: I congratulate and adore Bethesda for its great construction set and mod support. Best of any series ever (big claim, have no idea if it is true: guessing it is, judging on size and activity of Nexus). BUT, saying that if the game has flaws they will all be fixed and the game will be generally improved by mods is silly. I don't think it is unreasonable to expect that the developer fix the flaws itself (I realise that they release patches, but much is still left to the mod community), and make the game with PCs in mind in the first place. For example, you wouldn't allow a car manufacturer to sell flawed cars then expect you or others to fix them and improve it yourself, would you?

 

Secondly: I loved mods in Oblivion. I had well over 100, and it was a real strain on my then-rig. Playable, at maximum settings, but a strain. However, it was not a strain because Bethesda made Oblivion to be a real test of PCs, but because I had so many mods and texture packs etc. I would have liked to see Skyrim made to honestly push systems, rather than focusing on maximising who can play it. The Witcher 2 was a vast game, highly polished (with very good update support), and it was an honest strain on my PC's graphics and processing power. It shows that it wouldn't be impossible for Bethesda to make, originally, Skyrim as a graphics intensive game. I realise that mods can do great things (even so, the texture packs don't come out quickly), but is it too much to expect that the developer make the game use some of the technology of its time?

 

I have no doubt that Skyrim will be great to play. I actually hate myself for being disappointed about it before it is even released. I just wished that they spent a little longer, or re-prioritised, to enable DX11 and really take advantage of what PCs can offer. If people say that they have really optimised the game for the (dated) power of consoles, then that means they haven't done a thing to optimise the graphics for PCs. I fully intend to play Skyrim for at least 3 years - I have played Oblivion since release, for between 200-600 hours. If the graphics aren't up to 2011-12 standards, what will it be like in 2013-14?

 

To conclude: 1) more should be expected of the dev 2) modders should be augmenting and improving the game, rather than fixing it or bringing it up to what it should have been originally 3) it would be great if they spent more time making Skyrim take advantage of PC tech. Can anyone really argue with that logic? It is no less true just because Skyrim will be a fun game. Gameplay and graphics are not mutually exclusive. Or am I completely mistaken?

 

PS. Does anyone know if Skyrim will launch with DX10/11, or whether they will release a patch that enables it in the future? Or will we leave it to the modders to do what Bethesda should do?

The problem is that you believe Skyrim to be a PC game, when it is actually a console game, first and foremost. I'm a PC gamer myself but according to your analogy, it would be more like buying a Fiat 500 and expect it to be a Ferrari. You can certainly tune it and mod it but it still won't be a Ferrari. While I agree that a proper PC version would be much appreciated, the fact is that the company has chosen the home console market as its primary concern, not the PC market. That said, it's true that the PC version could have better support, but it's really going back to their decision of having the home console market as their primary concern. Why waste lots of extra resources on a tertiery market, especially a group that seems to fix the stuff for you?

 

Also, it is not really Bethesda's job to make you happy about the sum of money you've spent on your computer. I've got a decent rig myself but I certainly didn't buy it just because I wanted to run Skyrim on ultra. If you want to use your computer to the best of its abilities, invest in games that specifically do so, like Crysis :P

[ajrunke]

Hey OP, if it's any solace, I agree with you. The fast cuts for most of the released video have been far too fast to accurately analyze it. Even in the 20 minute demo gaemplay, they cut away and didn't show much combat. I watched the intro. The walking animations were actually terrible. Now, I hope this isn't the final build, though it may very well be....A couple of the characters actually hovered above the ground and swiveled to make a turn while walking. The looked jerky and robotic. The graphics in some aspects look good, but even in the average quality video, you can easily note some of the compressed/blurry textures. Don't use the argument that it's compressed video. You can tell. Some textures look high quality while other ground textures looked like a blurry, pea soup like mess.

 

The combat looks identical to Oblivion with the exception of finishing moves. It's slow and clunky and the enemies DO NOT react at all the being slashed in the face/throat with a sword......