This IS a Skyrim board, isn't it?

[Kraeten]

It seems that some of the most active members of this community actually don't like Skyrim much at all.

 

Maybe you're here for the mods, but I mean, if vanilla Skyrim is so sub-par, why bother polishing what is, apparently, a turd?

 

Skyrim IS a poor sequel. But is it so bad there's nothing of value?! Good heavens no. Well....maybe that actually is the case for PS3 consumers who got royally screwed but that's another matter. Skyrim despite its MANY failings narratively speaking still offers an expansive and impressively rendered sandbox to explore. You could say the reason why so many people criticize Skyrim is because we like the franchise so much, and we only want it to be the best it can be.

 

I mean, I don't wanna get into the whole Mass Effect 3 thing, but that whole mess was a crushing blow to the general "videogames as art" prerogative, because it said that the audience simply isn't ready for games to simply be whatever they are... which is one of the most basic components of art, good or bad.

 

There really is going to be some mayhem if I have to hear this fething argument one more time. Consumers had EVERY RIGHT to flame Bioware for their god awful handling of Mass Effect 3's ending. We repeatedly heard from Bioware devs as the game was in development that we were going to see very different endings that were a product of our choices made throughout the trilogy. They gave us three fething colors instead. Moreover video games aren't just art. They're also a fething product. A $60 product.

 

This demented point of view that as consumers we have no say in what is produced is completely BS. The only way you would have a pair of legs to stand on here, is if Bioware was making these games with their own money. But that ISN'T the case. We're the ones who keep them in business.

Edited January 19, 2013 by Kraeten

[Brandy1123]

@ Anime_Otaku102

I agree with your statement except the final part. you left out one word that, in this context, would have been incomprehendable in the 50's

 

You're statement : "about legions of foul-mouthed amateur critics descending upon them "

Corrected statement "about legions of foul-mouthed "ANONYMOUS" amateur critics descending upon them "

 

that one word give people courage while being a coward. Its like the texting revolution and the advent of E-Mail prior to that. The ability to say something to someone and have no face to face repercussions. To have the ability to worm out by saying my intent wasn't conveyed or I worded that poorly. We as a society are losing face to face interaction, speech, and courtesy. Anonymity is working in the shadows, lurking unseen like a thief or other person with ill intent. People are transparent and reduced to an online icon with a bastardized morphing of multiple exagerated, hyphenated or fabricated alpha numerical words. We are a lost generation. We have no distinct personality. We have one we show and share with people we must. our familiess, our neighbors and our coworkers (or fellow students). Our real identites, our real soul and beliefs come out online. No one knows us. Know one sees us. There are no real consiquences (barring plots of highly illegal acts). So what if something can get you banned. poof, you get another ip and another "nick" and your back in business being your hateful wretched inner self.

 

Yes, I do believe that one word has a whole new meaning from its original intent and purpose.

[rcavanah]

At least the film makers of the 50s didn't have to worry about legions of foul-mouthed amateur critics descending upon them with unkind words to crush their creative spirit like fragile family jewels in a cliff-related biking accident.

 

This.

 

I've heard lots of people defend this hypercritical mindset that pervades contemporary culture, saying that we're refining things more stringently and progressing more quickly because of it, but I think that attitude ignores the idea that true creativity is, by its nature, anarchic and unbindable; sometimes the stars just align, and a person (or design team) manages to pull off something truly inspired... and it has nothing to do with the sort of strict artistic reginen that the modern hypercritics seem to advocate. Deep down, I think everyone understands that there's a "je ne sais quois" to anything good, and that nothing is accomplished by simply striving for technical perfection. However, most modern criticism doesn't incorporate any faculty to analyze the cores of things... what gives them their spirit. People are also exceedingly bad at figuring what something SHOULD be, objectively, even if that thing isn't exactly what they want. So many modern criticisms are like giving Singin' in the Rain a 1-star review because you don't like musicals.

 

It seems that, for years, we all complained and shouted about the things we didn't like, because we, as an audience, felt crushed under the notion that our opinions would never reach the auteurs. Now, though, things have changed. Auteurs hear all the negativity loud and clear, and yet people are still shouting just as loudly, and never checking themselves as to whether their complaints are constructive, or whether they're really doing anything to help chase that elusive spirit of creativity.

 

 

 

And guys, on the Mass Effect side of things, I never said that you should be satisfied with it. I'm just saying that the specific way it was handled by the audience, in demanding changes, was missing the point. Demanding changes simply kills any artistic validity that was ever in the mix; it's the producer and the consumer, both letting each other down. Have you ever read Misery? I'm just saying, you make a more stringent point by, yes, expressing your dissatisfaction... and then moving on. Not giving them the time of day. That's the only dichotomy wherein the producer is taught how to improve, and the consumers retain their reputation. Punish low quality with a dismissal... an actual dismissal, and not obsession masquerading as a dismissal.

 

I listened to an interview with a seemingly-reputable indie developer recently (don't remember his name, never played any of his games, but seemed pretty cool and legit), and when the conversation got around to ME3, he said say that the whole ordeal cast a huge pall over his current project, just in theory alone, even though he agreed that the endings weren't well thought-out. He essentially said that he looked at is project's story and said, "Well, crap, I can't say whether this is good or not, because no matter what, people will just demand something else..." and said it actually made him feel like phoning the rest of the thing in. If you stop thinking about yourself as a short-term consumer for a minute, you realize that the whole thing had the power to make an entire creative industry feel completely impotent. I'm sorry, but that doesn't mean better games in the future... it means developers are going to be less inspired, if anything. And the ironic thing: it didn't even fix Mass Effect.

 

If you look at the trends surrounding such modern epics, they're almost all widely considered to be disappointments by their end... whether it's Mass Effect, Star Wars, Lost... you name it. With so many perceived failings, almost across the board, there's a point at which you have to wonder whether these things ever could have ever lived up to their hype, or instead, whether it's the expectations themselves that do the damage. Now, I'm not trying to open a discussion on each of these individual things; what I'm saying is that it's clearly a vicious cycle, so you have to ask yourself whether it's really worth it, searching for the perfect epic that may never exist, offering up criticisms that probably won't actually create anything better, in the long run... because the better thing hasn't actually been conceived yet. The things that really make a great new innovation tend to come out of thin air... not out of the outcry of a million annoyed fans.

 

Also: if you're going to reduce it to such a point that you judge it for its commercial value, as if it's just a cleaning product, then I don't see how you could ever have a satisfying experience while taking in a creative work of any sort. If you treat it like a product, that's what you're gonna get: a product. You're gonna continue dealing with a big corporation, who really only cares whether you spend your money that once... not whether you like what you get out of it. Perhaps you're in some miraculous land where big corporations actually care what you think, but I've never found that to be the case, and anyway, I've never been too excited about products. Personally, I like finding a work of art that actually feels like it has a soul... not just fusion blades or moisture strips or locked-in freshness or flavor crystals. So, I figure the only way to get that in a game is to treat these development teams like proper artists, and create a valuable back-and-forth of feedback and appreciation. You have every right to go on doing it your way, but I can't see that and think you'll ever really be satisfied.

Edited January 19, 2013 by rcavanah

[Lachdonin]

Skyrim IS a poor sequel. But is it so bad there's nothing of value?! Good heavens no. Well....maybe that actually is the case for PS3 consumers who got royally screwed but that's another matter. Skyrim despite its MANY failings narratively speaking still offers an expansive and impressively rendered sandbox to explore. You could say the reason why so many people criticize Skyrim is because we like the franchise so much, and we only want it to be the best it can be.

 

See, i view Skyrim as a good sequal. It has some problems, such as the Journal system, being waylayed by conversations, and the almost Morrowind-Broken magic, but it's still not Oblivion. Oblivion, in my mind, was an embarassing addition to the franchise which was simply proped up by its gorgeous landscapes. Even then, those were standard high-fantasy and thuroughly uninspired. To me, Skyrim has the gorgeous landscapes, coupled with a meaningful combat system, unique invironments/creatures and somewhat nonsensical story telling which is characteristic of a TES game, even if it does, again, still not acomplish everything it set out to.

 

Really, i don't understand the romanticism with Oblivion...

Edited January 19, 2013 by Lachdonin

[Kraeten]

Demanding changes simply kills any artistic validity that was ever in the mix; it's the producer and the consumer, both letting each other down.

Again you're missing the point. Video games aren't just art. They're not. Bioware made promises to their consumers, and they failed to honor those promises. Failed them in such a profound way that it threatened to diminish all of their prior work in the series. This wasn't a case of an innocent artist getting his work ridiculed by some random passersby. This was a case of an artist being commissioned for a specific piece of art, and delivering something else entirely.

He essentially said that he looked at is project's story and said, "Well, crap, I can't say whether this is good or not, because no matter what, people will just demand something else..." and said it actually made him feel like phoning the rest of the thing in.

Then this indie developer you spoke to is a moron because he completely misunderstood what happened. Bioware got flamed because they didn't keep their word. If they hadn't hyped the ending of their saga as one which was heavily influenced by your choices, choices which you've been making through their prior games, then they would never have received the outrage they did. They brought that backlash entirely upon themselves. So long as this indie developer of yours doesn't advertise his work as anything but what it actually is, he has no reason to fear his consumers demanding he change his work.

If you look at the trends surrounding such modern epics, they're almost all widely considered to be disappointments by their end... whether it's Mass Effect, Star Wars, Lost... you name it.

All of which were the result of stupid writers. Don't try to muddy the water here with some mumbo jumbo about fans expecting the moon. That's just an excuse for mediocre story telling.

Also: if you're going to reduce it to such a point that you judge it for its commercial value-snip-

I don't judge any game solely by its commercial value, but you're not being realistic at all if you focus solely on the artistic aspect of game design. Money is changing hands here. This is a business. That doesn't mean game designers shouldn't try to be creative, but only that they should be careful how they advertise their work.

Really, i don't understand the romanticism with Oblivion...

Really, I don't understand your shallow justification for disliking Oblivion. You mention Oblivion's environment was standard high fantasy....yet Skyrim's was just as uninspired. If not even more so, considering Morthal, Dawnstar and Falkreath all share the same building models. You also mention Skyrim has more unique creatures...which also isn't exactly true. Oblivion featured Minotaurs, ogres, Imps, dreugh, Liches among others. Skyrim on the other hand is is even less fantasy inspired than Oblivion or Morrowind.

 

Skyrim's story is similarly uninspired. A nasty dragon threatens the realm. Go slay dragon. The end. Oblivion's story featured the hero's journey of Martin Septim, and the threat of Mehruns Dagon as he tried to break the barrier between his demonic realm and the natural one. As formulaic as its story was it at least ended definitively where as Skyrim just feels like a shallow prelude. I will agree however on the fact that Skyrim's combat is better, although it's hardly made leaps and bounds from Oblivion's combat system.

Edited January 19, 2013 by Kraeten

[Lachdonin]

Really, I don't understand your shallow justification for disliking Oblivion. You mention Oblivion's environment was standard high fantasy....yet Skyrim's was just as uninspired. If not even more so, considering Morthal, Dawnstar and Falkreath all share the same building models. You also mention Skyrim has more unique creatures...which also isn't exactly true. Oblivion featured Minotaurs, ogres, Imps, dreugh, Liches among others. Skyrim on the other hand is is even less fantasy inspired than Oblivion or Morrowind.

 

Skyrim's story is similarly uninspired. A nasty dragon threatens the realm. Go slay dragon. The end. Oblivion's story featured the hero's journey of Martin Septim, and the threat of Mehruns Dagon as he tried to break the barrier between his demonic realm and the natural one. As formulaic as its story was it at least ended definitively where as Skyrim just feels like a shallow prelude. I will agree however on the fact that Skyrim's combat is better, although it's hardly made leaps and bounds from Oblivion's combat system.

 

First, the reusing of assets is not 'uninspired'. It is also argueing against a poor understanding of my statement. Skyrim is a general bleak wilderness, spattered with interestinv vistas, ruins and characterful cities. It is something different from the standard forests/rolling plains dynamic of fantasy story telling. It is certianly not as unique as Morrowind, but it's still leagues ahead of the totally overdone castles and forests of Oblivion.

 

Second, Minotaurs, Ogres, Imps and Liche do not make for unique creatures. They are again staples of fantasy, and have nothing (in terms of creativity) on Falmer, Horkers, Ice Wraith or Hagraven. You also have races that actually look distinct from one another, which Oblivion failed misserable to pull off, resorting to pastel colours for each race in a vain attempt to differentiate them.

 

Third, your understanding (or at least retelling) of the story in Skyrim is simplistic borering on nieve, whereas you attempt (poorly) to glorify that of Oblivion. It was a Demonic invasion, plain and simple. Yes, Skyrim is about slaying a nasty Dragon, but it has infinately more layers to the story and world events than Oblivion managed to pull off. Alduin's signifigance in the background since Daggerfall cannot be overstated, nor can the metaphistical consequences of Sovengarde's literal existance, the quasi-spiritual backdrop of the political schism and the deeper ramifications of many of the questlines (Theives Guild, Dark brotherhood, Mages Guild). Admitedly, most of the story telling is one in a sloppy, quick to finish manner, but the stories themselves are far and above anything in Oblivion (with the exception of the main quest, which is roughly on par with most of the story arcs in Skyrim). To simplfy that, the stories in Skyrim are generally better than in Oblivion, even if Oblivion executed its inferior stories better.

 

Finally, the fact that Skyrim is less fantasy inspired is my entire point. The generic fantasy tripes have been done to death, and there is very little room for creativity in them any more. Oblivion's most 'unique' characteristics were the Alyied ruins and the Oblivion portals, but both were still (rather poor) variations on the ancient-elf and Daemon themes you can find in literally hundreds of fantasy settings, from Warhammer to Shanara.

 

That's not saying that Skyrim has done everything right. They royally buggerd up a lot of things which should have been easy. The interface being so heavily console influanced (and not really working there either) is one thing. The short story arcs, the magic system, the absolutely broken Blacksmithing and Enchanting systems... All are areas they should really be looking to improve. But in terms of creativity, story quality and progression of the core TES idea (character customization through skill use rather than arbitrary EXP ) Skyrim is well ahead of Oblivion.

[AnimeOtaku102]

You're statement : "about legions of foul-mouthed amateur critics descending upon them "

Corrected statement "about legions of foul-mouthed "ANONYMOUS" amateur critics descending upon them "

Ahh, very true, I stand corrected. Being a foul-mouthed critic is one thing, being anonymous seems to be be even more effective than being drunk off one's ass in regards to complete abandonment of civil behavior.

 

And we don't even have the pleasure to know they'll suffer a hangover for it.

 

And guys, on the Mass Effect side of things, I never said that you should be satisfied with it. I'm just saying that the specific way it was handled by the audience, in demanding changes, was missing the point. Demanding changes simply kills any artistic validity that was ever in the mix; it's the producer and the consumer, both letting each other down. Have you ever read Misery? I'm just saying, you make a more stringent point by, yes, expressing your dissatisfaction... and then moving on. Not giving them the time of day. That's the only dichotomy wherein the producer is taught how to improve, and the consumers retain their reputation. Punish low quality with a dismissal... an actual dismissal, and not obsession masquerading as a dismissal.

 

I listened to an interview with a seemingly-reputable indie developer recently (don't remember his name, never played any of his games, but seemed pretty cool and legit), and when the conversation got around to ME3, he said say that the whole ordeal cast a huge pall over his current project, just in theory alone, even though he agreed that the endings weren't well thought-out. He essentially said that he looked at is project's story and said, "Well, crap, I can't say whether this is good or not, because no matter what, people will just demand something else..." and said it actually made him feel like phoning the rest of the thing in. If you stop thinking about yourself as a short-term consumer for a minute, you realize that the whole thing had the power to make an entire creative industry feel completely impotent. I'm sorry, but that doesn't mean better games in the future... it means developers are going to be less inspired, if anything. And the ironic thing: it didn't even fix Mass Effect.

 

If you look at the trends surrounding such modern epics, they're almost all widely considered to be disappointments by their end... whether it's Mass Effect, Star Wars, Lost... you name it. With so many perceived failings, almost across the board, there's a point at which you have to wonder whether these things ever could have ever lived up to their hype, or instead, whether it's the expectations themselves that do the damage. Now, I'm not trying to open a discussion on each of these individual things; what I'm saying is that it's clearly a vicious cycle, so you have to ask yourself whether it's really worth it, searching for the perfect epic that may never exist, offering up criticisms that probably won't actually create anything better, in the long run... because the better thing hasn't actually been conceived yet. The things that really make a great new innovation tend to come out of thin air... not out of the outcry of a million annoyed fans.

 

Also: if you're going to reduce it to such a point that you judge it for its commercial value, as if it's just a cleaning product, then I don't see how you could ever have a satisfying experience while taking in a creative work of any sort. If you treat it like a product, that's what you're gonna get: a product. You're gonna continue dealing with a big corporation, who really only cares whether you spend your money that once... not whether you like what you get out of it. Perhaps you're in some miraculous land where big corporations actually care what you think, but I've never found that to be the case, and anyway, I've never been too excited about products. Personally, I like finding a work of art that actually feels like it has a soul... not just fusion blades or moisture strips or locked-in freshness or flavor crystals. So, I figure the only way to get that in a game is to treat these development teams like proper artists, and create a valuable back-and-forth of feedback and appreciation. You have every right to go on doing it your way, but I can't see that and think you'll ever really be satisfied.

To be fair, it wasn't just the ending of Mass Effect 3 itself that provoked such outrage (though it was pretty terrible by itself). Bioware did spend a lot of time leading up to the release of Mass Effect 1 touting how it would be an epic space RPG where every choice would matter, then reassured the fans after Mass Effect 2 we didn't see much changes because they had to restrict the number of possible ending states so that Mass Effect 3 wouldn't drown in possible beginning states, and continued to reassure players over the course of development that there would be no "Reaper off switch" or "door 1, 2, 3" ending. They did exactly the opposite of what they advertised for five years and their damage control was "artistic integrity" followed a few months later with "we didn't know there was such an expectation" (paraphrased).

 

It's not just about the story, it's about violating the trust of the fanbase, telling them off, then capping it with a bold-faced lie; it wasn't the first time they did it either, because Dragon Age 2 also suffered from the same disconnect between promised features and actual execution, albeit to less dramatic outrage.

 

And I don't quite agree with what you say about reducing it to a product, I get where you're coming from and won't say you're wrong, but products are designed to appeal (otherwise they're just failed products) and knowing they're products doesn't preclude me from being able to appreciate that appeal. I can enjoy it and be satisfied, which is good enough for me.

 

Oddly the Mad TV skit "lowered expectations" comes to mind while I type that last bit. Hmm.

[luzburg]

Third, your understanding (or at least retelling) of the story in Skyrim is simplistic borering on nieve, whereas you attempt (poorly) to glorify that of Oblivion. It was a Demonic invasion, plain and simple. Yes, Skyrim is about slaying a nasty Dragon, but it has infinately more layers to the story and world events than Oblivion managed to pull off. Alduin's signifigance in the background since Daggerfall cannot be overstated, nor can the metaphistical consequences of Sovengarde's literal existance, the quasi-spiritual backdrop of the political schism and the deeper ramifications of many of the questlines (Theives Guild, Dark brotherhood, Mages Guild). Admitedly, most of the story telling is one in a sloppy, quick to finish manner, but the stories themselves are far and above anything in Oblivion (with the exception of the main quest, which is roughly on par with most of the story arcs in Skyrim). To simplfy that, the stories in Skyrim are generally better than in Oblivion, even if Oblivion executed its inferior stories better.

 

That's not saying that Skyrim has done everything right. They royally buggerd up a lot of things which should have been easy. The interface being so heavily console influanced (and not really working there either) is one thing. The short story arcs, the magic system, the absolutely broken Blacksmithing and Enchanting systems... All are areas they should really be looking to improve. But in terms of creativity, story quality and progression of the core TES idea (character customization through skill use rather than arbitrary EXP ) Skyrim is well ahead of Oblivion.

 

 

Completely disagree with the story telling part. The plot lines of Skyrim are sub standard. The thieves guild is pretty good I will concede but apart from that they are a huge drop in quality from oblivion. Dark Brotherhood in oblivion was stunning, it was the best part of the game. The fighters guild made you actually work for your respect, not do two missions and suddenly be a leader in the companions. Mages plot..... best leave it at that. The civil war is a huge flop that was handled woefully.

 

The main quest is not that bad but I didn't care, it left me with a 'meh' feeling. Oblivion tore my heart out whne I realised what Martin was going to do. The ending really made me shiver.

 

Where Skyrim excels is the multitude of unique dungeons with their own little quest. I really enjoyed many of those. The copy-pasted dungeons, terrible combat and godawful oblivion realm were the only things that I hated about oblivion. I played it on PS3. No mods, and I played it religiously for two years. Skyrim without mods..... just no.

[Kraeten]

First, the reusing of assets is not 'uninspired'.

Really? In that case I wonder what all the fuss was about when Dragon Age 2 was released. :tongue: If you can give a settlement a unique style beyond the geographical, I see little reason why not to include more varying building models.

Skyrim is a general bleak wilderness, spattered with interestinv vistas, ruins and characterful cities. It is something different from the standard forests/rolling plains dynamic of fantasy story telling. It is certianly not as unique as Morrowind, but it's still leagues ahead of the totally overdone castles and forests of Oblivion.

Overdone? How many games before and present at Oblivion's release had successfully recreated sprawling fortified cities and dense forests at the level present in Oblivion? You make it sound as if Oblivion's setting has been used dozens of times in gaming. It hasn't. Perhaps in fictional settings in general you'd have a point, but it was the first time we got to really experience such a setting in a video game.

Second, Minotaurs, Ogres, Imps and Liche do not make for unique creatures. They are again staples of fantasy, and have nothing (in terms of creativity) on Falmer, Horkers, Ice Wraith or Hagraven. You also have races that actually look distinct from one another, which Oblivion failed misserable to pull off, resorting to pastel colours for each race in a vain attempt to differentiate them.

Horkers are just walruses and Falmer are little different from Goblins despite the fact they're apparently blind. Hag-Ravens are evil old crones/witches. Oh so very unique. So that leaves with the flying ice snake as a unique creature, my my, how impressive. And no, the races don't look more distinctive. I'd say that hasn't changed much. All of the Elves still have the same colossal brow and triangular features. The only difference is now Dark Elves have a burgeoning klingon forehead. Plus now Orcs look more human. Which to be honest isn't a downside imo, as orcs were hideous in Oblivion but it does serve my point in that the races are just as distinguishable as they ever were.

Yes, Skyrim is about slaying a nasty Dragon, but it has infinately more layers to the story and world events than Oblivion managed to pull off. Alduin's signifigance in the background since Daggerfall cannot be overstated, nor can the metaphistical consequences of Sovengarde's literal existance

Metaphysical consequences? Let's try not use use that word "concequence" unless we actually...you know...experience said consequence. And we don't. Sovengarde makes a terrific setting for a climactic battle. End of story.

the quasi-spiritual backdrop of the political schism and the deeper ramifications of many of the questlines

Yes, do please bring up the civil war that changes virtually nothing about the province of Skyrim. That'll be sure to carry you far.

(Theives Guild, Dark brotherhood, Mages Guild). Admitedly, most of the story telling is one in a sloppy, quick to finish manner, but the stories themselves are far and above anything in Oblivion

Skyrim's dark brotherhood...superior to Oblivion's? Who's the guy selling you Schooma? Clearly my local seller is selling me the cheap stuff. Skyrim's Thieves Guild I would happily contend is on par with Oblivion's guild quest lines, but Oblivion's DB is without a shadow of a doubt superior to Skyrim's. As for the Mages Guilds....well overlooking the inconsistent lore fighting the Voldemort substitute in Oblivion was pretty cool. It certainly captured the whole idea of being in a school of wizards better than Skyrim's brief foray fighting over a glowing ball which "holds power the world isn't ready for". As if that's a cliche that hasn't been done to death already.

To simplfy that, the stories in Skyrim are generally better than in Oblivion, even if Oblivion executed its inferior stories better.

A story's execution is a very big deal last time I checked. I'm sure most would agree they care less about "metaphysical" themes and more about how the story is told. And that's where Skyrim falls flat for the most part.

Finally, the fact that Skyrim is less fantasy inspired is my entire point

Then frankly you're here for the wrong reasons if you want a more grounded story.

The generic fantasy tripes have been done to death, and there is very little room for creativity in them any more. Oblivion's most 'unique' characteristics were the Alyied ruins and the Oblivion portals, but both were still (rather poor) variations on the ancient-elf and Daemon themes you can find in literally hundreds of fantasy settings, from Warhammer to Shanara.

And how many excellent open world games does Warhammer or Shanara have with the graphics of Oblivion? The answer is of course none. Honestly just because you've read something a dozen times doesn't mean it shouldn't be brought to life on a monitor. If you execute the story in the right way, you can make old story tropes feel fresh again too.

But in terms of creativity, story quality and progression of the core TES idea (character customization through skill use rather than arbitrary EXP ) Skyrim is well ahead of Oblivion.

Can't say I'm anywhere closer to understanding the logic you're using, but thanks for humoring me. :)

Edited January 19, 2013 by Kraeten

[leyasu]

I personally feel the critics are looking at Skyrim through thier own nostalgia tinted glasses. People have a tendency to remember their old experiences more fondly when compared to something new.

 

Critics of games looking through their tinted glasses will inadvertantly compare the worst of what they dislike to the best of what they liked, it's natural. Skyrim is not the only game that suffers from this, just go to the Diablo 3 forums and it's swimming with posts made by people who don't even play the game anymore yet spend their whole day trolling the D3 general forums. The same happened to Mass Effect 3, although the horrendous illogical ending Bioware called it's "artistic integrity" kinda makes the case for a lot of ME3's critics. Dragon Age 2 was a good and enjoyable game but suffered negatively from people comparing it to Dragon Age Origins and whining incessantly on the Dragon Age 2 forums.

 

For what it's worth, i never played a TES game before Skyrim, played it and LOVED it. over 600+ hrs played now. Easily one of the best buys of last year for me. I liked skyrim so much that after reading players rave about Oblivion and Morrowind on the forums, i decided to give them a try and bought them when they were on offer on steam. Installed them and completed them and well i was kinda disappointed, personally i felt that Skyrim was a better game. Of course both Morrowind and Oblivion had some good parts storywise but the gameplay felt abit clunky compared to what i was used to in Skyrim. In general i just felt the game experience Skyrim gave me was better and Skyrim is not finished yet with more DLCs planned so i am still excited about it.