Criticism, praise and hopes for Bethesda's next games after Skyrim

[RokHere]

Don't get me wrong, I think Skyrim is a great game, but when it comes to giving it a score...part of me really wants to give it just 8.5 out of 10, while another part recognizes the great effort put in the game and wants to give it 9. I think that if I were a reviewer, my decision between an 8.5 and a 9 would've been based on what the rest of the community says, and seeing as to how the game is being praised to the highest degree by almost all reviewers and most of the gaming community, I would've wanted to create some balance (and give Bethesda a reason to do better next time) and give it 8.5 instead of 9. Why? Because really, the game in my opinion is overrated, not too much and not extremely, but still overrated to a degree. Kevin Vanord from GameSpot, whom I really appreciate and trust, went as far as to say that 2011 would be remembered as the year of Skyrim! This, in my opinion, is overrated. I mean, yes, it is a great example of the "sandbox" and "freedom to roam" genre, but there is so much that could've been done better.

 

In terms of gameplay, the lack of quick switching between sets of gear, like melee to range and vice versa, the very awkward and cluttered inventory interface, the "Favorites" menu that doesn't improve things that much, the combat that could've been improved by allowing us to lock on targets and making room for some use of skill and timing by perhaps allowing advantageous use of well-timed blocks or parries, and allowing shortcuts for non-combat spells when a mage is using fire in a hand and healing on the other (non-combat spells like Candlelight so that we do not have to switch to it every 60 seconds using the awkward and time-consuming Favorites menu), and so on and on. In terms of graphics, on the other hand, the list is much bigger, and the bugs of flying NPCs are well-known, but the part that may never be improved, because it isn't even considered by anyone as a bug and because lots of fanboys are quite content as it is and try to dismiss the criticisms because they don't care about graphics and just about the gameplay or whatever it is they say, that part is about sliding and moonwalking NPCs in the game. This has been an issue in almost all Bethesda's games, but it is so glaringly obvious in Skyrim because Skyrim does raise the standard of graphics quality, and naturally, when you raise the standard and make the world look more beautiful and believable, such mistakes start to really stand out. So really, when you are awe-inspired by a lovely landscape and the realism of the mammoth in front of you, but all of a sudden you see it start to "rotate" on the grass as if it is a revolving door, or when you see a NPC wearing impressive garments and looking nice but suddenly see it "sliding" down a slope in a sort of....reverse-moonwalking or forward-moonwalking style, and when you see that every step of all NPCs has a subtle "slide" to it (pay attention next time you see an NPC walking and you'll see that when their foot touches the ground, it "slides" backwards, all moonwalking style, just enough to put you off the immersion and make you forget that this is a next-gen game with lovely visuals), when you see all this, it does affect the immersiveness, and it does make at least some of us wonder, how the heck did such issues slip by QA at Bethesda? Or was it actually addressed for the past 5 years or so, but they simply never wanted to assign a budget for the improvement of animation in the game??

 

I hear that Bethesda may be involved in a Fallout MMO. The only single turn-based RPG I ever loved and played passionately was Fallout II (and Fallout I, of course, but for argument's sake I'll consider them one and the same game). Frankly, I was not sucked into Fallout 3 that much; in fact, I never got myself to even finish Fallout 3, which was really a shame. And having played World of Warcraft for years and loved it back then while it lasted, and knowing that I love a good MMO but never found another one to suck me in after I quit WoW, I am really so very eager to play a good MMO, and Fallout would be an absolutely amazing world from which to create an MMO, and I just dread to see what Bethesda may or may not do with such a venture like a Fallout MMO.

 

Again, don't get me wrong, I admire Bethesda's efforts, and I absolutely love the way it sometimes seems like they genuinely want you to feel good when you do good in their games and fictional worlds. It's like they know that lots of people don't want to be evil even fictionally, and lots of people would like to do good and feel like a good-hearted hero, and they do give you those opportunities in all their games in lovely ways. They are also role models as far as sandbox or free-to-roam worlds go, so they can definitely develop a good MMO with such experience. However, I really, really, really want Bethesda to work on improving their animations. They get the graphical or visual appeal very well, but the animations can be much, much better. Or maybe it's simply time they just ditch their own engines, including the Creation Engine used in Skyrim, and perhaps just buy an engine like CryEngine 3 or Frostbite 2, to allow them to deeply focus on only the story, writing, design, and animation of their next games. Skyrim is a huuuge improvement in terms of writing and storytelling over Oblivion and the previous games.

 

However, quest design can still use some improvement; the free roaming concept is great, but after you explore the world for a while, some people naturally collect so many quests during this exploration, and the list afterwards can feel so huge and overwhelming, so some sort of "prioritization" system would be great. And my suggestion for such a system is to perhaps give the player two automatic ways of prioritization (and one customized way that the player can design by themselves and use over and over again): 1. Main quest line becomes priority and gets complimented by only a few other important and fun quests, for players who want to finish the game as quickly as possible, and 2. Slow but steady improvement priority system for quests, where the easiest and side quests become priority so that the character can acquire the best armor gradually and get to see the world in an an expansive way from their starting town, for players who want to go for 100% completion. And again, those would be choices; players can simply just ignore them and play their own way, but it would be good to have the system there to direct players to the quests that meet their own fun objectives best.

 

And while Skyrim is a huge improvement over Oblivion in terms of writing and storytelling, and immersive, emotional voice acting at times, there is still extra room for improvement. And with all due respect to both companies, as they both have their strengths and weaknesses, I think that Bethesda can perhaps get a tip or two from BioWare when it comes to writing and storytelling, and the design of "marriage" or the romantic options in a game. BioWare did so well in all this in Dragon Age and Mass Effect, and it would be nice to see romantic options that are up to the standard of such games, and also emotional storytelling that is up to that standard.

 

With that said, the graphics in Bethesda's and BioWare's games can use lots of improvements, and I think they both can learn from the standards set by games like Crysis 2, Battlefield 3, Dead Space, the latest Resident Evil ones. Maybe it is time they buy an engine from companies dedicated to engines, and whose strength is engines, like Crytek. Because Bethesda can give us a lot more fun, and acquire a larger fan base by perhaps focusing on what they do best...creating open worlds that are ideal for exploration, and inundating the player with countless options, and creating intricate, countless relationships between the elements of their worlds, and complimenting all this with great writing, storytelling, and emotional, immersive voice acting.

Edited January 16, 2012 by RokHere

[faifh]

I think they should finally abolish "maps". (not the map, but different computer screens). Yes it saves some RAM to have less in memory, but really 2012 it should be possible to have a single map only and no longer any loading screens. You walk into the house, and just walk into a house. No need to load a new "map". Same with dungeons. Can't they just be caves in the world map? Why again the needs for map levels? IMHO this is an artefact of historic development that finally should been said goodbye to.

 

What I would also like to see, is the game characters judging your character by your action, like Ultima 4 did, ignore a beggar, and you lose "generous" tag. (been seen at) running away from a fight, loose bravery rating. etc.

[McclaudEagle]

I think they should finally abolish "maps". (not the map, but different computer screens). Yes it saves some RAM to have less in memory, but really 2012 it should be possible to have a single map only and no longer any loading screens. You walk into the house, and just walk into a house. No need to load a new "map". Same with dungeons. Can't they just be caves in the world map? Why again the needs for map levels? IMHO this is an artefact of historic development that finally should been said goodbye to.

 

I agree, and it's clearly not impossible either since Red Dead Redemption did it very well as there were many buildings that were in the same worldspace that could be accessed by the player, and the LOD was better too, so Bethesda can't really use the 'computers can't support it' excuse. "But the engine can't support it"...get a better engine then, license the use of RAGE or something, it's not like you can't afford it.

 

Only downside of using a different engine would be on the modding side of it. I've seen the way mods are used for GTA 4 (RAGE) and it's not pretty, nor is it easy. Bethesda does have a reputation for being good to modders, so kudos to them for that.

[faifh]

Only downside of using a different engine would be on the modding side of it. I've seen the way mods are used for GTA 4 (RAGE) and it's not pretty, nor is it easy. Bethesda does have a reputation for being good to modders, so kudos to them for that.

 

Dungeon Siege 1 could do this 2002.

[NorthWolf]

I think they should finally abolish "maps". (not the map, but different computer screens). Yes it saves some RAM to have less in memory, but really 2012 it should be possible to have a single map only and no longer any loading screens. You walk into the house, and just walk into a house. No need to load a new "map". Same with dungeons. Can't they just be caves in the world map? Why again the needs for map levels? IMHO this is an artefact of historic development that finally should been said goodbye to.

 

What I would also like to see, is the game characters judging your character by your action, like Ultima 4 did, ignore a beggar, and you lose "generous" tag. (been seen at) running away from a fight, loose bravery rating. etc.

This really depends on the engine and how it handles things. It's certainly a goal of gaming to abolish loading screens altogether, but it depends on the engine and the way development is handled. It's not just a minor thing to do away with having loading screens as you make it sound. 8) It would require Bethesda be a lot more thorough with optimization and memory management, and frankly right now they are too sloppy to do this... and even then, having loading screens can be preferential to allow more content to be shoved into every map without worrying it'll be impossible to load the cell on the fly.

 

Edit: Oops, read more, found out people already said what I did! In reference to you, Eagle, I don't think it's just a matter of the engine. I just think Bethesda right now is an impressive game designer from a development standpoint but a sloppy one when it comes to actual programming. Look at things like TESVAL and SkyBoost... people wouldn't be able to get 50% performance boosts if Bethesda had managed their memory and optimized their code, but they didn't.

Edited January 16, 2012 by NorthWolf

[sajuukkhar9000]

I agree, and it's clearly not impossible either since Red Dead Redemption did it very well as there were many buildings that were in the same worldspace that could be accessed by the player, and the LOD was better too, so Bethesda can't really use the 'computers can't support it' excuse. "But the engine can't support it"...get a better engine then, license the use of RAGE or something, it's not like you can't afford it.

 

Only downside of using a different engine would be on the modding side of it. I've seen the way mods are used for GTA 4 (RAGE) and it's not pretty, nor is it easy. Bethesda does have a reputation for being good to modders, so kudos to them for that.

What you fail to realize is that a very large portion of PC gamers don't exactly have the really great computers needed to run Skyrim without smaller interior maps.

 

The problem never had to do with the engine, open cities mod in Oblivion showed it could be done, the problem always was that a very large portion of consumers cant run it well. The simple FACT of the matter is many computers can't support it, and Bethesda, as a business, has to target as many people as possible.

 

Don't like it? get a mod.

Edited January 16, 2012 by sajuukkhar9000

[faifh]

What you fail to realize is that a very large portion of PC gamers don't exactly have the really great computers needed to run Skyrim without smaller interior maps.

 

The problem never had to do with the engine, open cities mod in Oblivion showed it could be done, the problem always was that a very large portion of consumers cant run it well. The simple FACT of the matter is many computers can't support it, and Bethesda, as a business, has to target as many people as possible.

 

Don't like it? get a mod.

 

While I agree with the limitations of being able to load a cell on the fly, I disagree with your very last statement. Thats a thought-terminating cliché, especially when the argument was "what could be done better for the next game" to answer with "Don't like it? get a mod." is just a cross-purpose.

Edited January 16, 2012 by faifh

[Rimland]

for me there are 3 fundamental problems with Skyrim in the context of immersion

 

1. no Hardcore mode. magicka, potions, and now food can heal. That's nice. how about... Hardcore mode !

 

2. followers are "expendable drones." They should have had own separate quests and personalities beyond "mage" and "housecarl" and "barbarian" or "Nord" Bethesda did published New Vegas...

 

3. most importantly, factions... been helping the Stormcloaks and, no one cares. Legion don't care, and towns associated as being "legion" don't care ! zero consequences... Bethesda did published New Vegas you know !

 

3(b). armour ! like in New Vegas which faction armour you wear should have an effect

 

these 3 elements that Obsidian did so well with Fallout New Vegas are missing from Skyrim, and for me, that is just unacceptable and downright insulting to gamers... especially Bethesda gamers !!! I mean, Lord and Murphy, Bethesda freakin published New Vegas!

 

Hardcore Mode; Followers with quests, stories, and personalities, and; factions that have relationships of consequence between each other are what i would call, "elements for improving the effects of immersion in contemporary Open World RPGs" that should have been in Skyrim.

 

 

 

Decisions you make while becoming Head of Guilds should effect HOW you complete the other Guilds' quests the Civil War quest and the main quest; who will trade with you, and random events !

Edited January 16, 2012 by Rimland

[sajuukkhar9000]

2. followers are "expendable drones." They should have had own separate quests and personalities beyond "mage" and "housecarl" and "barbarian" or "Nord" Bethesda did published New Vegas...

Most followers ARE tied to quests involving them.

 

3. most importantly, factions... been helping the Stormcloaks and, no one cares. Legion don't care, and towns associated as being "legion" don't care ! zero consequences... Bethesda did published New Vegas you know !

New Vegas only had merchants yelling insults at you, Having max rep with the legion didn't bar you from shopping at NCR places and vice versa. Skyrim is no different in this regard.

 

these 3 elements that Obsidian did so well with Fallout New Vegas are missing from Skyrim, and for me, that is just unacceptable and downright insulting to gamers... especially Bethesda gamers !!! I mean, Lord and Murphy, Bethesda freakin published New Vegas!

Publishing means NOTHING. getting mad at Bethesda for this is like getting mad at EA for not making Valve quality games because they public Bioware's games.

 

Being a publisher means literally NOTHING.

Edited January 16, 2012 by sajuukkhar9000

[RokHere]

Only downside of using a different engine would be on the modding side of it. I've seen the way mods are used for GTA 4 (RAGE) and it's not pretty, nor is it easy. Bethesda does have a reputation for being good to modders, so kudos to them for that.

 

Yes, it's important to remember the good sides while we criticize; I agree with you, Mcclaud, Bethesda's games generally have always been awesome for modding, and the modding community produced lovely stuff through the years that breathed new life into Bethesda's games and gave many of us reasons to go back to them after we've long finished them at least once. And I agree with you too on the possibility of abolishing loading screens. Indeed there are several games out there that showed us that it can be done without expecting fancy rigs to run the games. After all, if a 6-years-old "next-gen" console can run such games, then why wouldn't a 3-years-old not-so-fancy PC also run such a game with some intelligent "scaling" of the quality of graphics, and so on.

 

Only downside of using a different engine would be on the modding side of it. I've seen the way mods are used for GTA 4 (RAGE) and it's not pretty, nor is it easy. Bethesda does have a reputation for being good to modders, so kudos to them for that.

 

Dungeon Siege 1 could do this 2002.

 

Can you elaborate on t hat, faifh? The thing is, I've read from lots of people before that a big consideration of the choice of game engine for any company comes from how easy and quick it is to develop and design games with that engine (which means how much money and time can be saved during the development process). I have read that while an engine like CryEngine 3 is superior to an engine like Unreal in many ways, lots of game designers and developers are more familiar with Unreal and consider it "easier" to work with. This will inevitably transcend, as is, into the modding community, making modding for games with certain engines a bit more difficult. With all that said, I'm not a techie, so some of what I "heard" could be just what it is: hearsay, and could be marketing rumors too. So perhaps game developers are just being lazy and established game-engine developers are concerned about competition, and they start these rumors about the "difficulty" of new engines while it isn't exactly difficult, but just "new", and everything new is intimidating to a big chunk of the human population. However, I'm just considering this latter possibility; the reality could be that actually some engines are indeed easier to develop for. I can't be really sure, since I'm not a techie or involved in the industry to that degree. Which is why I asked if you can elaborate on what you mentioned about modding made possible in 2002 and all.

 

 

What you fail to realize is that a very large portion of PC gamers don't exactly have the really great computers needed to run Skyrim without smaller interior maps.

 

The problem never had to do with the engine, open cities mod in Oblivion showed it could be done, the problem always was that a very large portion of consumers cant run it well. The simple FACT of the matter is many computers can't support it, and Bethesda, as a business, has to target as many people as possible.

 

Don't like it? get a mod.

 

I disagree with you there, sajuuk; I firmly believe that those are "rumors" spread by lazy developers and developers with lack of interest in creativity and innovation. And the reason I know this is that I have watched interviews and read articles that had to do with creative game-development teams in the past that has met challenges that were basically labeled "impossible" by everyone else in the game-design community, yet they persisted and knew what they could come up with solutions for them, and indeed they did in their games. There are a few games in the last few years that completely revolutionized the gaming world and raised the standards so high for everyone else, and those games are what makes us think not twice but then times about our previous assumptions of what can and cannot be done to accommodate all rigs, from the humble to the fancy. For example, Battlefield 3 looks awe-inspiring, absolutely amazing, and you do not need to have the most expensive computer to run it on its lowest settings; and if you have a fancy computer, then it would really be an almost cinematic experience at its highest settings. Do you think that EA Dice did not give much attention to the game's marketability, especially when faced with the fierce competition of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3? Of course they did. And I know countless players from developing countries, with cheap computers that no matter how poor you were in Europe or the US, you would still own a better PC than them, and they run Battlefield 3 just fine. It may not look cinematic for them, but the point is that they can run this awesome looking game. We really do have lots of points of reference to prove that this whole thing about "not everyone owns a high-end PC" is just an excuse and a rumor propagated by lazy developers. The truth is that a game can be developed with such excellent scalability that it can be run on a cheap PC or a high-end one, and the only difference would be the aesthetic quality of the game, not performance or gameplay.