The Elder Scrolls V-Skyrim

Game fucking rules. Seriously, this is next-level shit.

 

Oh no! I guess that settles it!

Don't play the game then.

fyi if a 0 kills full speech playthrough is what someone wants, they'll mod it appropriately. Otherwise you can go play other classic games, that have the option from the jump off.

I don't need to convince you, or anyone else. If you don't want to play it, go play something else. I enjoy it for it what it is, and what it will become through mods, but you not enjoying it, has absolutely no effect, positive or negative.

Bethesda sucks for you, too bad.

 

Why are you so offended by somebody else's opinion? I'm basically of the same mindset towards Bethesda's games. The company has no idea what it's doing. All classes end up playing the same way, that is, as sword-wielding, spell casting, arrow shooting battle tanks. Unless you limit the character development in some way, it undermines the point in classes. I also don't like how the different classes seem to all defer to combat. In roleplaying, combat is just one type of problem solving. The only developers I know to have done a good job with roleplaying games are Interplay and Troika. In Fallout, it's possible to go through the game by killing enemies, but it's also possible to complete the game without engaging in a single fight. That's roleplaying.

Having said that, I'm totally fine with other people liking these games. I'm not so elitist that I would look down upon other people for enjoying things that I don't.

 

Eidos did pretty well with Deus Ex: Human Revolution. You could pretty much do anything when it came to getting through the areas. Kill, knock out or avoid enemies, speak your way in, sneak your way in or kill your way in and there's a lot of ways you can do each one. The upgrades are awesome as well, but you do have the problem where you can pretty much become a master of all trades eventually. It's still a great game though.

One big problem with Oblivion for me was that the world was so dull. It was all the same and the storyline was bland. Also, it didn't really matter what class you were. You could still do everything in the end, as Lib said.

The only fun I had with the game was making the guards go mad. "Stop right there, criminal scum!"

Actually, I tell a lie. The homemade riot spell which put dozens of weapons on the floor and then sent all the NPCs insane to the point where they'd bash the hell out of each other and the guards was great fun. So was the creating hoods that cause fire damage when equipped, breaking into someone's house while they sleep, then reverse pickpocket them, putting the hood in their inventory, and then punching them, only to have them get up, attempt to attack you after quickly putting on the hood and get burned... badly.

If people like Skyrim, and they obviously will, that's fine. I just don't have any interest in it. It seems too much like Oblivion, which was just really boring for me.

 

Yeah, Human Revolution seems pretty good. I think I might be able to enjoy it, even though I've read that stealth is disproportionately rewarded as a means of problem solving.

 

There's always gonna be sexually frustrated nerds complaining about nerd shit. Go play some Magic or Yu-gi-oh and stfu.

 

This is offtopic, but yes. In human revolution you can merely kill enemies, but you get more points by stealth kill and most by nonlethal stealth knock-out. So if you want to max your character, you would sneak around every level and knock everybody out.. You can sometimes for example hack a turret into shooting the mobs like in KOTOR, but you would get less points that way. Fortunately enemy mobs arent the only problems you will face.

ps. human revolution still has some characters you must kill, the boss characters, but at least in theory you dont have to kill anybody else. The pacifist achievement was indeed passing the game without killing anybody but the bosses. ..Id like to see someone do that btw.

 

The way he worded his post rubbed me the wrong way, that's all. It had this undertone I can't really describe clearly. It's like he just refuses to enjoy the game for the reasons he's mentioned, while at the same time trying to pour that opinion all over everyone else's.

The "." part, too.

If he don't like the game, fine.

He came off bitter and jaded to me. Like he can't enjoy it so he has to tell everyone he doesn't, when he could solve some of the issues he has just by coming at the game in a different mindset that isn't hand holding.

I enjoy classic Fallouts(I have 1, 2, and Tactics), also, of what I've played of them. Those classic games and these new ones, are all Roleplaying and have great things to bring to the table. These newer games especially with their emphasis on visual explorations.

In games like Skyrim and Oblivion, I'm of the mind that you're supposed to limit yourself as per how you felt your character should or would play it out. I don't think it undermines anything at all. I've had, 2 roommates and a girlfriend enjoy these games to no end just by enjoying playing the game by a character's class. Make a class, play by how you feel they would go about the world in the game, do a few quests or complete the main story, and make another.

All of the classes played the same to you, because you decided to play them the same way. The game isn't forcing you to do that, it was your choice to do so, and it's great that the game gives you the option to do it.

Since this a VF forum, I can bring in a VF analogy. One can play every character in VF the exact same way, too, if one wanted to do so, because the choice is there. P, 2P, fast mid, throw. However, there's no reward in it doing just that, because it's not taking advantage of a specific character's strengths, there's no enjoyment, and it becomes predictable and boring at the same time. A lot of SF, KoF, and Tekken players I tried to get into VF, and they all told me the same story about how all the characters are the same and that the game is boring. It's the same deal here. The difference is that, VF is multiplayer you have your opponent forcing you to make choices that use more than P, 2P, fast mid, throw. It is a two-way street, the quality and enjoyment of the matches depends on both involved. With Skyrim it's up to the player personally, the game isn't going to force you at all, it gives you a plethora of things to do even the console commands.

Freedom and imagination.

Gamers don't use their imagination anymore and instead just get all frustrated.

 

LOL.

The point is, you're making the game to be something it isn't. There are no "roles" just shades of the same combat. Yes, it can be modded, but it isn't in the original make, and they sure as hell won't add it in later titles.

Bethesda does not make RPGs, because they don't the have "Role-Playing" part down. And in such "expansive" game worlds they make, there is next to nothing to actually do. That's all I'm saying.

----
There is more roleplaying involved in holding a branch and wandering around the suburbs.
----

Do I actually give a shit? No. Um, this is what I do because it's fun and will lead to hilarious walls of texts. Play what you want, have fun, waste your time, whatever, but don't sell it as something it is not. The gaming industry already has enough people doing that.

 

Well, Sebo likes to be provocative. It doesn't bother me, but maybe that's because I'm the same way.

As for your point on gameplay, I disagree for the following reason. If somebody wants to play a character in the same way, then let him. In Virtua Fighter, a player isn't going to get very far against a skilled opponent by only using the techniques you've mentioned. This would be the fault of the player for not playing the game well enough. My problem with Bethesda's RPGs is not that you need to invest time and effort in order to play a class properly, but that the player needs to impose limitations on himself in order to play them properly.

While subjective, I think that Virtua Fighter games tend to be fairly well balanced. Therefore, I don't need to worry about dumbing down my skills if I'm using a top tiered character. I'll draw an analogy of my own from Tekken. If I'm using Tekken 5.0 Steve, should I not use infinite combos because it hurts the game's balance? To draw an analogy from a first person shooter, should I limit myself to using only pistols if I find the other weapons too powerful? The key is balance. If a developer cannot create classes that force you to play a certain way along with balancing them, it's a failing.

I mean, sure, I can play a class in such a way in that I follow the method of problem solving that's supposed to be unique to that class, but why should it be my responsibility to do this? Shouldn't the goal of any developer be to create characters with unique traits that force me to play a certain way? Commitment to choice is another major factor in creating a good RPG. If I'm not made to commit to choices, then there's nothing interesting about decision making. As soon as I'm at the character selection screen, I should be making interesting choices in terms of how I wish to play the game. If all characters end up the same way, then the choices are nonexistent and the game is bland. I could decide to stick to playing a certain way consonant with the way my character is meant to be played, sure. However, the very fact that I can choose not to do this indicates that there's something very wrong with the game's design.

Lastly, I'd like to reiterate that I'm fine if you're okay with all of this. The problem ultimately lies upon me for not being able to like something. The fewer games I'm able to appreciate, the worse it is for me.

 

In my opinion, this isn't the companys fault. It is a simple result of giving player the freedom of character-creation. Sword-wielding, spell-casting, arrow shooting battletank just happens to be mathematically the most efficient character type, if there are no limitations to what you can pick. It is a conscious choice from the company to allow this sort of freedom in character creation, and I don't see that as a fault per se. Its not wrong to have the freedom of creating the kind of character you want.

What matters more, is the world and combat system. Is it complex enough to enjoy the different types and nuances of character concepts you can create? I think that was the bigger problem in oblivion (I havent yet played Skyrim). Since combat was so simplistic, all character concepts ended up playing the same way. You gained little benefit in specializing in bow for example.

The classes in oblivion were more like "guidelines" than actual classes, its in my opinion wrong to stare at them too hard and say that picking a class doesnt matter enough. Why should it matter?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Unless you limit the character development in some way, it undermines the point in classes. I also don't like how the different classes seem to all defer to combat. In roleplaying, combat is just one type of problem solving. The only developers I know to have done a good job with roleplaying games are Interplay and Troika. In Fallout, it's possible to go through the game by killing enemies, but it's also possible to complete the game without engaging in a single fight. That's roleplaying.
</div></div>

In my opinion conflict is a natural part of life, and so should combat be also in a medieval setting. However I agree that its a problem if combat is all there is. In oblivion there werent enough many ways of gaining something except through combat. You couldnt cheat or manipulate people enough, or sneak and steal. What about befriending someone so they gift you with something? Its been a long while since I last played oblivion though, so I may miss out on some stuff.

 

I respect and understand your point of view, I just don't share it nor agree with it, on the basis that "there's no wrong way to eat a reese's".

If someone wants to play a character in the same way then let them? I 100% agree. And with that, when it is their decision to play all their characters in the same way, it's rather silly to fault the game itself for that, when the decision to do so was all their own. The game does not force them to do so, it merely gives them the tools to play them the same or different. Also, you don't have to invest any time whatsoever to do anything in the game unless you want to, it's your world.

Why should it be your responsibility? Because you chose to play the game. I don't think it's the developer's job to force you, the player, to do anything... in fact, I think it's more the developer's job to entertain you and present you with the tools to enjoy yourself even further. With the means to either follow their rules and guidelines or make your own. Not force it.

The point of the fighting game analogy, was that the multiplayer element forces the necessity in order to win the match because there's a winner and a loser in the engagement. The multiplayer element dictates the game because of the competitive aspect of putting oneself against another. Then things need to be even more clear when competition is in order, clear rules and not guidelines. Limiters would be a player's sportsmanship and killer instinct, as examples.

Single player games it's different, and with Skyrim, forcing the gameplay would remove what's great about it.

We just have a fundamental disagreement to be honest. I enjoy games on both ends of the spectrum, if it's a great game and is fun, then that's what is to me. Despite, whether I'm being forced the game or not.

Skyrim is like Legos.

Bethesda gave you all of these blocks and pieces in an amazing package. One can play with what Bethesda has already made, building more on top of it, or take it apart and do their own thing with it. I wouldn't be surprised if the company prides themselves on this. It's an excellent model, that keeps on reinventing itself.

I gotta ask, how is it not an amazing RPG? Even if it isn't, the players have the ability to make it so(mods), and just that notion in itself makes it so intriguing.

There are plenty of other amazing RPGs out there now and later, that are(or will be) the complete opposite in philosophy than the ones being made by Bethesda these days, and it doesn't change a thing.

As I said in my previous post, it's the player's imagination that's a huge component in these types of games.

The player thinks outside the box, the game isn't supposed to do that for anyone. We are not zombies.

For years, I used to despise games like Skyrim, I truly did. Until I understood the approach and idea behind them. My whole reason for posting in here about it, is in attempts to get others to understand that approach. If people choose not to do so, or think that that approach or idea shouldn't be in some games(not all) then I can't change their mind, and I'll just keep it movin'.

 

No game is perfect..
This is how you steal in skyrim.

You dont even have to sneak, you just put a bucket on the owners head so they cant see what you do.

 

This game friggin rocks and it's really hard to put down. I just became an arch-mage at the college of winterhold and I must say that questline was some of the best storytelling I've seen in many games. It blows my mind that this was just one story line, and I swear it was more engaging than many other full blown games are. I feel like this game is like several smaller games in one big game. I'm going to be having fun with this for a long time.

By the way I'm playing a pure mage build and it's Fun as hell. Destro/Resto build. You really need to limit yourself to a few choice ways to playing to really feel buffed out (IMO). Otherwise you don't really get to feel as overpowered as a pure mage really is supposed to be. I see that as committing to your choices, rather than imposing limits on your play-style. The trick with this game is that by not limiting what you are going to level up, you are actually hurting yourself because you won't get to level up your class in the way you're trying to.

 

Is that really stupid glitch which was present in Oblivion still there?



I know there's a shitload of them but the one I mean is the one where you could make yourself weak to magic in order to amplify positive effects on yourself and run, Superman style, from one end of the world to the other in about 10 seconds.

 

I'm on your friends list. Check out my Human Revolution achievements.

I actually finished the game twice with no kills, but I apparantly killed someone in the first run. I think it was a knockout followed by a fall or someone landed in electrified water and died. Second time I succeeded.

 

Yeah, there's definitely a fundamental difference at play in our design philosophies. One of the things that I've noticed is that many people tend to associate terms like "freedom" and "open world" as synonymous with "good." However, I think that it's the execution of allowing freedom that makes it either good or bad. In fact, I think that in a lot of cases, restricting freedom is what leads to better games. For instance, in a platformer do you think it's better for a developer to create a lot of open space in which the player can interact with the environment in a near infinite amount of ways? Or is it better to limit the size of the environment so the developers can know all of the possible ways in which a player can interact with the environment? My opinion is that the latter is better, since 1) the developer can ensure that the level design is built in such a way as to maximize entertainment and 2) also so level design can be balanced.

I'll use the same concept for RPGs. If character development is too open, then the developer cannot control character balance and the enjoyment that comes from choosing a particular class. I think that your preference is to allow just total freedom, and if the game becomes broken as a result, then it's okay because it defers to the element of choice, and I just cannot agree with that. I can only appreciate a game when it's balanced and offers a sophisticated challenge. I'm not against open-world games per se, but it just so happens that most of the time when I find a game to be good, it's because the developers exercised their right to restrict the things that you can do.

It is great to be offered a plethora of choices to make in a game, but without balance between characters, the choice undermines the point of the entire experience. What's the point in having classes if all characters end up, or even can end up, the same way? Why not have one character type and let the player do what he wants with it? Some games have already done that, such as Arcanum. I think Arcanum has done the best job with this idea because while you can build your character however you like, it's still limited. You could become good with technology or good with magic. You could also do both, but you wouldn't have the benefits of concentrating in just one area. In Bethesda's RPGs you can be good at everything, thereby being able to handle all of the problems thrown at you. Because of that, the game becomes too easy. With no choices to which I need to commit, there's no challenge. And when there's no challenge, there's no fun.

And lastly, it's difficult to have fun in a game where different play styles aren't balanced. Games like Deus Ex and Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines offered different methods of problem solving, but they were balanced. What has your experience been with the reward for tackling a problem in different ways in Skyrim? In most RPGs that I've played, combat usually gets rewarded the most. Bloodlines offered the best solution by only rewarding you with experience for completing quests. That way, it doesn't matter how you've completed it. I'll get rewarded for playing how I want to play. If I choose to sneak by enemies, I don't need to worry about not getting the experience I would for killing enemies. Choice is good, but without balance the choices are pretty much made for us.

Again, limiting things is the best way to ensure balance. If a player is allowed to do too many things, then balance is difficult to attain. I think Bethesda thinks on too big a scale with how open character development is. I think that in part, it's so players don't need to commit to the choices they make. The room you have to change your type of character acts as a buffer to make too many mistakes. I think we might disagree on this, but I think that you should be able to make wrong choices. Of course, there's an obvious problem with that. I remember restarting Fallout because I wasn't happy with my build and the choices I had made. That means that in a game in which you need to commit to choices, there's the problem of having to play through it at least once so you can go back and play it properly. A lot of people might not like this, but when it happened to me I thought it was awesome. It meant that I needed to make difficult decisions and felt the weight of the choices that I had made.

I don't want to sound offensive because I know that you like this kind of game, but I think the whole hyper-open character development which takes away from the commitment to choices is a result of console retardation. Roleplaying games in the past like Fallout, Deus Ex, and Arcanum forced commitment to choices and were challenging because of it. Bethesda's RPGs aren't as stupid and easy as Japanese RPGs, but they don't offer the kind of sophistication and challenge that I require. It's hard to explain myself without sounding condescending, but this is what I believe.

 

Same happened to my friend. This is what most often happens:

 

When is MasterPo going to chime in?

 

He can't compete with my walls of text and he knows it.