Skyrim is a "sandbox game". The point of the sandbox is not to entertain. Imagination entertains. The point of the sandbox is to facilitate imagination. Figure out something else fun to do in the sandbox, after digging holes stops being fun. It's not "limiting yourself" or "gimping yourself". It's exercising your imagination.

After your learn how to kick the game's ass one way, think of another way to do it.

Maybe learn how to get to 81 without dying even once, with different builds. Maybe try never sneaking. Or using only melee weapons, no range. Exercising your imagination makes you smarter and more adaptable. Then you are a good player.

Just because you've discovered one way to do it, doesn't mean that it's ALL ways to do it. Then you'll see that what you consider "limiting yourself" is, in fact, the most rewarding way of having fun.

Oh, and none of this is intended to seem condescending, sarcastic or "acid". It's not a flame.

Yes, mom.

Skyrim is part sandbox-game, part dungeon crawler to me. What's the point of dungeon crawling when it's a breeze? If I'm supposed to play any way I want while still having fun, as TES is supposed to do, why do I need to not play how I want in order for half the game to be fun?

Your anology is flawed considering that all the points you are making pertain to combat.

There's a big difference between seeing what it's like to play a Mage instead of an Assassin and choosing to wear only Leather Armor instead of Glass Armor so that the enemies can pretend to be formidable.

You're not asking us to build a sand castle instead of a sand statue, you're asking us to try building it with just one hand, or one finger, instead of both hands or with a shovel.

Honestly, as long as you look at it from the standpoint of "limiting yourself" or "gimping", then you're not going to be satisfied. Because you're coming at it from a negative point of view.



But, yes, from another angle.... Skyrim (and the previous TES game, really) aren't min/max hack & slash powergamer games, like your typical MMO or ARPG (Diablo, Sacred, Titanquest, etc). If your primary goal is "Make My Numbers Bigger/Biggest!" (damage, armor, whatever), then these aren't the games for you. They don't hold up to that behavior - they aren't designed for it.

And yet they allow you to do just that.

If your primary goal is to make a Warrior that can challenge any opponent, and Skyrim allows you to do so (and encourages it with its mechanics), then those types of players have a game for them just fine.

Correct me if I'm wrong, buy Skyrim is designed to allow the player to decide what they want their goal to be, correct?

You can't have it both ways. You can't tell us Skyrim lets you play the way you want to, but that you shouldn't play in a way that you want to.

Sir, yes, sir!

You're saying (over and over) that we're trying to tell you how to play. We're not. We're telling you how to change your attitude so that play will be fun. Constant complaints about how the game isn't what you want it to be aren't productive. The developers aren't going to change one of the more popular games of the year (perhaps the decade) to make you happy. It's better if you try to understand the approach to playing that allows people to enjoy the game rather than beat your wardrums anytime someone suggests that there are ways to enjoy it.

Contradictions are often contradicting. You shouldn't be telling us to change anything, because we're not telling you to change anything.

And if you read my signature, most specifically the it kind of suggests, or rather out right says, "we're going to make changes to the game."

What I mean by "designed for powergaming"..... Diablo 2. Keeps handing out stronger and stronger gear. And keeps making the enemies worse and worse, so that you NEED that stronger gear to fight them, getting harder and harder as you distill your gear & stats down to the exact "perfect" setup that you need to survive. It caters to the min/max mindset, by not only allowing the player to get stronger, but by centering the gameplay around it.

Skyrim, yes, allows you to become very strong. But that's not it's central design.... it's not made to challenge that playstyle. If you play that way, you will not achieve satisfaction. Even though you can do it.


(and, really... the "play the way you want to" thing is, to a large extent, PR crap. You can't play an inventor who creates flying machines; you can't talk your way out of situations - the game is mostly combat; you can't do a whole lot of things. You can use any mix of the skills given - rather than being constrained by other games' classes; walk in any direction you want - rather than be funneled from one "zone" to the next as in other games; ignore the main quest and just screw around the world; and pursue a variety of combat styles. So, in that sense, it is more "play the way you want" than many other RPGs.)

And yet we get all those +20% damage Perks, all those +20% Armor Perks, all those +X Magicka/Health/Stamina Regeneration enchantments, all those +X% Resist enchantments, all those ways to make different potions to restore Health, Magicka or Stamina, or to raise our Block, Archery or Sneak skill.

Not to mention then there's Leather gear, Iron gear, Steel gear, etc, etc.

I'm sorry, but your logic is terribly flawed when Skyrim provides players with so many ways to make stats important but then we're not given a way to find satisfaction if we use the things Skyrim provides us.

If the game is not made to challenge that play style, then that play style should not be in the game in the first place. That's Design 101.

After reading so many posts like this, and seeing so many arguments for and against players controlling themselves when creating a character (some call it self-gimping) I've come to the conclusion that some people just want to complain.

All the control is in their hands. All the ways to play easy, hard, DiD, Roleplaying, power gaming, whatever

But so many can't handle it and can't control themselves and refuse to see what can be done.

They are missing something amazing and really... who cares. I'm having fun.

That may not have been your intention but that's exactly how it came across.

There are many different approaches to games but every game has players of all types.

Some will want to "max" out everything the hard, honest way. Others will hack/exploit to achieve the same aim. Then there are players who will simply play the game as designed and see what happens. The simple truth is though, it doesn't really matter. The game and any game is set out to entertain and if it does that then it achieves its aim.

The beauty of TES is it is a single player game and you play in the comfort of your own home so whichever way you play affects nobody else. Personally I'm not bothered what other people want to do, I know how I want to play and will do just that.

And many people have said they felt it doesn't achieve its aim.

Part of the fun of a game with character builds and different tiers of equipment is the challenge of figuring out how to use the different strengths of your character and the equipment available to overcome the obstacles that the design throws at you.

I don't find the opposite, to figure out how to avoid them in order to keep the game challenging, an entertaining way to play.

However, I think the problem is somewhat exaggerated, those supposed one-shot dragonkills don't start occuring until the final stages of the game and mostly apply to those who want to keep playing after most central quests have been completed and you've reached level 50+....not a problem for me who would retire a character before that.

It is a design flaw however that some of the most rewarding skills and perks are the easiest to achieve and raise...from a proper game design perspective you want to make those rewards the most difficult to obtain in order to give the player who obtains them a sense of accomplishment.

When you can one shot a Giant at level 32 (perhaps even sooner) with a backstab... that's very questionable.

And you are right. Getting to the higher echelon of some skill trees is very, very easy.

See I disagree with this almost completely, and I'll tell you why with a point I've made before.

There's a difference between a toy and a game. I'm not using "toy" here in a condescending manner; toys are perfectly fine and have their place. But a toy is something you entertain yourself with where challenge is not required. A game requires challenge to hold entertainment value for very long, however. Presented with an unchallenging game, most people will tinker with it for a while, get the "toy" value out of it, then set it aside once that's gone.

I'll give the same example I gave before: Will Wright's Spore. I don't know how many of you played Spore, but I'll bet a fair number of you have, and I'll bet that a lot of you will agree with me when I say that Spore is an absolutely addictive toy, but a very, very poor game. I've lost track of how many hours I've spent building spaceships and planes and tanks and even buildings in Spore, but the game itself is dull as watching paint dry while washing down a slice of stale bread with a glass of tepid water. Dull as a butter knife.

Skyrim of course isn't dull, of course. Any comparison between Skyrim as a game and Spore as a game would be silly; they both start with an S and you can play them on your computer. The similarities pretty much end there, so don't take this as meaning I have the same complaints about Skyrim as I do Spore.

But there are valid complaints. As some have said, certain parts of the game kill the game's challenge, even on Master level. This hasn't happened for me, but then I've only maxed one of the three crafting skills - smithing - and I still had parts of the game that were challenging. But the fact is that while (as I have said elsewhere) some few of these stories don't pass the smell test and reek more of a not-so-subtle attempt at bragging (YAWN, this game is too easy even on Master, either something's wrong or I'm just 133+ G4M3R!!1) it has to be said that there are simply too many people making this complaint for them all to be BSing just to brag.

Telling people it's up to them to preserve the challenge in the game is just making excuses. It's the developer's job to make sure nothing breaks the challenge of the game, just as in pen-and-paper role-playing games it's up the the DM to make sure his players are challenged without being overwhelmed. Most people don't particularly enjoy having to tie one hand behind their back to manufacture challenges in a game; when you can give yourself handicaps it's a sign that the game is too easy.

I agree somewhat about the sandbox nature of the game; Skyrim does have its toy aspects as well, but that doesn't excuse flaws in the game aspects of Skyrim.

None of this should mean that I don't like Skyrim; I think it's certainly one of the best games of the past couple years, the past decade, and probably even one of the best ever, and I've been playing computer games since Space Invaders. But certainly there are flaws in the balance of the game that require attention, and I don't think it detracts from the well-deserved praise that's often heaped on Bethesda (from me as well) to acknowledge that. People who make these criticisms are usually (except for the minority who are just mindlessly grumpy) also saying that the game is worth the time and effort to continue to tinker with in the interests of making it even better.

I agree that all the complaints are valid. But the better solution to the complaint is to alter yourself rather than hold your breath until someone else changes for you.

Not with a game, not really. Well, yes, regarding holding your breath, of course, but it certainly makes sense to let the developer know in hopes of having some rebalancing done. Supreme Commander 2 had some major alterations to their technology system after release, as well as big changes to how you queued things for production.

Right, so instead of voicing concerns, complaints and criticisms, we should just shut up and play the game.

Thanks, but no. That's not how the evolution of the gaming industry, nor the community, works.

There's no reason to limit myself.

When the way you want to play stops being fun, play another way. If you don't want to, play something else.

Thank you for summing up bad design.

No. There is no difference. Both are the same thing. Trying something different. I only gave 2 examples. Both dealing with combat, because that is the most common activity. My anology is sound.