Agree.

Sure, I suppose the original pre-Source CS would count. I don't know how many kept playing it after the Source version came out, though.

And no, I don't think MW was for casual gamers either. That's my point. Casual gamers tend to play something for a little while, enjoy the options they have, and move on. Crazy, fanatic, nerdy people with no social life will instead play the living hell out of a game, tweak it as they see fit, and possibly stay with a game long after it should be put to rest (and burried under six feet of dirt). Ten years down the line, it's quite arguable that MW should be given that treatment, considering it's terrible face textures, beyond dumb AI, and non-existing physics. Even so, there are still a fair few people playing it. Heavily modded usually, but people are playing it nearly ten years after the fact. Maybe it's just me, but I think it's fantastic when a developer can hit it's target audience so well that a game will stay popular for a decade.

It's also possible that in some cases you're misinterpreting specific criticisms as dislike of the game. For all my posting about destruction and game balance, I'm loving it. While I think they made bad choices with some of the mechanics, I'm loving the world and the element of randomness that they've built into it. Yesterday I went to clear a bandit cave and was attacked by a dragon. By the time the dragon was dead, so were all the bandits outside the cave. That sort of dynamism is priceless. Mechanics can be fixed.

Let's try this one claim at a time

1) DW is done well
I haven't experiented enough with it just yet, so these questions are based on my general observations, but since you're saying it's done exactly as it should be... Why is it that you don't suffer any balance issues when using an axe in your off hand as opposed to a dagger? Why is it that inherently gifted swordsmen such as Redguards and naturally clumsy swordsmen such as Bretons have an equally easy time becoming DW masters? Why is it that every main hand attack requires no stamina while every off hand attack requires stamina? Is it harder for you to swing a dagger in your off hand than a mace in your main hand?

2) Perk system is engaging and allows for the deepest specialization and custumization in an ES game yet.
Did you ever play Daggerfall? I didn't, but at least I read about it, and it sure would seem to me that it allowed for more specialization than even Morrowind. By the way, I made a fairly flexible Breton build for Skyrim a few hours ago.
http://skyrimcalculator.com/#24643

What do you think? I planned him as a sword'n board light armor skirmisher but then thought, hey, wouldn't it be cool if I could use whatever heavy or light armor I think looks cool? Wouldn't it be cool if I could make killer potions, make stupidly strong enchants, and perhaps use zero cost illusion spells to really control the battlefield? As a result, my Breton will now end up being a master archer, master armsman (with mace specialty), reach the armor cap, have crazy good magic resistance (25% Breton, 15% Mara, 20% alteration, 25% Lord Stone), have crazy good elemental resist just from blocking, and be a master illusionist. And with zero-cost illusion, I'm guessing sneaking won't be a problem and opening locks is easy enough without any of the perks, at least to me. Oh, did I forget to mention that he'll also be a master alchemist slash enchanter slash blacksmith?

Yeah, you're right, this game certainly forces you to specialize, doesn't it? Gone are the masters of all trades, jacks of none. Deepest specialization ever? Try specializing in Destruction. Only way to kill enemies is to either plant poison arrows in them with weakness to magic and an element or to stunlock them. Oh yeah, that's some AWESOME deep specialization going on right there, isn't it? Conjurers have the benefit of being able to summon a massive two (as in 2!!!) dremoras and watching them kill stuff for them, as best they can, using their not exactly stellar AI minds. Wait, maybe you meant specialization as in "you can be mage, rogue, warrior", in which case you certainly can, though of course the same can be said about any previous TES game.

Let's see, deep characters. Like the wizard that started out in thief school where he learned how to deal with locks and how to mix potions, before quitting and applying for mage school? Wait, you could make that in Morrowind too. How about a monk khajiit? You could certainly make those in Morrowind. How'd you go about that in Skyrim? But wait, yeah, you're right. Who cares about monks? Heck, who cares about unarmed combat or unarmored combat to begin with? That's not flashy at all, right? Much deeper to NOT INCLUDE THOSE OPTIONS AT ALL, right?

How about the horse-hating spearman? Nope, can't make him. How about the horse-loving, horse-based spearman? Nope, can't make him and can't even attack from a horse anyway. But it's deeper to not do unrealistic stuff like attacking with a long weapon from the elevated position of a horseback, using the horse's weight and speed for added momentum, right? How about an axe-master who hates lame blunts and blades but loves axes? Well, you can make him but you need two skills and two perk trees for dedicating yourself to a single weapon type, whereas dedicating yourself to all forms of either 1-H or 2-H requires just one skill and one perk tree. Yeah, totally deep stuff, you're absolutely right.

You know, let's reverse this since my opinion is fairly clear at this point. I don't think taking things out is how you add depth. I don't think taking things out is how you add complexity or specialization. Since we don't seem to agree here, you could shoot me down by showing some of all those options you have now that you didn't have before? Show some characters that you can totally RP now that were not possible before? I'm waiting in excitement.

3) Best combat in a TES game so far
Physical combat, yes, I agree. It's the most engaging combat I've tried in a TES game. Then again, I do like action games so me being engaged by this is not surprising.

Magic combat, hell no. I'd rather have to play the chess game that was spellcasting in Morrowind than I'd have to spam the same three or four pre-defined damage spells over and over and over and over and over to kill enemies, and I don't want to be an arch-mage that can't actually kill anyone except by either tricking their friends into doing it for me or summoning a minion to do it for me. In Morrowind a summoner could have golden saints or dremora or other daedra or dwarven robots. Or you could go overboard and summon one of each. Okay, those summons were dumb as boards but that was an honest engine limitation at the time. Having zero magic options in Skyrim has nothing to do with the engine and everything to do with design choice.

STREAMLINING ruined tainted what could have been something amazing. As quoted in my sig, "It's disheartening to see the Elder Scrolls Series devolve from an epic RPG into a video game."

You can't jump while running.
You can't attack while jumping.
You can't attack while underwater.
You can't move or interact with ANY loose item that isn't a foodstuff, pot, or piece of armor/weapon (and even when you can the physics are WORSE than a previous TES installment that came out 6 years ago)

Oh well. At least the game is pretty.

oh of course, but i think by removing the whole class thing where only skills you choose in the beginning level you up is a step in the right direction. and not limiting you to a birthsign. it makes you create your character/class with your actions rather than setting it up before hand, and i think that makes it a superior rpg

I just find the leveling system mostly the same, albeit the selection of perks instead of attributes. This leaves my biggest problem with previous leveling systems largely untouched: abandoning the organic, natural evolution in the improve-through-use system for one in which the player can arbitrarily select from a list of improvements which may or may no have anything to do with the skills she has put to use.

I also find that abandoning the backstory element of setting a character's starting skill levels and abilities removes early character distinction. In previous Elder Scrolls games, there was always a solid difference between different character builds early in the game. Depending on how you progressed your character, those distinctions may have become more or less acute. Skyrim ostensibly has character distinction in later levels (though I feel pretty competent in a whole range of abilities), but lacks this early differentiation.

Stones of power could still be implemented just as they are in Skyrim without cutting content like Birthsigns (which I think ought be an optional character trait rather than mandatory). So it largely comes down to missing features or one feature swapped for another. There's no real expansion on character builds, only trade-offs between the different titles.

And let me add, just for the heck of it, that the reason I'm posting all this [censored] isn't because I hate Skyrim or because I want to piss on people who do. If I hated Skyrim, I wouldn't bother posting here at all. I type fairly long posts, relatively speaking, because I think it's got the potential for greatness but is weighed down by (IMO) outright moronic decisions that serve no other purpose than to cater to a target segment who don't want depth, or details, or any of the stuff that makes fans of TES3- giddy.

Me, I'd love if magic made sense. I'd love of the cities actually seemed realistic, if the travel distance even begun to seem realistic, if the large open wastes in Skyrim actually were large and open rather than merely large, if I could throw rocks after dragons with telekinesis or levitate into the air and introduce their knees to my arrows at point blank range. I'd love if the skills actually made sense, I'd love if there was a road between weightless light armor and weightless heavy armor, I'd love it if a frail Breton girl didn't start out with the same carrying capacity as a sturdy Nord male, I'd love it if race actually had more impact than whether you'd get +50 magicka and once-per-day infinite magicka potions or +25% resistance to all magical damage. I'd love it if there was a deeper representation of how well an NPC likes you than a trinary "likes", "dunno", or "dislikes". I'd like if I couldn't convince someone I'm a buddy by simply saying "hey pal, I'm your buddy, please let me enter your house, go through your study, steal a bunch of things, and take a secret notebook". Oh, and I'd like to see full voice overs die ASAP, since they're hugely limiting with respect to dialogue options and practically impossible for modders to work with.

So many things I'd really like to see happening. It's probably not going to happen, I know that, but it definitely won't if nobody will tell gamesas anything other than that everything they do rocks, no matter how little sense it makes?

My problem with this is that levels are really just an abstraction for how good at something you are. Your character level tells you how experienced you are as a character. Your skill levels tell you how good you are at various skills. That's the convention wisdom, at least, but it is violated in all sorts of ways in Skyrim. Having 100 1H skill is less efficient that 20 skill and 1 perk. Thus your level with 1H doesn't really tell you how good you are with 1H weapons, it simply allows you to take all the 1H perks you want, which kind of ruins the concept of the skill telling you how good you are at whatever the skill represents.

Similarly, your character level can become a bit iffy. If you imagine yourself as a warrior of some kind and you sell 2000 apples one at a time, there's a good chance you'll level up. Your warrior has leveled up and become better at being a warrior by selling apples? Does that seem reasonable?

Morrowind was the first TES game I played. It's nostagic to me, but I still like Skyrim better.

Skill level = experience
Perks = tecnique

I can swing an axe 5000 times, that does not make me a better warrior, but if in swinging the axe 5000 times I learn how and where to attack a man in full steel plate armor, then I do become a better warrior.

Because the game is souless in the way your character isn't acknowledged within the gameworld (pretty much treated the same by npcs as you are when you start the game). That's my only gripe- everything else is good.

People know what TES was about. They expected alot more considering the time that has passed & the advancement in general gaming itself. Instead they got what you can say is a "new age rpg". If you updated Morrowind to todays standards of graphics & such, it would blow Skyrim out the water & you would realize Skyrim is not an RPG, it is not part of TES anymore.

Sure the game looks pretty on consoles, its limited to what consoles are able to do. If you are a strict console player and just getting into "rpgs" then I can see why people would like this & think it is "amazing". Then there is the other side of the spectrum. The PC crowd.

The "streamlining" is nothing more then another description of consolization. Everything about the game was "dumbed down" for consoles because of the limited ability the console has. This isnt a knock on console players or pc players, it is just how it is. You look at games that been out for a while & see they have more depth then Skyrim does. Mounted combat for instance. The combat system in itself is very outdated. It severely, imho, takes away from the game ALOT. The features in pass TES games just arent there in favor of "streamlinging". ( removal of attributes, ranking systems in guilds )

The very low amount of weapons / armor / spells in game is a let down completely. Sure there are alot of quests to do in game & the game is chalked up to be an open world game but it is very linear. You have choices A & B for quests ( do or don't do ). There is no C D E F or G. I still fail to see this "Radiant AI" thing happening or if it is happening it is nothing new & at the very least minimal. There is very little immersion in the game also. Oh hey you are an important part of the stormcloaks yet you can just waltz around imperial towns & chat with imperial leaders....as an example. If I help lead a raid on a town & take over that town, I fully expect to see ramifications to my choices. Sure there are an endless amount of quests but when those quests are so shallow, is that really a feature or fun?

Overall I think those that dislike this game expected alot more in terms of an actual RPG, things they could have expanded on from before. Things that recent games have but are absent in this game. Frankly, FO3 & FO:NV are better games in general compared to skyrim. This seems nothing more then a game of thrones setting in a alpha staged FO3. There is just nothing outstanding, gamebreaking, revolutionary about the game at all.

I loved this series too but this game was sold on the hype of the series name & marketing. It was dragon age 2ed.

You know if you people hate it so much you could, I dunno... stop playing it?

Maybe not lurk around waiting to respond to every single post from people who do like it with some snide "Dwight from the Office" comment about why they shouldn't? Maybe grow up, get a life and not hang out on the forums just trying to ruin everyone else's good time?

Just a thought. I've seen the same people post the same comments everyday for weeks. It's pretty sad. Maybe you should look into some counseling.

This may be a big defining line, too. For me, combat is just a means to an end (like lockpicking used to be). For others, combat is what the game is all about and it can't be flashy or involved enough. I was satisfied with clicking to try and hit, but others want to dodge, move, sidestep, bunny hop, and do all sorts of things.

I think it's telling that the only aspect of the game that the difficulty slider changes is combat.

Oh, RobotMilk, you zany little hypocrite. My mirth was audible.

I haven't played Daggerfall in depth, so I need more time with it before I can really judge it. But in my very brief experience with it, it had more options but it really became rather bloated. I thought it had -too much-, and I thought the gameplay / controls were atrocious.

But who knows, I may change my tune after a more in depth experience with it.

And that's cool and all, but the thing is, there's a lot of people who believe that Oblivion or Skyrim didn't regress in those regards, and when those people express their opinions, there's a significant percentage of the Morrowind fanbase (no, not all, and I'm not claiming you) come in with remarks like "are you serious??" and can't accept that yes, we think Skyrim is an improvement through and through over Morrowind.

I feel there's some people out there that harp on the one or two things that Skyrim regresses in, and harp on that over and over again, and claim the entire thing to be a regression.

I think they already have expanded. I think that Skyrim is that game.

Explain. How does Skyrim offer more than what came in previous Elder Scrolls titles?

I played Morrowind and the 2 add ons but I did not like the indepth weapon system.

I played Oblivion I love the siplified weapon sytem and just about everything else.

In both of those games you could join any guild and yet be invisible to any other guild.

It is the same in Skyrim. That has not changed.

BTW Skyrim is the best TES game yet.


Combat has always been the way of the TES games. It is How You Play that makes it an RPG.


if such and such a game was better GO PLAY IT and give us a break from all the griping.

you need to look up the definition of expanded, because skyrim is defiantly not it.

Yes it does. Pactice makes perfect.

Not if you are practicing wrong

stop this, right here... its not about console v pc. there are plenty of us console players who think the UI is crap and the 'R' has been lost.


I think its less about the capabilities (morrowind worked on the OLD xbox ffs, and can be run under wine on a crappy PC + linux). Its about accessibility.

pre-oblivion games were hard to learn, but fun to play many hours in. skyrim has been made very easy to learn, but lacks the complexity and associated depth that a game thats harder to learn might have.

we got watered down gameplay and character building constructs so anybody picking this up in the first week is like, 'ZOMFG, this game is EPIC'

little do they know that if it had more complexity, and they were saying 'ZOMFG, this game is HARD and CONFUSING' during the first week, it would be more fun to play in the 52nd week.


yes