fraquar Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 But the DLC is a "feature" that requires their time and effort - same with new projects, new games. Only so much time to do the things they consider important - and they must have felt it was good enough that it's not a major priority to expand on. The DLC isn't a feature of Skyrim, it's a paid for extension. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowsong Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 (edited) If the game is not for you, then it's not for you. Don't play it. I mean, I can't stand the linear style of the Tomb Raider games, so I don't play them. It doesn't mean they aren't good games. A lot of people love them. They just aren't for me. I don't play them, but I also don't go to Tomb Raider fan sites to whine about all the reasons I don't like the games. *The forum actually censored the word "b*tch." (I substituted "whine" instead.) I didn't think b*tch was a bad word. Huh? It just means "to complain," so how is it a word so bad that it needs censoring? LOL. I just think that's funny. Edited July 22, 2012 by Snowsong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Odrackyir Posted July 22, 2012 Author Share Posted July 22, 2012 It's because the game is for me that I'm whining. Kill 200 crabs, level up, go to constellation and improve pickpocket I know, 2008 tech Dual wield, second weapon disappears on sheath 2008 tech. Winterhold College gives you leadership after 1 hour quest, don't even need to be a wizard. 2008 tech. Fighting a dragon from his back, next second you've been teleported to his head and he's killmove-ing you. 2008 tech. Campfires don't hurt. ¡2008 tech. NPC trying to kill dragon singlehanded. 2008 tech. Golden claw, the easiest dungeon puzzle since 'vydia for downies', get ''Oohh no one has been able to solve its meaning since ancient times'' dialogue line from NPC. Wait for it wait wait... 2008 tech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cynster Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 But the DLC is a "feature" that requires their time and effort - same with new projects, new games. Only so much time to do the things they consider important - and they must have felt it was good enough that it's not a major priority to expand on. The DLC isn't a feature of Skyrim, it's a paid for extension.That's why I wrapped it in quotes. It's still a project that requires time and effort, meaning other things will have to take the back seat - but the developers thought it was worth it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glhadiator Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 It's because the game is for me that I'm whining. Kill 200 crabs, level up, go to constellation and improve pickpocket I know, 2008 tech Dual wield, second weapon disappears on sheath 2008 tech. Winterhold College gives you leadership after 1 hour quest, don't even need to be a wizard. 2008 tech. Fighting a dragon from his back, next second you've been teleported to his head and he's killmove-ing you. 2008 tech. Campfires don't hurt. ¡2008 tech. NPC trying to kill dragon singlehanded. 2008 tech. Golden claw, the easiest dungeon puzzle since 'vydia for downies', get ''Oohh no one has been able to solve its meaning since ancient times'' dialogue line from NPC. Wait for it wait wait... 2008 tech. I noticed that you didn't bash 'Trolls'. :tongue: Perhaps you like 'Trolls'. Mostly we don't like 'Trolls' here in the NEXUS forums. I think we're all aware that you don't like Skyrim. I just can't figure out why you're here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seviraph Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 speaking of tech, by that logic, isn't the Xbox 360 .. 2005 tech? or also considering when they started developing Skyrim, might influence some of these things? just a thought Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gryph72 Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 (edited) speaking of tech, by that logic, isn't the Xbox 360 .. 2005 tech? I was going to point out the same thing. :-) He's going on about "2008 tech... 2008 tech..." when Skyrim was designed so that it can still run on 2005 game console hardware with a static hardware configuration. That means concessions have to be made on just how complex Skyrim can get. The developers can't be faulted for that. We live in a time where game consoles dominate video gaming, and if studios want to make money, developing for consoles take priority. I don't want to make it sound like I'm a PC elitist but the simple reality of it is that getting a game that's built around the limitations of consoles is the concession we PC gamers make these days. ...or also considering when they started developing Skyrim, might influence some of these things? Most definitely. They started Skyrim development in 2008 and had a 3-year development period. Technology moves at a relatively rapid pace over the span of 3 years. It's not always possible, practical or financially feasible to rip out and re-do work that was done earlier in the course of development. Edited July 23, 2012 by gryph72 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PharmakosChroster Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Most of his complains sound like someone new to the series that doesnt understand this has to run on hardware from 2005, which was even outdated then. No. No, in fact, it doesn't have to run on obsolete hardware, with a user interface so broken that it's unplayable without SkyUI, and with every game mechanic more complex than "HIT IT WITH A SWORD" removed so as not to confuse the drooling troglodytes on consoles. Just like Bethesda doesn't have to release bugware which won't be patched into a playable state for six months to a year by using their paying customers as free beta testers. But they do. And they do it because they are not satisfied with turning a modest profit by releasing a quality product. They want to be John Romero, sitting in his penthouse mansion, snorting ground-up rhino horn off the oiled thighs of virginal Nubian princesses while hundred dollar bills flutter down from on high like green snow, and they're not going to let a little thing like artistic vision, ethics, or integrity get in the way of it. I can sweep down with 100 men -- on horseback -- in Mount & Blade, a game designed by two guys with a budget which wouldn't pay for the Skyrim team's Cheetos, but because Bethesda needs to give sloppy kisses to every slope-headed neanderthal with an Xbox, we get the epic clash of "armies" consisting of eight identical dudes and a catapult. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevkiev Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 No. No, in fact, it doesn't have to run on obsolete hardware, with a user interface so broken that it's unplayable without SkyUI, and with every game mechanic more complex than "HIT IT WITH A SWORD" removed so as not to confuse the drooling troglodytes on consoles. Just like Bethesda doesn't have to release bugware which won't be patched into a playable state for six months to a year by using their paying customers as free beta testers. But they do. And they do it because they are not satisfied with turning a modest profit by releasing a quality product. They want to be John Romero, sitting in his penthouse mansion, snorting ground-up rhino horn off the oiled thighs of virginal Nubian princesses while hundred dollar bills flutter down from on high like green snow, and they're not going to let a little thing like artistic vision, ethics, or integrity get in the way of it. I can sweep down with 100 men -- on horseback -- in Mount & Blade, a game designed by two guys with a budget which wouldn't pay for the Skyrim team's Cheetos, but because Bethesda needs to give sloppy kisses to every slope-headed neanderthal with an Xbox, we get the epic clash of "armies" consisting of eight identical dudes and a catapult. Oh man :teehee: I love this post. Gonna have to log off soon for a hard day's work ahead, and this is a perfect way to end my session. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gryph72 Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 (edited) I can sweep down with 100 men -- on horseback -- in Mount & Blade, a game designed by two guys with a budget which wouldn't pay for the Skyrim team's Cheetos, but because Bethesda needs to give sloppy kisses to every slope-headed neanderthal with an Xbox, we get the epic clash of "armies" consisting of eight identical dudes and a catapult. I think it's a little more complicated than saying "game X has this, so game Y should have no problems implementing it too." We need to keep in mind when making comparisons like this is that game development is often a balancing act. Developers often can't have their cake and eat it too. Massive, fully represented armies on screen may be possible but only if some other aspect of the game is either simplified or excluded entirely. Skyrim must deal with certain complexities given its design goals that Mount and Blade doesn't have to deal with given its design goals and that may preclude Skyrim from being able to represent an army of hundreds on screen, for example. I do understand what you're saying though. Undoubtedly, there is a (painful) amount of simplification that's done in order to accommodate not only the limited hardware of gaming consoles, but to accommodate the difference in the demographic of the console gamer crowd. I'm not saying that console gamers are simpletons! But their demographic contains more preteens and casual gamers and that makes streamlined, simplified game play more of an advantage with regards to that specific demographic. Edited July 23, 2012 by gryph72 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts