The Elder Scrolls V-Skyrim

This sounds like nonsense to me. I can go out and rob someone today. I will not do it. I make the choice.

I don't understand how your choice to not overpower a character makes the game, say, less enjoyable or without point.

 

Especially since this is completely a singleplayer game. DIscussing character balance in a multiplayer game is much more important, since your actions affect other players.

Also, I have not yet experienced 'brokenness' on my part in Skyrim despite approaching lvl 30 on my character. Sure I can beat up some low level bandits but its still very easy for me to die if I am not careful against tougher opponents. Not all enemies in Skyrim scale, which may create an illusion of 'broken' character depending what you actually do in the game.

I do appreciate having the option of an overpowered (I prefer this term over 'broken') character. Its kind of like of driving a powerful sports car. When you drive public roads you stick to the speed limit, but the knowledge of the fact that you could floor it if you wanted, gives you that feeling of power that many people crave.

 

It is weird hearing this from you, of all people. Is difficultý the only measure by which you make your playing choices? Do you choose to play a smooth talker in a RPG simply because it is difficult compared to playing a combat character? Or is there some other reason?

"decision has already been made for you"? I expected you to be the last person saying such a thing. You are in no way obligated to follow other peoples example.

I would understand your opinion bit more if the game would be so easy, that people would always choose a certain playstyle that left other playstyles unexplored. That is not the case with Skyrim as far as I can tell. If you divide your perks across multiple skilltrees the difficulty of combat rises rapidly. And so far I have not felt my character is in any way overpowered.

ps. Skyrim has a difficulty slider btw, which can be adjusted at any time. Im playing the middle difficulty, and I dont feel overpowered at all.

 

If I choose to play as a smooth talker instead of a combat character, it's because I want to experience the role of that character. I don't care if one playstyle is more difficult than the other. I care if the advantages of using one style of character are so great that there's little point in me using a different character. I don't like Bethesda's RPGs for two reasons: The first is that your characters can do too much. It's not roleplaying if I can pick every lock, cast every spell, handle any weapon, talk my way out of everything, etc. The second reason is because they award combat too much, and the different "roles" mostly defer to the combat. It doesn't matter if I'm using a bow and arrow, a sword, or a fireball. They're all combat options, and the decision in choosing a character then becomes not much different from pressing different keys on a keyboard to select different weapons in a FPS.

EDIT: Here's an example of which you'd be familiar Manji:

 

Do you have the proper tools to rob a bank? Do you have schematics of the bank, and a team to assist you? Do you have weapons of which you are well trained? Do you have explosives or safe picking tools to access the money? If you don't have these, then the choice is pretty much made for you to go the honest way. It would not be a good idea for you to choose to rob a bank.

My statement was hyperbolic. Yeah, I can make the choice to do anything, but some choices are pretty silly, at least to me. If you don't believe that the disparity in how Bethesda's RPGs award playstyles is terrible, then that's cool. I just disagree.

 

The problem imo Libertine, is that you don't seem to respect the other point of view, without making it seem less than. When it's simply just a different point of view.

You not liking something or disagreeing with it =/= terrible or bad.

That's why I stopped responding earlier. I can accept your point of view, of you not liking the game, or its approach and mindset. And, I'm not going to downplay your point of view, for enjoying games of the same genre that follow a completely different approach, so why do that to mine?

You don't like the game nor Bethesda. I get it.

EDIT: I'm not going to try to get you to look at these games differently, to enjoy them anymore. You simply won't enjoy them.

 

Thank you for the conversation with me in the Shout Box. I might just renege from this discussion, because I'm pretty socially awkward.

 

Yes, but I think the real issue is whether or not if Bethesda (and most games made these days) can be referred as "RPGs."

Evidence points to their games being too combat heavy. This wouldn't be a problem if it was done well. Play "Mount and Blade," UT99, etc. if you want an example of good combat.

Enjoy if you like, mod if you like, but they are either marketed incorrectly as RPGs, or are one of the best examples "retard-ization" of gaming due to cross platforming.

Think of the children... this is their definitive "RPG" experience. How is that not sad?

 

If it's their definitive "RPG" experience, then yeah I guess that's kind of sad, especially if they neglect the many other excellent RPGs out there, and also if we're only looking at the console versions with its capped potential.

Since you say the game is incorrectly marketed as an RPG, what genre would you fit it into? Also, to be honest I don't think it's really an RPG either, in the sense that it doesn't merely just fit into that. It feels more like a community game offshoot in the RPG world. Sort of how Little Big Planet is that, to platformers.

Again, if I wasn't playing it on PC, I wouldn't enjoy it nearly as much, and I wouldn't and couldn't bother with console Oblivion.

p.s. I got Mount and Blade Warband, although I didn't play it much.

 

I'd have to say that the The Elder Scrolls (TES) series is an RPG series, but we've reached the point in games where the term RPG needs clarification. Or sub-classification.

RPG means "role playing game". Wikipedia defines that as:

"A role-playing game (RPG) is a game in which players assume the roles of characters in a fictional setting. Players take responsibility for acting out these roles within a narrative, either through literal acting, or through a process of structured decision-making or character development. Actions taken within many games succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines. [...]

Several varieties of RPG also exist in electronic media, including multi-player text-based MUDs and their graphics-based successors, massively multiplayer online role-playing games (MMORPGs). Role-playing games also include single-player offline role-playing video games in which players control a character or team who undertake quests, and may include capabilities that advance using statistical mechanics. These games often share settings and rules with tabletop RPGs, but emphasize character advancement more than collaborative storytelling."

I understand Wikipedia isn't the best source of information, but in this case I think their initial definition is poignant. At its heart, TES is a role-playing game, but needs sub-classification.

TES has stats, character advancement & building, character choice, table-top mechanics, and all the other things in the traditional definition. However, it is a very different game from the Final Fantasy series (JRPG) or Valkyria Chronicles (strategy rpg, SRPG) or World of Warcraft (MMORPG).

I've heard TES called a "Western-RPG" or an "Action RPG". I think both classifications fit. Would you agree?

I do wonder how its sad if a younger gamer does define TES as their definitive RPG experience. The game allows for most (if not all) of the traditions of electronic RPGs, just presented in a different style. If they have a great time exploring the world and developing their character, how is that a loss for them? I don't understand the talk surrounding this game in which people may imply that this game is somehow damaging the genre (or industry) by its very existence or popularity. Does anyone honestly feel that way, or am I imagining things?

 

I don't think you're imagining things. It seems as if this is really Sebo's thoughts on the matter, as if a game like Skyrim is damaging the genre, lol.

 

As I've never played that game, could you explain what a Strategy RPG is? Would Fallout qualify as being one?

 

Falout is an RPG. Just like in real life - there are not always more than 1 doable options. Oblivion is a RPG. Role Playing GAME. The makers are allowed constructs that direct you at points.

 

I haven't played the original Fallout, but from what I've seen I wouldn't call it an SRPG. Fallout 3 is definitely not a SRPG.

SRPGs are games where the combat is usually turn-based, the player is controlling more than one character, and things like range and height come into play. Other examples of SRPGs are Final Fantasy Tactics, Disgea, and Vandal Hearts.

 

My favorite is Front Mission 3.

 

I'm interested in playing Final Fantasy Tactics. I wouldn't call it an RPG though, since I believe that RPGs are fundamentally about diverse ways of problem solving. Tactics seems to only involve combat. That's not to say that I'm not expecting the game to be good though. I'm expecting to find the game decent at worst and great at best.

 

Get the original on PS1, or it's remake on GBA. you don't want to go for war of the lions or the sequel to the GBA remake.

 

Ok, some critical comments here. Sneaking in skyrim feels less cool than it should be, since sneaking in full light armor only one sneak +20% perk remains insanely easy even with 2nd highest difficulty rating. The rest of the game is with 0 light armor perks AND legendary dragon scale armors remains interesting (ie one-hit deaths every couple of minutes), but insane sneaking kills, esp if combined with 15-30x damage perks... hmmm. A lot of humanoids in caves also look at walls like utter idiots and don't seem to have even simplistic Metal Gear style patterns either. Mods please fix this shit!

Of course there are several character builds and so many ways to play the game that this hardly matters too much - yet sneaking was far too easy in vanilla oblivion too and I was hoping a lot of this one. I imagine maxing the difficulty is not a solution either in the long run. I like the game being tough for me, but sneak skill suckage undermines that a bit.

Sure, one can always play avoiding perks that make the game more annoying in context of other personal preferences. But still, making sneaking more challenging seems to demand here the use of heavy armor, which I don't want to do now. I consider this quite a major point, since being a thief is one of the major 3 classic rpg classes that the game also refers in so many games (stones, skill classes etc). I even have had a lot of other class development and mine not a simple sneak build at all.

All in all, I'm still hooked and enchanted by the wealth of game entertainment here, no problem.

 

I have it for the PS1. I'm just too lazy to connect a PS2 right now and my PS3 probably doesn't have backwards compatibility.

I also am trying a Skyrim playthrough not making any kills. If I can, or I can make very little, I'll be pleasantly surprised.

 

If you have the original disc then I suggest using ePSXe on your PC, it'll run tactics fine. You should probably back up the game and run it from that instead of the original disc.