PC Players Letdown?

[imperistan]

The thing about PC players is that we do kind of deserve more than consoles. Our gaming device is vastly more powerful (and for that matter expensive) than any of the consoles so it does become tiring to see virtually every game designed to run on hardware from 2006, and even more tiring when the ports aren't even done well enough.

 

Honestly, if the 360 was the most powerful gaming platform and it was getting shafted in terms of games designed to take full advantage of it then you'd all be crying "LAWL 360 ELITISTS!". So to sit there and insult PC players (when you'd be doing the same to any other platforms players if they were in the PC's position) is rather silly.

 

You guys should be happy that you get the CK, the console to fix errors, HD texture packs and DLC's that nobody gets, but you're not. Nobody's ever happy.

 

A lot of times its absolutely wonderful to have a game you don't have to mod even though you can. Because then when you mod your game gets far better because you're spending more time on adding new content rather than fixing issues in the game or redoing the console design of the game.

 

And thats the point. PC players aren't happy because we have to pick up Beth's slack in the PC version's design. If Beth designed the game for the PC, then the only people who would still be complaining would be the real trolls on the PC side.

 

Even 150 hours of play is definitely worth $60.

 

Except for a Beth game, 150 hours is only worth about a dollar. Beth games have been able to last up to 2000 hours + just with vanilla. 3000 with mods.

 

That I personally got bored enough with Skyrim to abandon playing it completely after only 150 hours is terrible when I went 2000 hours in Oblivion before I was able to put it down for more than a day is just terrible.

Edited June 18, 2012 by imperistan

[Stemin]

The thing about PC players is that we do kind of deserve more than consoles. Our gaming device is vastly more powerful (and for that matter expensive) than any of the consoles so it does become tiring to see virtually every game designed to run on hardware from 2006, and even more tiring when the ports aren't even done well enough.

 

You don't "deserve" anything, and that's exactly the sense of entitlement I was talking about. You should be grateful we can have games like this.

 

Bethesda is just doing what any software developer would do in their shoes and they've made their arguments pretty public even if corporate tried to put the hush on it later. Developing for PC is becoming a PITA because of all the different configurations. That wastes the company money trying to figure it out. The XBox is made from PC parts (easy to program for) and they're all the same, meaning they only have to figure out ONE configuration.

 

On top of that, only 14% of their launch sales were PC purchases. The XBox has a WAY bigger market.

 

Honestly, if the 360 was the most powerful gaming platform and it was getting shafted in terms of games designed to take full advantage of it then you'd all be crying "LAWL 360 ELITISTS!". So to sit there and insult PC players (when you'd be doing the same to any other platforms players if they were in the PC's position) is rather silly.

 

I'm not insulting anyone. I'm putting things into perspective. When someone sells you a camaro for the price of a cobalt, you don't complain because it's not a corvette. If anyone else was putting out games like this, you wouldn't be here.

 

And I happen to play Skyrim on the PC too. I cut my teeth on the PS3 version first. I happen to think WASD and mods are overrated.

 

A lot of times its absolutely wonderful to have a game you don't have to mod even though you can. Because then when you mod your game gets far better because you're spending more time on adding new content rather than fixing issues in the game or redoing the console design of the game.

 

And this goes back to holding everything to YOUR standard. Loads of console players are LOVING this game with zero mods whatsoever, while the PC crowd changes the game with their mods and has Bethesda hate threads every other day.

 

I wouldn't want to bother with the PC development either if I knew they were just going to mod out whatever I did anyways.

 

And thats the point. PC players aren't happy because we have to pick up Beth's slack in the PC version's design. If Beth designed the game for the PC, then the only people who would still be complaining would be the real trolls on the PC side.

 

No, you CHOOSE to change things to suit what you think you should have. I doubt any two random people here are using the exact same mods. Everyone wants something different and that's the point of mods.

 

Except for a Beth game, 150 hours is only worth about a dollar. Beth games have been able to last up to 2000 hours + just with vanilla. 3000 with mods.

 

That I personally got bored enough with Skyrim to abandon playing it completely after only 150 hours is terrible when I went 2000 hours in Oblivion before I was able to put it down for more than a day is just terrible.

 

In other words, because Skyrim doesn't live up to Oblivion in your mind, it's crap. You can't do crap in Skyrim in 150 hours. I'm not exactly certain what makes you think Oblivion was better. 8 voice actors, about 3 dungeon designs, a crap leveling system and the whole world seems to be about 50% one big green field, and 50% a field with some trees.

 

And so what's your real beef with Skyrim? The game mechanics didn't change enough? TES was never about the combat. The graphics aren't good enough? That's pretty subjective. I think some of the landscapes are amazing. EVERY dungeon is a different design. EVERY hold has a different vegetation. And you're no longer limited by a class system. You can do whatever you want. Which I've said before is FAR more realistic.

 

So what does that leave? The story? I couldn't get hooked on Oblivion so I can't really comment on that, but in my experience, the quests are just a part of Skyrim. I watched you take part in 3 or 4 huge discussions on the Stormcloaks vs. Imperials, so I don't buy you not being hooked on the story either.

 

So what are we back to? Complaining about the UI? Not enough new features? Just what IS your problem? Because from I'm sitting, this is still an amazing game, and maybe if you hadn't played Oblivion or Morrowind, you could see things with some perspective.

Edited June 18, 2012 by Stemin

[imperistan]

You don't "deserve" anything, and that's exactly the sense of entitlement I was talking about. You should be grateful we can have games like this.

 

No. Beth should be grateful anyone bought the game at all. Companies are the mercy of their customers, not the other way around.

 

And need I mention that its PC players that made Skyrim possible?

 

I'm not insulting anyone. I'm putting things into perspective.

 

No, you're insulting PC players for having legitimate issues and concerns when you call them elitists.

 

And this goes back to holding everything to YOUR standard. Loads of console players are LOVING this game with zero mods whatsoever

 

Loads of console players are also enjoying Call of Duty 8, so that says something about the loads of players enjoying the game.

 

And if Skyrim was designed for the PC, there wouldn't be a need for mods either. Vanilla could be enjoyed rather easily. But Skyrim wasn't designed for the PC, it was designed for consoles. That also helps tremendously in the console versions being more enjoyable than the PC.

 

I wouldn't want to bother with the PC development either if I knew they were just going to mod out whatever I did anyways.

 

Apparently Beth hates modders and had to have a cigar put to its arm for them just to release the CK. :rolleyes:

 

No, you CHOOSE to change things to suit what you think you should have. I doubt any two random people here are using the exact same mods. Everyone wants something different and that's the point of mods.

 

Apparently there isn't a near universal agreement that the vanilla UI is terrible. SkyUI is just some insignificant mod on the Nexus that no one knows or cares about. There obviously aren't countless mods that push the difficulty of the game. No one in this entire community bothers with graphics mods at all.

 

In other words, because Skyrim doesn't live up to Oblivion in your mind, it's crap

 

Apparently, sequels don't have to live up to their predecessors, and are completely free to be complete crap even if its predecessor was totally better in nearly every way. Apparently. OH WAIT! It has shiny new graphics and combat has better animations! It must be better in EVERY way now! :rolleyes:

 

The game mechanics didn't change enough?

 

No they changed a lot, but not in a positive way. Much was actually cut.

 

TES was never about the combat.

 

Combat is one of the two things that has gotten progressively and consistently better. Graphics is the other.

 

EVERY dungeon is a different design.

 

That may be, but only having 3 sets of dungeon parts negates much of the uniqueness of every dungeon.

 

EVERY hold has a different vegetation.

 

This has been the same since Morrowind.

 

And you're no longer limited by a class system. You can do whatever you want. Which I've said before is FAR more realistic.

 

You were never limited by the class system. You were approaching the games the wrong way if you thought so. (and before you mention Oblivion's biggest issue, that was only in Oblivion. Level Scaling was terrible and everyone knows and agrees about it)

 

Realistic? Lol. Try being an astronaut, an architect, a cowboy, a prized Boxing champion, a nuclear scientist, and the President all in the same lifetime. Sorry to break it to you but in reality you are limited to the skillset you set for yourself during your lifetime. You can break away but you'll never end up being the guy that quits his soul-sucking IT job and becomes a rockstar. You'll just be the guy who quits and goes into poverty while he experiments with a guitar he got in a pawnshop after dumping his car. May be you'll be lucky enough to have your new skillset not land you in poverty but you still won't be going from a cubicle to being a worldwide celebrity. Thats not how reality works.

 

And this translated perfectly into the games. You had a class, and you could break away from it. But you could only go so far with that break away and unless you played it just right so that your original skillset could support your new one, you usually hit a brick wall. And that was balanced.

 

And yes, it wasn't perfect even then, but it wasn't that far from it, and cutting it entirely certainly wasn't the answer. I can go find the topic I made explaining how the old system could have been perfected.

 

I watched you take part in 3 or 4 huge discussions on the Stormcloaks vs. Imperials, so I don't buy you not being hooked on the story either.

 

Lore and in-game story are two different things. The game painted a decent backdrop in lore, but the actual in-game story wasn't even remotely special.

 

And besides that, my main beefs with the quests in Skyrim are that there aren't enough of them that aren't just radiant.

 

and maybe if you hadn't played Oblivion or Morrowind, you could see things with some perspective.

 

So to be in the right here, we as PC players have to completely ignore 4 of the most awesome games of all time just because they happen to put the last in the same series in a very bad light. We have to go against all sense of logic and completely ignore 4 games in a series, even though everyone else in every other art medium will look at a 5th in a series from the perspective of how the previous four were.

 

What you're saying, in a nutshell, is that we should ignore the Godfather and the Godfather Part 2 so that we don't see anything bad with Part 3.

 

 

Okay, lets ignore TES 1-4.

 

Skyrim's combat is dull, boring, and un-involved. Its literally just Push X to Watch Cutscene from Random, Disorienting Angle. It literally feels like your just slashing at paper cutouts.

 

The graphics are junk. Mountains look great and the scenes are alright, but draw distance and various other aspects are completely lacking and still hung up back in 2006. The water is a complete and absolute joke, and the lighting system combined with the default FOV completely ruins the depth of the game, making the game feel like everything is pushed right up to the screen. Textures are very inconsistent and oftentimes the quality ranges from completely awesome to completely crap.

 

The quests are dull in general, and the vast majority are extremely unimaginative, with nearly 100% of them just being different paintjobs on the basic "Go Loot a Dungeon" setup. The questlines are short, and punt you into the important bits without any regard to building up your credibility as a character. You're the leader of a secluded College of Mages within 4 quests where nothing particularly important happens that could legitimately punt someone into such a position, and its the same with all the other guilds. The Dark Brotherhood is the only guild where you do something that could make you worthy of leadership, but you're told that you're magically destined to be the leader well before that anyway.

 

The Main Quest has some decent set pieces but thats all it has going for it. It isn't compelling at all and you feel literally no desire to bother with it. My entire drive to even do the Main Quest now is just to visit Sovngaarde again without using hte console.

 

The Character Development system is a complete joke and may as well not even be there. Half the stats don't matter, and the perk system is largely redundant as most of it's functionality could be handled by skills, or indeed vice versa. There is little to no roleplaying involved in character development (in a game that calls itself an RPG no less) and most characters end up just being different paint jobs. Unless you limit yourself, you'll end up with a skillset that ignores all of the useless perks/skills and just leaves you with the ones that actually matter. And even if you limit yourself, your character is still no different than any other that limits themselves in the same way.

 

There. Thats Skyrim with complete disregard for its predecessors.

[Stemin]

No. Beth should be grateful anyone bought the game at all. Companies are the mercy of their customers, not the other way around.

 

No, that's not how it works. See, because they estimate only 14% of sales went to PC players. Which means the consoles are the ones with Bethesda's attention.

 

And need I mention that its PC players that made Skyrim possible?

 

You know.. if I'm not mistaken, Mario Bros. debuted on the Atari 5200, but that didn't stop Atari from failing right out of the console business.

 

Things don't stay the same or they stagnate. They're constantly evolving.

 

No, you're insulting PC players for having legitimate issues and concerns when you call them elitists.

 

No, what's insulting is when someone tries to tell you what you mean. I know what I mean. If you had some mystic power to see my thoughts then this conversation would be pointless. I'm not sure it's not pointless anyways based on your (unsurprising) attitude.

 

If you don't know what I mean by PC elitists, then my advice to you is to clarify or just don't say anything at all. I did not in any way, shape, or form, insult anyone, let alone PC players as a group.

 

Loads of console players are also enjoying Call of Duty 8, so that says something about the loads of players enjoying the game.

 

And of course because in your opinion it's not a good game, that automatically means it sucks and those people are stupid, right? Whatever.

 

And if Skyrim was designed for the PC, there wouldn't be a need for mods either. Vanilla could be enjoyed rather easily. But Skyrim wasn't designed for the PC, it was designed for consoles. That also helps tremendously in the console versions being more enjoyable than the PC.

 

No, it doesn't. But hey, I'm sure you bought Skyrim and played it on the console too, so you would know right? Doubt it. No, the real facts are the content is pretty much the same... Oh, except like I said.. PC got the console commands, which means they can fix whatever bugs come up, whereas console players are stuck waiting for Bethesda to patch the game. Oh... and the free DLC's for Pc.... Oh... and the mods.. And ck. Wait, who had the advantage again?

 

Apparently there isn't a near universal agreement that the vanilla UI is terrible among PC players who don't play with a gamepad.

 

Fixed it for you.

 

Apparently, sequels don't have to live up to their predecessors, and are completely free to be complete crap even if its predecessor was totally better in nearly every way. Apparently. OH WAIT! It has shiny new graphics and combat has better animations! It must be better in EVERY way now! :rolleyes:

 

So if Oblivion had followed Skyrim instead of the other way around you'd be perfectly happy right? Somehow I doubt it.

 

In case you hadn't noticed, the game isn't titled Oblivion II, or Morrowind III. For someone who claims they've been playing since the beginning, you sure like to avoid the fact that EVERY incarnation of TES has changed since the games started coming out.

 

If you want more Oblivion, or more Morrowind, there's mods that'll let you do that. Bethesda never set out to do that. They built something that was familiar, but different, just as they always have.

 

You were never limited by the class system. You were approaching the games the wrong way if you thought so. (and before you mention Oblivion's biggest issue, that was only in Oblivion. Level Scaling was terrible and everyone knows and agrees about it)

 

I like how you first tell me how I'm supposed to "approach" the game, after spending 10 paragraphs telling me you shouldn't have to "approach" skyrim a certain way, and then follow it up by telling me what everyone knows and agrees on as if you were the official spoke person for "everyone".

 

Realistic? Lol. Try being an astronaut, an architect, a cowboy, a prized Boxing champion, a nuclear scientist, and the President all in the same lifetime. Sorry to break it to you but in reality you are limited to the skillset you set for yourself during your lifetime. You can break away but you'll never end up being the guy that quits his soul-sucking IT job and becomes a rockstar. You'll just be the guy who quits and goes into poverty while he experiments with a guitar he got in a pawnshop after dumping his car. May be you'll be lucky enough to have your new skillset not land you in poverty but you still won't be going from a cubicle to being a worldwide celebrity. Thats not how reality works.

 

See, this is why I don't bother to respond in the stormcloak threads because you guys only bother to see what you want to see. Of course I did notice that you tend to get condescending and rude when you think you have a point and it's nice to see you're at least consistent here.

 

It's perfectly realistic. Yeah. You can try to be an astronaut, an architect, run for president. What's probably going to happen is you're probably never gonna get a chance to go up in space. You might never actually get hired by an architectural firm, even if you learn the skills. But you might make a pretty darn good president with that kind of background instead of these self-entitled spoiled preppy types that don't have a clue how real people live.

 

Just like in Skyrim, because if you put everything into the destructive tree and then decide you want to be a warrior, then you're out the 17 perks you used in the destruction tree. Which means maybe you're not as good a warrior as you could have been because now you don't have enough perks to put into smithing, or one handed or something.

 

Another way it's realistic is in real life, you're not railroaded into one position. If I don't like my job, I can quit today and go try something else later. In fact many people start their careers by trying something and if they don't like it they move on. How many college students switch majors?

 

So to be in the right here, we as PC players have to completely ignore 4 of the most awesome games of all time just because they happen to put the last in the same series in a very bad light. We have to go against all sense of logic and completely ignore 4 games in a series, even though everyone else in every other art medium will look at a 5th in a series from the perspective of how the previous four were.

 

What you're saying, in a nutshell, is that we should ignore the Godfather and the Godfather Part 2 so that we don't see anything bad with Part 3.

 

Which is where your logic is completely flawed, because you keep thinking of these games as direct sequels, which they clearly are not. As a matter of fact they deliberately put hundreds of years between each story to prevent too many conflicts.

 

I'm just gonna snip the rest of your rant and go play some Skyrim, because I'm enjoying the hell out of it.

Edited June 18, 2012 by Stemin

[Stenkil]

I'm sure this has been said before, but as a PC player, I think the console people got the short end of the stick. PC Skyrim was, as expected, a delight once I got all the mods I wanted in place. That said, PC players have to wait for (or rely on) mods to deliver a superior experience, but modders love doing the work and it has definitely been worth the wait. I can immerse myself in Skyrim these days to a far greater degree than I could with vanilla.

 

I do agree that the game is riddled with your standard port bugs and chunkiness, but it's a small price to pay for what is probably the most expansive and impressive free-roaming game I have played to date. The console vs PC debate is a lame, tired, worn out one that has been done to death. It is what it is.

 

Either play it or move along imo - much ado about nothing. :mellow:

Edited June 18, 2012 by Stenkil

[imperistan]

No, that's not how it works. See, because they estimate only 14% of sales went to PC players. Which means the consoles are the ones with Bethesda's attention.

 

Irrelevant to what I said.

 

You know.. if I'm not mistaken, Mario Bros. debuted on the Atari 5200, but that didn't stop Atari from failing right out of the console business.

 

Mario Bros was ported to the 5200, and at the time Mario wasn't even remotely as popular as it was destined to be just yet. So it wasn't going to help Atari any.

 

Things don't stay the same or they stagnate. They're constantly evolving.

 

Evolving is just a buzzword for people who don't want to admit that things are being pushed out purely because of money, and not because of any actual superiority or inferiority basis.

 

There was a time when the gaming industry actually was evolving. And that stopped right around 2006.

 

If you don't know what I mean by PC elitists, then my advice to you is to clarify or just don't say anything at all. I did not in any way, shape, or form, insult anyone, let alone PC players as a group.

 

Calling anyone an elitist is an insult. Period.

 

And of course because in your opinion it's not a good game, that automatically means it sucks and those people are stupid, right? Whatever.

 

Way to skirt around the bush. Fact of the matter is all of the COD games since 5 have just been expansions for COD4, and all have been total crap. Anyone who has any tastes in games or isn't a casual (which isn't a bad thing, but it also generally means they wont' care one way or the other) will realize that.

 

Unless you accept that fact and still for some reason will shell out the 60 bucks to get an expansion pack.

 

No, it doesn't. But hey, I'm sure you bought Skyrim and played it on the console too, so you would know right? Doubt it.

 

I do know actually, because I usually end up playing Skyrim on the 360 a lot whenever I hang out with friends. And I can usually sit and play the console version for a couple hours. But if I boot up vanilla Skyrim on the PC, it isn't 5 minutes before I'm itching for mods and/or booting up the console.

 

Anyone who isn't completely anal about not accepting it will realize that there are substantial differences between the 360 Skyrim and the PC port that do make a difference on how enjoyable it is.

 

And no one likes feeling like a beta tester unless, you know, we're in an actual beta.

 

Free DLCs? Lawl

 

And you shouldn't have to mod a game to have it be enjoyable.

 

Fixed it for you.

 

OF COURSE! The solution, obviously, is to completely give up the objective superiority of the mouse and keyboard just because Beth was too lazy to create a PC centric UI for its PC port. Its so obvious to me now!

 

So if Oblivion had followed Skyrim instead of the other way around you'd be perfectly happy right? Somehow I doubt it.

 

Yes, if the strides Skyrim makes forward were retained and Oblivion didn't make any strides backwards (which it wouldn't have in this hypothetical). And thats the general issue. Every game makes some significant leaps forward, but then takes that many leaps and then some backwards. Morrowind was the only game that had the leaps forward be more than the ones taken backwards. And it was Morrowind that should have served as a base for future games, with nothing from it cut. Morrowind was a perfect blend between games like Arena and Daggerfall and games like Skyrim and Oblivion. Take that game as a base (and no, I don't mean the gameworld or the story. I just mean the actual game part of it) and add on to it, fixing things as you go, and returning, if only bit by bit, the things that made Arena and Daggerfall great while also adding what made Skyrim and Oblivion great and you'll have a near perfect Beth-style RPG.

 

But what we got instead was just a progressive downgrade of the series into an action-adventure.

 

And I'm not going to even entertain the utter stupidity that is the "Morrowind 2.0" style of arguments. I'll get banned with my responses to that idiocy.

 

I like how you first tell me how I'm supposed to "approach" the game, after spending 10 paragraphs telling me you shouldn't have to "approach" skyrim a certain way,

 

Nice exaggeration and total strawman there.

 

and then follow it up by telling me what everyone knows and agrees on as if you were the official spoke person for "everyone".

 

Did you like level scaling in Oblivion? No? Didn't think so.

 

Don't pull that card when you know damn well that no one liked level scaling in Oblivion.

 

It's perfectly realistic. Yeah. You can try to be an astronaut, an architect, run for president. What's probably going to happen is you're probably never gonna get a chance to go up in space. You might never actually get hired by an architectural firm, even if you learn the skills. But you might make a pretty darn good president with that kind of background instead of these self-entitled spoiled preppy types that don't have a clue how real people live.

 

You clearly don't know how Presidential elections work, nor what it takes the become an astronaut (or for that matter President).

 

I put those two together because they both require a virtual life-time of commitment and very distinct skillsets. You literally do not have the time in your life to successfully do both, all the while doing something else like architecture or boxing, nor the time to acquire and be able to put to use the skillsets needed.

 

Just like in Skyrim, because if you put everything into the destructive tree and then decide you want to be a warrior, then you're out the 17 perks you used in the destruction tree. Which means maybe you're not as good a warrior as you could have been because now you don't have enough perks to put into smithing, or one handed or something.

 

And its a crappy, limiting system because of it.

 

Another way it's realistic is in real life, you're not railroaded into one position. If I don't like my job, I can quit today and go try something else later. In fact many people start their careers by trying something and if they don't like it they move on. How many college students switch majors?

 

And you were never railroaded into one position in the games. Ever. Except for in Skyrim, where not sticking to something can truly screw you.

 

And out of all those people that quit for something better? I can tell you that in my experience 75% of them at least end up at a dead end, screwed out of a home and a job because they got bored and didn't actually have a way out. If you can actually quit and get something new going, that will actually support you, then kudos. But not everyone has this ability.

 

Which is where your logic is completely flawed, because you keep thinking of these games as direct sequels, which they clearly are not. As a matter of fact they deliberately put hundreds of years between each story to prevent too many conflicts.

 

They are direct sequels. Hundreds of years between in-game stories don't matter.

[InuyashaFE]

I like how this is a Skyrim dedicated site and 99% of the people don't even like Skyrim.

[Stemin]

No, that's not how it works. See, because they estimate only 14% of sales went to PC players. Which means the consoles are the ones with Bethesda's attention.

 

Irrelevant to what I said.

 

You know.. if I'm not mistaken, Mario Bros. debuted on the Atari 5200, but that didn't stop Atari from failing right out of the console business.

 

Mario Bros was ported to the 5200, and at the time Mario wasn't even remotely as popular as it was destined to be just yet. So it wasn't going to help Atari any.

 

Things don't stay the same or they stagnate. They're constantly evolving.

 

Evolving is just a buzzword for people who don't want to admit that things are being pushed out purely because of money, and not because of any actual superiority or inferiority basis.

 

There was a time when the gaming industry actually was evolving. And that stopped right around 2006.

 

If you don't know what I mean by PC elitists, then my advice to you is to clarify or just don't say anything at all. I did not in any way, shape, or form, insult anyone, let alone PC players as a group.

 

Calling anyone an elitist is an insult. Period.

 

And of course because in your opinion it's not a good game, that automatically means it sucks and those people are stupid, right? Whatever.

 

Way to skirt around the bush. Fact of the matter is all of the COD games since 5 have just been expansions for COD4, and all have been total crap. Anyone who has any tastes in games or isn't a casual (which isn't a bad thing, but it also generally means they wont' care one way or the other) will realize that.

 

Unless you accept that fact and still for some reason will shell out the 60 bucks to get an expansion pack.

 

No, it doesn't. But hey, I'm sure you bought Skyrim and played it on the console too, so you would know right? Doubt it.

 

I do know actually, because I usually end up playing Skyrim on the 360 a lot whenever I hang out with friends. And I can usually sit and play the console version for a couple hours. But if I boot up vanilla Skyrim on the PC, it isn't 5 minutes before I'm itching for mods and/or booting up the console.

 

Anyone who isn't completely anal about not accepting it will realize that there are substantial differences between the 360 Skyrim and the PC port that do make a difference on how enjoyable it is.

 

And no one likes feeling like a beta tester unless, you know, we're in an actual beta.

 

Free DLCs? Lawl

 

And you shouldn't have to mod a game to have it be enjoyable.

 

Fixed it for you.

 

OF COURSE! The solution, obviously, is to completely give up the objective superiority of the mouse and keyboard just because Beth was too lazy to create a PC centric UI for its PC port. Its so obvious to me now!

 

So if Oblivion had followed Skyrim instead of the other way around you'd be perfectly happy right? Somehow I doubt it.

 

Yes, if the strides Skyrim makes forward were retained and Oblivion didn't make any strides backwards (which it wouldn't have in this hypothetical). And thats the general issue. Every game makes some significant leaps forward, but then takes that many leaps and then some backwards. Morrowind was the only game that had the leaps forward be more than the ones taken backwards. And it was Morrowind that should have served as a base for future games, with nothing from it cut. Morrowind was a perfect blend between games like Arena and Daggerfall and games like Skyrim and Oblivion. Take that game as a base (and no, I don't mean the gameworld or the story. I just mean the actual game part of it) and add on to it, fixing things as you go, and returning, if only bit by bit, the things that made Arena and Daggerfall great while also adding what made Skyrim and Oblivion great and you'll have a near perfect Beth-style RPG.

 

But what we got instead was just a progressive downgrade of the series into an action-adventure.

 

And I'm not going to even entertain the utter stupidity that is the "Morrowind 2.0" style of arguments. I'll get banned with my responses to that idiocy.

 

I like how you first tell me how I'm supposed to "approach" the game, after spending 10 paragraphs telling me you shouldn't have to "approach" skyrim a certain way,

 

Nice exaggeration and total strawman there.

 

and then follow it up by telling me what everyone knows and agrees on as if you were the official spoke person for "everyone".

 

Did you like level scaling in Oblivion? No? Didn't think so.

 

Don't pull that card when you know damn well that no one liked level scaling in Oblivion.

 

It's perfectly realistic. Yeah. You can try to be an astronaut, an architect, run for president. What's probably going to happen is you're probably never gonna get a chance to go up in space. You might never actually get hired by an architectural firm, even if you learn the skills. But you might make a pretty darn good president with that kind of background instead of these self-entitled spoiled preppy types that don't have a clue how real people live.

 

You clearly don't know how Presidential elections work, nor what it takes the become an astronaut (or for that matter President).

 

I put those two together because they both require a virtual life-time of commitment and very distinct skillsets. You literally do not have the time in your life to successfully do both, all the while doing something else like architecture or boxing, nor the time to acquire and be able to put to use the skillsets needed.

 

Just like in Skyrim, because if you put everything into the destructive tree and then decide you want to be a warrior, then you're out the 17 perks you used in the destruction tree. Which means maybe you're not as good a warrior as you could have been because now you don't have enough perks to put into smithing, or one handed or something.

 

And its a crappy, limiting system because of it.

 

Another way it's realistic is in real life, you're not railroaded into one position. If I don't like my job, I can quit today and go try something else later. In fact many people start their careers by trying something and if they don't like it they move on. How many college students switch majors?

 

And you were never railroaded into one position in the games. Ever. Except for in Skyrim, where not sticking to something can truly screw you.

 

And out of all those people that quit for something better? I can tell you that in my experience 75% of them at least end up at a dead end, screwed out of a home and a job because they got bored and didn't actually have a way out. If you can actually quit and get something new going, that will actually support you, then kudos. But not everyone has this ability.

 

Which is where your logic is completely flawed, because you keep thinking of these games as direct sequels, which they clearly are not. As a matter of fact they deliberately put hundreds of years between each story to prevent too many conflicts.

 

They are direct sequels. Hundreds of years between in-game stories don't matter.

 

 

Ignore listed.

 

Dismissing things does not win an argument.

Acting condescending does not make you more intelligent.

Treating your opinions as if they're a fact does not make them a fact.

 

You need to lose your attitude.

[Bael]

This was never intended to be a hate thread. It was more directed to the old fans that do all love and enjoy playing Skyrim, but question some of the focus Bethesda developers put on it. I assure you we will all continue playing Skyrim and the next eight Elder Scrolls titles in the future. We came to voice some displeasure and maybe vent on things we think could have been done better, no one here is outright discrediting and dismissing the game. There have been good legitimate opinions on it.

[imperistan]

No, that's not how it works. See, because they estimate only 14% of sales went to PC players. Which means the consoles are the ones with Bethesda's attention.

 

Irrelevant to what I said.

 

You know.. if I'm not mistaken, Mario Bros. debuted on the Atari 5200, but that didn't stop Atari from failing right out of the console business.

 

Mario Bros was ported to the 5200, and at the time Mario wasn't even remotely as popular as it was destined to be just yet. So it wasn't going to help Atari any.

 

Things don't stay the same or they stagnate. They're constantly evolving.

 

Evolving is just a buzzword for people who don't want to admit that things are being pushed out purely because of money, and not because of any actual superiority or inferiority basis.

 

There was a time when the gaming industry actually was evolving. And that stopped right around 2006.

 

If you don't know what I mean by PC elitists, then my advice to you is to clarify or just don't say anything at all. I did not in any way, shape, or form, insult anyone, let alone PC players as a group.

 

Calling anyone an elitist is an insult. Period.

 

And of course because in your opinion it's not a good game, that automatically means it sucks and those people are stupid, right? Whatever.

 

Way to skirt around the bush. Fact of the matter is all of the COD games since 5 have just been expansions for COD4, and all have been total crap. Anyone who has any tastes in games or isn't a casual (which isn't a bad thing, but it also generally means they wont' care one way or the other) will realize that.

 

Unless you accept that fact and still for some reason will shell out the 60 bucks to get an expansion pack.

 

No, it doesn't. But hey, I'm sure you bought Skyrim and played it on the console too, so you would know right? Doubt it.

 

I do know actually, because I usually end up playing Skyrim on the 360 a lot whenever I hang out with friends. And I can usually sit and play the console version for a couple hours. But if I boot up vanilla Skyrim on the PC, it isn't 5 minutes before I'm itching for mods and/or booting up the console.

 

Anyone who isn't completely anal about not accepting it will realize that there are substantial differences between the 360 Skyrim and the PC port that do make a difference on how enjoyable it is.

 

And no one likes feeling like a beta tester unless, you know, we're in an actual beta.

 

Free DLCs? Lawl

 

And you shouldn't have to mod a game to have it be enjoyable.

 

Fixed it for you.

 

OF COURSE! The solution, obviously, is to completely give up the objective superiority of the mouse and keyboard just because Beth was too lazy to create a PC centric UI for its PC port. Its so obvious to me now!

 

So if Oblivion had followed Skyrim instead of the other way around you'd be perfectly happy right? Somehow I doubt it.

 

Yes, if the strides Skyrim makes forward were retained and Oblivion didn't make any strides backwards (which it wouldn't have in this hypothetical). And thats the general issue. Every game makes some significant leaps forward, but then takes that many leaps and then some backwards. Morrowind was the only game that had the leaps forward be more than the ones taken backwards. And it was Morrowind that should have served as a base for future games, with nothing from it cut. Morrowind was a perfect blend between games like Arena and Daggerfall and games like Skyrim and Oblivion. Take that game as a base (and no, I don't mean the gameworld or the story. I just mean the actual game part of it) and add on to it, fixing things as you go, and returning, if only bit by bit, the things that made Arena and Daggerfall great while also adding what made Skyrim and Oblivion great and you'll have a near perfect Beth-style RPG.

 

But what we got instead was just a progressive downgrade of the series into an action-adventure.

 

And I'm not going to even entertain the utter stupidity that is the "Morrowind 2.0" style of arguments. I'll get banned with my responses to that idiocy.

 

I like how you first tell me how I'm supposed to "approach" the game, after spending 10 paragraphs telling me you shouldn't have to "approach" skyrim a certain way,

 

Nice exaggeration and total strawman there.

 

and then follow it up by telling me what everyone knows and agrees on as if you were the official spoke person for "everyone".

 

Did you like level scaling in Oblivion? No? Didn't think so.

 

Don't pull that card when you know damn well that no one liked level scaling in Oblivion.

 

It's perfectly realistic. Yeah. You can try to be an astronaut, an architect, run for president. What's probably going to happen is you're probably never gonna get a chance to go up in space. You might never actually get hired by an architectural firm, even if you learn the skills. But you might make a pretty darn good president with that kind of background instead of these self-entitled spoiled preppy types that don't have a clue how real people live.

 

You clearly don't know how Presidential elections work, nor what it takes the become an astronaut (or for that matter President).

 

I put those two together because they both require a virtual life-time of commitment and very distinct skillsets. You literally do not have the time in your life to successfully do both, all the while doing something else like architecture or boxing, nor the time to acquire and be able to put to use the skillsets needed.

 

Just like in Skyrim, because if you put everything into the destructive tree and then decide you want to be a warrior, then you're out the 17 perks you used in the destruction tree. Which means maybe you're not as good a warrior as you could have been because now you don't have enough perks to put into smithing, or one handed or something.

 

And its a crappy, limiting system because of it.

 

Another way it's realistic is in real life, you're not railroaded into one position. If I don't like my job, I can quit today and go try something else later. In fact many people start their careers by trying something and if they don't like it they move on. How many college students switch majors?

 

And you were never railroaded into one position in the games. Ever. Except for in Skyrim, where not sticking to something can truly screw you.

 

And out of all those people that quit for something better? I can tell you that in my experience 75% of them at least end up at a dead end, screwed out of a home and a job because they got bored and didn't actually have a way out. If you can actually quit and get something new going, that will actually support you, then kudos. But not everyone has this ability.

 

Which is where your logic is completely flawed, because you keep thinking of these games as direct sequels, which they clearly are not. As a matter of fact they deliberately put hundreds of years between each story to prevent too many conflicts.

 

They are direct sequels. Hundreds of years between in-game stories don't matter.

 

 

Ignore listed.

 

Dismissing things does not win an argument.

Acting condescending does not make you more intelligent.

Treating your opinions as if they're a fact does not make them a fact.

 

You need to lose your attitude.

 

In other words, I don't have a counter argument so I'm going to cop out and run away. Fine with me, only puts another win on my chalkboard.