This IS a Skyrim board, isn't it?

[jack013]

well, skyrims one of those games where the 'meta-gaming' is 9/10ths of the fun.

[Tzontlimixtli]

I find that I can't relate to a lot of these complaints. While I've experienced elements of them, most of the time the game has worked as I'd expected it to. Sometimes bugs show up, and usually I enjoy it just as much because of them.

There are loads of little things that need tweaking, but I can't say I've been bothered enough by them to complain.

[doctorhr2]

Lots of entertaining and well thought out points.

 

I love Skyrim. I think it is a great product and the best game I have bought since Oblivion. When Skyrim was announced, before any promises were made, I was excited. If it was going to be just like Oblivion in style and layout, just in a different part of the World with new stories and characters, fantastic!

 

Okay, so we didn't get snow that settled realistically, which is a shame and something I blame on the console market, and I believe that had Skyrim been made for PC only, then we would have a higher standard of graphics. But thems the breaks.

 

Despite this, when I play it, it doesn't feel like an elaborate money-making exercise. It feels like something that has been crafted with thought and a sense of enjoyment. I have no real gripes with it as I had no expectations beyond what I had experienced with Oblivion (hence why I'm not too bothered by the snow thing). Yes they changed the way levelling up is handled and adapted the Perks system from Fallout, but I suppose they thought it was worth trying?

 

With the exception of Mass Effect 3 (I can't comment as I never completed the first one), disappointment with games generally comes from an expectation in the consumer. Skyrim interests me and entertains me as much as Oblivion did, so I feel I have received good value for money. Maybe my expectation was low? Who can say...

[Javalin]

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?

 

What's more, it seems lots of people think Bethesda is actively out to get their audience. Now, that's just silly. Skyrim could only have been created in a spirit of sincerity, and maybe their eyes were bigger than their mouth, but that's what fuels progress... maybe not now, but someday. That's why there are bugs; it doesn't mean that anyone was actively cutting corners. Sometimes certain bits and pieces just don't come together, no matter how good your intentions are, but it's those little nuances that people seem to tear into, and they can't find a reason no matter how much they rant and rave... because that's just a simple fact of human creativity. Sometimes it doesn't come together, but maybe something... just one thing... is groundbreaking and valuable. For me, with Skyrim, it's the experience.

 

I don't think Todd Howard was slouching in his chair eating cheetos with dollar signs in his eyes... and note, I don't say that because I care about Bethesda, or because I know anything about Todd Howard, because I don't. I say that because of one thing, and one thing alone: there are much easier ways to make money. Ways which make much more money, and take much less time.

 

So, sometimes you just don't like something. That's OK. It feels good to let go of something you just don't like, and it really feels pretty miserable to hang on just so your voice can be heard, in hopes that maybe the next one will be better, or somebody will "fix it..." 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.

 

Anyway, I'll let this descend into mayhem in 3... 2... go!

 

A quick answer to your question in the subject line.. No, it's not a Skyrim board.. Skyrim is a component of the board.

 

I am going to go down your points one by one:

 

 

- Polishing something generally makes it look better. Take a mirror for example which can gather a bit of dust over time, or a TV, or a shiny precious.

 

I don't think Skyrim was better than Oblivion. Yes, they certainly improved on many aspects of it. Such as the voice acting using 70+ instead of like 12. I haven't seen such massive immersion breaker such as an NPC buying some goods from a shop owned by themselves.

 

The level of detail wasn't brilliant for Skyrim, certainly better than a lot of games that came out that year.. But not massively great.

 

 

Certain pieces of the game not coming together - Isn't this the same with EVERY game? Especially when the game is a massively open world like Skyrim. It's fine to criticise the things that don't come together.. But the only games you see now are massively scripted, or corridor shooters.. Call of Duty, Crysis 2 are prime examples of these with not-so-great story lines.

 

Skyrim should have had more of the "Follow this path to make this path angry" like in Fallout New Vegas. Skyrim did a little of this with the Imperial Legion, but it was just the same quest just on a different point of view, so realistically.. no changes other than the colour your fight in. The only difference to the ENTIRE quest line was the initiation quest Kill an Ice Wraith or Clear out Bandit Camp, Attack or Defend Whiterun, Attack Solitude or Windhelm.

 

Not much variety really, and they were more than capable of doing that. I think they were just running out of time to be honest.

[rcavanah]

@Kraeten: Again, on ME3, you're misunderstanding me: I'm not saying you should have been satisfied.

 

What I'm saying is, by all means, be dissatisfied, but handle it differently in the future; OK, so Bioware didn't maintain their artistic integrity. They failed. However, the audience also failed as consumers by demanding changes in the way that they did. Maybe it's not 100% art, but treating it as 100% product will never yield satisfaction. I'm not arguing the quality of ME3; I honestly don't even care for the franchise. What I'm arguing for are the demarcations of the responsibility of the audience, and I think it's relevant here because I see lots of rants from people demanding DLC for Skyrim which concludes certain storylines... but if Bethesda didn't have conclusions planned, those endings will be phoned-in, uninspired, and utterly unsatisfying. The current disappointment with the loose ends will be greatly outweighed by the disappointment with content which is only created to satisfy the demands of an angry mob.

 

And in the interview I was referring to (I think it was an old episode of Indoor Kids, but I might be wrong), note that the guy said that he personally didn't even like the endings of ME3. It was the particular reaction, demanding more content be added, that he said was disheartening, and that feeling isn't good for creative developers. Sure, there's a business funding and marketing these games, yes, absolutely, you're right, but the constituents of a company are individual humans, and there ARE individual humans on development teams whose jobs are 100% creative, who rely on that elusive spirit of inspiration. When an audience bankrupts the inspiration of an industry by making jilted, desperate demands for a change that is destined to be unsatisfying, nobody is helped. It reduces the value of the entire industry. Again, have you read Misery? If not, synopsis it up.

 

If you're creative at all, just consider it (and if you're not, try to set your position as a consumer aside, and imagine that you are): how would you feel, making something for an audience that seems to instantly take your groundbreaking developments for granted, and only demands more without appreciating what you've created so far, like a rude child? Would you be excited about delivering your product to that audience? I know I wouldn't. Maybe this is too new-agey for some of you, but there is such a thing as audience responsibility; we don't have to like things that are bad, but we do have to act responsibly with our demands and nurture creativity... that is, if we want a future full of better games. If not, videogames will never be taken seriously as art, and I know that may seem fine for now... but when the creatives start to feel that, their passion will fade, and you really will be left buying a product, only able to trust it as far as you trust a brand. That's not very reliable, if you ask me... not compared to the trust that you can put in a good auteur.

 

The fact is, "games as art" is better for everybody. A game that has someone's heart and soul poured into it tends to yield a pretty damn good value.

Edited January 19, 2013 by rcavanah

[Elsarian]

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?

 

We don't just polish this "turd", no, we take it and add peanuts and/or corn to it to make it more varied, more interesting to look at, and possibly some polish. Couldn't hurt, right?

[InuyashaFE]

Yeah I've noticed it, too. It's kind of odd that Skyrim's fanbase hates Skyrim more than the haters do. Nowhere else have I seen more hate, sarcasm, and general nastiness toward the game.

[formalrevya]

@Kraeten: Again, on ME3, you're misunderstanding me: I'm not saying you should have been satisfied.

 

What I'm saying is, by all means, be dissatisfied, but handle it differently in the future; OK, so Bioware didn't maintain their artistic integrity. They failed. However, the audience also failed as consumers by demanding changes in the way that they did. Maybe it's not 100% art, but treating it as 100% product will never yield satisfaction. I'm not arguing the quality of ME3; I honestly don't even care for the franchise. What I'm arguing for are the demarcations of the responsibility of the audience, and I think it's relevant here because I see lots of rants from people demanding DLC for Skyrim which concludes certain storylines... but if Bethesda didn't have conclusions planned, those endings will be phoned-in, uninspired, and utterly unsatisfying. The current disappointment with the loose ends will be greatly outweighed by the disappointment with content which is only created to satisfy the demands of an angry mob.

 

And in the interview I was referring to (I think it was an old episode of Indoor Kids, but I might be wrong), note that the guy said that he personally didn't even like the endings of ME3. It was the particular reaction, demanding more content be added, that he said was disheartening, and that feeling isn't good for creative developers. Sure, there's a business funding and marketing these games, yes, absolutely, you're right, but the constituents of a company are individual humans, and there ARE individual humans on development teams whose jobs are 100% creative, who rely on that elusive spirit of inspiration. When an audience bankrupts the inspiration of an industry by making jilted, desperate demands for a change that is destined to be unsatisfying, nobody is helped. It reduces the value of the entire industry. Again, have you read Misery? If not, synopsis it up.

 

If you're creative at all, just consider it (and if you're not, try to set your position as a consumer aside, and imagine that you are): how would you feel, making something for an audience that seems to instantly take your groundbreaking developments for granted, and only demands more without appreciating what you've created so far, like a rude child? Would you be excited about delivering your product to that audience? I know I wouldn't. Maybe this is too new-agey for some of you, but there is such a thing as audience responsibility; we don't have to like things that are bad, but we do have to act responsibly with our demands and nurture creativity... that is, if we want a future full of better games. If not, videogames will never be taken seriously as art, and I know that may seem fine for now... but when the creatives start to feel that, their passion will fade, and you really will be left buying a product, only able to trust it as far as you trust a brand. That's not very reliable, if you ask me... not compared to the trust that you can put in a good auteur.

 

The fact is, "games as art" is better for everybody. A game that has someone's heart and soul poured into it tends to yield a pretty damn good value.

 

*facepalm* This argument is Denser than Grandma's fruitcake.

 

But I'll play your game. As a creative person ((A Comedian, not a famous one by any stretch of the imagination, but I get by)) Here's the artistic process for me when I'm introducing a new joke, ((and yes, there is an art form involved in creating comedy, If you think there isn't, trying telling 15 minutes of jokes you had to make up by yourself)) I test the bit on on some friends, If it doesn't pass their approval, the joke gets scrapped entirely or I rework it as something new. That's my first quality assurance test. Once I'm past that point, I introduce it to audiences, and judging from their reactions one of three things happens. I either scrap it entirely, I tweak it more to get a better reaction, or I keep it in stock for only certain audiences that will appreciate the joke. ((which I test out by their reactions to earlier jokes in the set))

 

People in a comedy audience, are very hypercritical of a comedian's work. If it's not funny, that have no problems expressing it. The benefit to this medium is that I have a chance to change my work around, not something a Game developer or movie maker has. But the bottom line remains the same. I either adapt to the tastes of my audience or I learn to deal with an angry audience. Never at any point do I get the luxury of complaining about my artistic integrity if I get Boo'd off stage ((Had people flinging bottles at my head not even 2 days ago.))

 

What I can do, is critically address the feedback I get. I have to, as an artist, decide whether people are being mean to me just because they didn't like my particular brand of comedy, or if it's because my jokes sucked. If it's the former, Then it's my duty to keep telling those jokes because there's an audience out there that will appreciate them. If it's the latter, It's my duty to bury those jokes in an unmarked grave in a desert because I produced something bad and I shouldn't force others to deal with it just because I think I produced something of value. It doesn't matter what I think. I'm not carving wooden trinkets to decorate my shack in the woods, I'm producing for other people. If I wish to continue doing so, I have to suck it up and roll with the punches.

 

And you know what? The fact that People on the development team didn't like their own product, Absolutely ruins any chances they have of claiming artistic integrity. If they didn't like their product, yet put it out, they're not artists, they're prostitutes. And the Fans had every right to rage.

[luzburg]

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.

 

 

You are absolutely right about the gameplay. My ideal ES game takes Oblivions story and faction quests, adds skyrim gameplay, unique dungeons and morrowinds magic and atmosphere.

[rcavanah]

*facepalm* This argument is Denser than Grandma's fruitcake.

 

But I'll play your game. As a creative person ((A Comedian, not a famous one by any stretch of the imagination, but I get by)) Here's the artistic process for me when I'm introducing a new joke, ((and yes, there is an art form involved in creating comedy, If you think there isn't, trying telling 15 minutes of jokes you had to make up by yourself)) I test the bit on on some friends, If it doesn't pass their approval, the joke gets scrapped entirely or I rework it as something new. That's my first quality assurance test. Once I'm past that point, I introduce it to audiences, and judging from their reactions one of three things happens. I either scrap it entirely, I tweak it more to get a better reaction, or I keep it in stock for only certain audiences that will appreciate the joke. ((which I test out by their reactions to earlier jokes in the set))

 

People in a comedy audience, are very hypercritical of a comedian's work. If it's not funny, that have no problems expressing it. The benefit to this medium is that I have a chance to change my work around, not something a Game developer or movie maker has. But the bottom line remains the same. I either adapt to the tastes of my audience or I learn to deal with an angry audience. Never at any point do I get the luxury of complaining about my artistic integrity if I get Boo'd off stage ((Had people flinging bottles at my head not even 2 days ago.))

 

What I can do, is critically address the feedback I get. I have to, as an artist, decide whether people are being mean to me just because they didn't like my particular brand of comedy, or if it's because my jokes sucked. If it's the former, Then it's my duty to keep telling those jokes because there's an audience out there that will appreciate them. If it's the latter, It's my duty to bury those jokes in an unmarked grave in a desert because I produced something bad and I shouldn't force others to deal with it just because I think I produced something of value. It doesn't matter what I think. I'm not carving wooden trinkets to decorate my shack in the woods, I'm producing for other people. If I wish to continue doing so, I have to suck it up and roll with the punches.

 

And you know what? The fact that People on the development team didn't like their own product, Absolutely ruins any chances they have of claiming artistic integrity. If they didn't like their product, yet put it out, they're not artists, they're prostitutes. And the Fans had every right to rage.

 

Ha... I used to do standup, when I lived in Atlanta. Spent about a year on it, and I actually stopped because I was trying to quit drinking, and it became a pretty bad environment (as I'm sure you could imagine). Sober, I became a bit more introverted, and found it more difficult to get out there, and eventually just never went back to it. Still a comedy nerd, though.

 

So I know what you're talking about, but personally, I just don't think those processes are all that similar... comedy is developed primarily on stage, in front of people, so there's really no beginning and no end to a bit. If it's a good bit, you continue to refine it, until one day, it's a staple in your act, or you throw out your material to start fresh, but either way, its success has been measured and decided. Maybe only by you, or by the crowd it worked best on, but either way, it's just... very different.

 

Anyway, none of this really addressed my main point: the immaturity of an audience who demands a change to an existing story. That is bankrupting the artistic validity of the thing, because no other medium is subjected to that. My wife's an artist, and she has received all kinds of criticisms, be they about content, technique, meaning... everything... but she's never been told to change a painting. She's been told to change something on a commission, sure, but that IS just a product, and in many cases, she wound up having to do the opposite of what her own trained artistic talents told her to do; some girl commissioning album art didn't like the color of the sky, so she had to change the color without being allowed to change the color of the reflection on the water, thus making it entirely unrealistic... but it was what the client wanted.

 

A video game is not a commission from the audience who expects that game. There is consumer expectation, but you cannot put yourself in that much debt of expectation and wind up satisfied. And once again, by all means, BE DISSATISFIED! But don't demand changes to the existing work. That's the point at which the audience fails just as badly as the producers of the thing.

 

Also, none of this addresses the issue of the fragility of inspiration. I never said the guy in the interview didn't like what he was making (dude... talk about a dense argument). I said it made him doubt the audience he was giving it to. A "pearls before swine" kind of thing, if I may be so crude. I wish I could find the damn thing... now I'm wondering if it was a TED talk. Anyway, I can definitely understand how that crushes inspiration; I just finished writing a novel, and you know what? I shelved it. Not because I don't like it, but because I'm too insecure to put myself out there like that, and then have jaded people on the internet tell me I was all wrong. I didn't write it for those jaded people; I wrote exactly what I wanted to write, to express the thing I needed to express, but I'm STILL vulnerable to all the negativity. The general way that our present culture refuses to nurture creativity in any way just makes me feel like it's a waste of time. EDIT: I guess that wasn't exactly what I meant... what I meant is, the voices of the detractors are infinitely louder than the voices of the supporters. Anyway, if you know a solution to this, by all means, shoot, but you'd be the first to both successfully defend modern hypercriticality AND convince me that it's even worth trying to make something.

 

Anyway, don't you see how it might be biased, being hypercritical of another medium just because you have to put up with hypercriticality from your audience? And besides, you seem perfectly reasonable. As this pertains to Skyrim, I guess just consider that maybe you just aren't the sort of negative person I'm referring to. Never, in my posts, did I condemn all negativity. I only condemned unreasonable, whiny negativity... the people who complain and complain and complain but STILL spend tons of time around this board, doing Skyrim-related things in spite of that vitriol.

Edited January 20, 2013 by rcavanah