Different people have differing opinions. I can't believe that you started a whole thread for this.

How can you not see that this series has lost its role play heart and just turned into very simple 'hack and slash?'

The action crowd has stuffed this industry right up....

You don't "practice" in Skyrim, you attack people. Any experience gained is combat experience. If you practice "wrong" you miss, or you die. But you can't separate the sword swinging from the combat experience that provides you with insight into enemy strengths/weaknesses, critical strikes, staggering blows, etc.

Or rather, you can, but it doesn't really flow well with the whole learn-by-doing approach to character progression.

I didn't bring up "practice". My illustration is just providing my view on what perks relate too.

You said, "Not if you're practicing wrong." Who brought it up originally, is immaterial.

Perks are precisely what I'm criticizing. There is no way of reliably separating perks and skills as they've done in Skyrim. You can't have a proper learn-by-doing system while relying on perks for all the real benefits.

That is a conclution many have arrived at.

haha nostalgia is just a poor excuse for "i cant think up a good argument"

Yes you did.

And that's silly. You can't practice wrong. Through practice you do what you can. Might be right, might be wrong. You learn from that you're doing wrong and try not to do it again. Why am I explaining the fundamentals of human knowledge and learning here?

Where?


Which is where technique comes into play. How is this hard for people to understand.

Technique is learned gradually, though. You aren't just informed, "Hey, maybe try it this way," and then immediately gain a permanent bonus. You gradually develop understanding. In the context of melee combat, you will learn not only how to properly swing a sword, but how to angle the blade and target a thrust into vulnerable areas. You will improve your ability to anticipate enemy attacks and look for openings. Your speed and the staggering power of your strikes will improve.

These improvements are not binary and they are not two or three tiers of proficiency. It's a whole spectrum, highly granular, as you progress towards mastery. 100 separate skill levels, all slowly improving this proficiency, is far more reflective of this improvement than half a dozen perks, with many merely being binary, on-off affairs.

-----

I'm not disputing that your argument can't make sense. It can. But it's a clumsy justification, which is more a commentary on the clumsy perk system than the argument it begets.

• You have Skyrim fans.
  
• You have nostalgic fans who don't like change.
  
• Classic RPGers who don't like the FPS aspect of the game.
  
• FPS fans who don't like the role playing aspect.
  
• The mmo/mmorpg immigrants and their opinions/expectations.
  
• Power gamers who understand the game mechanics and are bored because they are super uber.
  
• Wanna-be power gamers who don't understand the mechanics and gimp themselves end game.
  
• Diablo-types who just want to mash buttons to advance the game.
  
• Casual gamers who simply enjoy the game.
  
• And the old schooler text based and DOS SSI Gold Box retirees who have been waiting 2.5 decades for a sandbox game like this.

This is Morrowind you mean? In many RPGs (including Baldur's Gate 1&2, Fallout, and to a limited extent FO3), the weapon is just for show and the real result happens irrespective of where the gun was pointed or where the projectile hit. (This happens to be my preferred method BTW.)

It is admittedly awkward in a first person game, but it's an artifact of the method ~the method that takes the PC's personal capabilities into account. To retain that (strength IMO), a first person RPG would have to have many animations for clearly depicted stumbling, misjudged distances, and control of the projectiles to ensure that they only nick or miss the target when appropriate; That's not going to happen any time soon. This is [partially] why you could shoot point blank in FO3 (even with the gun pressed to the target) and still miss; or shoot him 32 times in the head, and him shoot back. I don't count that as a bug either.

hm humans like to argue ask questions,debate,agree,rant,praise,demonize,and glorify........it may always be thus......homie

Yeah, that is awkard. If they want to claim the whole game in regression just because of one or two things, that would be their opinion. I can't see anything wrong with that.

Also, I read that conversation. Why go with "I think it is better in those aspects" where the other side provides substance to back their claims? I am reading your post and my answer would be "Because they think it is improved overall." That's wrong. Just have the courage to address these problems.

Those who denies all criticism or those who calls the regression where they see it?

No game is perfect, right? No one here thinks Morrowind was perfect. I can go two pages about it. I have few issues about Skyrim.

Can you tell me one two things about Skyrim that can be improved? All these people criticising about one two aspects. You never have to agree with their overall opinions about the game but you can still call the lacking aspects. If you let their opinions or your love to Skyrim stopping you then the blindness here is not caused by rose tinted glasses.

I won't say Morrowind "needed" it, but it got it either way. There's a simple "always hit" mod that makes it play more like Oblivion/Skyrim. Issue fixed!

But yes, vanilla Morrowind could have used parry and dodge animations to make sense why you didn't always hit.




See above. If that's all that kept you from enjoying Morrowind, get the "Always Hit" mod




*GASP*
Facial textures do not make a game. Radiant AI or not, Skyrim's NPCs aren't exactly geniuses when it comes to combat either. In fact, the only real difference I see is that Morrowind's NPCs didn't follow you between cells (interior cells anyway), but that was fixed with a mod. And the physics in Oblivion/Skyrim hardly make ANY difference in anything. They are fun to play with, but that's all. Traps can be scripted, so no difference there.




The problem with that is that EVERY character is ALWAYS the same at the beginning. They are ALL equally strong, fast, and magically gifted. There is NO difference whatsoever outside of the racial bonus. EVERY character is equal parts warrior/thief/mage. That's just silly.




The problem I have with perks is that they are either "on" or "off." There is no inbetween. I'd prefer to have the specialties that perks represent be implemented as a sub-skill from 0-100. The more you do it, the better your specialty is.




Indeed, the default controls make no sense to modern gamers. I can't handle them either. I had to reassign most keys to mimic newer games. Also have to use mouselook. Even then, the interface is clunky. Daggerfall always was a buggy game. But if you can get past the bugs, controls, and the graphics, there is a very deep game to experience.

Well, people always do say that TES is about choice. Daggerfall gives you that in loads. If you skill up in a creature's language, they will become less hostile to you. That alone is a feature that I wish would be around these days.




I'm equal parts critic to any game. There are many good things about Skyrim. I just think there are many bad ones, at least compared to the earlier games, also. I can say the same about Oblivion and Morrowind. I didn't play much of Arena, so I can't honestly compare Daggerfall to it. So I can only say what I see is good and bad about Daggerfall. It is my standard. Many things have improved on Daggerfall. But many have also regressed. Sadly, it seems like more of the latter... at least the core design.

I can certainly respect your opinion of it, but I would really like to read your precise reasons (beyond what's in your post).
What really makes it superior due to the change, and (specifically) why is that (in your opinion)?

I ask because I do seem to hold the opposite opinion with TES or any other rpg that treats skills and PCs similarly; (with rare exception).

Too many craptastic MMO players trying out single player RPGs because they whined and complained themselves into a cesspool of WoW clones.

That's the real issue.

welcome to politics. e.g. - half the people on any given subject have opposing views. life. *shrugs*

Different folks have different likes/dislikes. That's about the simplest explanation. It's not just here, though. You'll find exactly the same complaints on any forum dealing with games and (most importantly) sequels to those games. In general tone, there is no difference between the discussions here about Skyrim and the discussions over at Ubisoft about the latest Deus Ex or Assassin's Creed or over at Bioware about the Mass Effect series or the various Star Wars games. Everyone has their own idea of how a game should be. For some people, a game lives up to those expectations and for others, it doesn't.

I've been doing the Elder Scrolls for about 15 years and can personally attest to the same kinds of complaints, arguments and flaming when Morrowind and Oblivion were each released.

For my part, I think each game stands very well on its own. I've got my gripes about Skyrim (and Daggerfall and Morrowind and Oblivion). But taken in the context of Skyrim and not by way of comparison to any other game in the series, it is awesomely done. It falls short in various ways if held up to other games, but it also surpasses those games in other ways. I will never convince anyone holding a differing view that my view is correct. By the same token, they will probably never convince me that their view is correct, even though I might agree with many or most of their points.

It's a matter of taste, said the lady as she kissed the cow.

I would be happy to, if you're willing to read a TL;DR post, and not just completely brush off my points as non-sense. You don't have to agree with me, but this is why I feel Skyrim is a deeper game than Morrowind, and in the end, the better Elder Scrolls game and the better RPG.

First off, skills.

Due to the perks system, I believe that even with a lower number of skills (18 compared to 21, or 27) there is more to do, and more customization and specialization options for characterization. I feel like I can create and specialize characters in ways that I never could in Morrowind, and I can make even similarly skills characters different from others. A perfect example: (before I accidentally deleted every game save on my X-Box 360 hard drive ) I had a dual wielding, heavy armored combat character. So did my best friend. However, our characters were different, because we allocated our perks differently even within the same skills. He perked deeper into the One Handed skill, making him more specialized than I was. He had One Handed bonuses that I didn't. He perked deeper into the Heavy Armor tree, so he had Heavy Armor specialization that I didn't. Meanwhile, I was spending time spending perks in skills like Conjuration, Enchanting, and Alteration, making my warrior much more magical focused than my friend's character.

Had this been Morrowind or Oblivion - yes, I would be able to select One Handed, Heavy Armor, Conjuration, Enchanting, and Alteration as my major skills, and sure, that would have been different than my friend who would have probably selected One Handed, Heavy Armor, Smithing, and whatever other combat skills he wanted, but here's where I believe Skyrim excels over even Morrowind - What it would essentially come down to is that my character would have identical One Handed capabilities to my friend who had One Handed, because eventually we would both reach level 100 in that skill, and there would be no variation, at all. Same with Heavy Armor. Morrowind skills = level up from 1-100, your damage and hit chance increases, or your armor rating increases. Skyrim skills = you level up from 1-100, but character A can be level 100 in One Handed, while focusing on Maces, and additional power attack damage, while character B can be level 100 in One Handed, while focusing on Swords and Dual Wielding, which is an entirely different playstyle, all within the same single skill. Then you have Character C who can be level 100 in One Handed, and a master of all weaponry, fully perked out in swords, maces, and axes, able to pick up and utilize any weapon to equal effectiveness.

Conjuration, another skill that I mentioned, is the same way. Character A can be level 100 in Conjuration, and be completely devoted to conjuring Atronachs from Oblivion to fight for them. Character B can be level 100 in Conjuration, and be focused on Necromancy, and reanimating their fallen victims to fight for them. Or Character C can be level 100 in Conjuration, and be focused on Bound Weapons and attacking with magical weapons.

This works for every skill tree, being able to be both 1.) skilled in a skill (level 100 in skill ) 2.) specialized in particular aspects of said skill to add further character and customization to your character.

I believe this offers deeper specialization than Morrowind and Oblivion's "class" system, was essentially tag 10 (or 7) skills, and label them, but beyond that label, there was no true meaning going any deeper. There was no real specialization, because any character could reach level 100 in any and all skills, and be a master of everything. While it -is- possible to level every skill to 100 in Skyrim, it isn't possible to truly be a master of all, because you are limited to only so many perks. In essence, while there is no "class" in the game by name, and you don't assign any skills, it is actually more of a "class" system than either Morrowind or Oblivion, because your true specialization can only be a handful of skills, whereas the other games allowed you to become equally good at everything.

Character development is the most important element of Elder Scrolls games to me, being able to design a character entirely in your vision, and I feel Skyrim's system is superior in every way to that of Morrowind or Oblivion. The much improved character development system gives me more (and deeper) roleplay opportunities, and more possible builds than before. I feel Skyrim excels in the most important RPG element.

Magic: I don't deny that magic suffered, but I believe the suffering is greatly exaggerated. I'd like to see some of the older spells effects come back (specifically, the summons that were taken out, and Command spells). I don't particularly see a huge need for Spellmaking. I thought it was great in Morrowind and Oblivion, but not the "staple" that people made it out to be. I believe that dual wield casting effectively replaces Spellmaking. I believe that various types of casting abilities make for a potentially deeper magic system. I believe that the magic system needs DLC to replace many of the removed spell effects, and it will be a superior in every way magic system. An improved dual cast spell effect interaction system will make it untouchable.

Magic itself I don't believe is really better or worse than Morrowind or Oblivion. Certain spell effects are certainly missed. The actual mechanics are greatly improved. I believe the current mechanics offer much deeper potential than anything seen in Morrowind or Oblivion. I believe it just needs a bit of polishing to get there. As a huge fan of Spellmaking from previous games, I prefer the current mechanics of spell use over that of Spellmaking.

Combat: Combat is one again improved upon, and was already the major thing improved upon from Morrowind to Oblivion. Best combat mechanics yet, even if it is just a glorified, slightly improved Oblivion combat system.

Quests: I will admit, actual questlines leave a bit to be desired (I finished the College of Winterhold's main quest well before I felt it "should" have been over), but the individual quests are much better than they have been. The introductory College of Winterhold quest, investigating the ruins of Saarthaal, and uncovering what lays beneath, and the following quests uncovering the mystery of the Eye of Magus, were much more intriguing than saving a random mage from a cave of zombies for a recommendation.

(P.S.: I don't have Oblivion guilds, I like them much so. But the Recommendation quests were rather tedious at times)

Quests like the one that gets you involved in the Saadia / Alik'r conflict are nice little sidequests that give you nice bits of choice on how to finish the quest.

I prefer the Daedric quests in Skyrim to that of Oblivion. The drinking contest that took me across the map to Markarth, and running around the map in pursuit of the truth of what really happened was a very engaging questline. I also really liked the Star of Azura questline. Meridia's questline to get the Dawnbreaker was fun and exciting.

And speaking of Markarth, everything that happens in that town, from the abandoned home possessed by Molag Bal, to the Forsworn underbelly, have rich and engaging quests.

And as far as choice goes, the best part of choice is when the game doesn't smack you in the face with "It's time for you to make a choice, here it is!" and instead your choice is simply you CHOOSING to do something. As was the case with Escape from Chidna Mine. Working with the Forsworn, who had become my enemies, to get myself out of the prison, to turning on them once we escaped, and killing them all and fighting alongside the city guard - I didn't need the game to tell me it was time to make a choice. I CHOSE to attack the Forsworn, and I did. That's the beauty of Skyrim, and Elder Scrolls games in general.

All of the random encounters throughout the world. Being stalked by Dark Brotherhood assassins who have a hit out on you (I admit, I'd like to be able to track down the person who put a hit on me, and face them man to man and stop those attacks). The sense of journey and adventure - something Oblivion began to lose with an over inflated Speed attribute, and an essentially wide open map that let you go from point A to point B without much obstacle in between - and the sense of size and scope without having to severely gimp your character's default run speed like Morrowind. (which was rather reminiscent of those nightmares where you are trying to run from something, but can't because you're stuck running in place).

I feel that where Skyrim removed a feature previously found in the series, they replaced it with something deeper and superior. They removed weapon and armor degradation, and replaced it with a fully fleshed out equipment crafting system involving the gathering and refining of resources (in my experiences with Smithing, it is not anywhere close to the claims of "broken" that have been commonplace on these forums). Attributes were replaced with deeper Perks that offer more opportunities for customization and character development. Mysticism wasn't removed, it was simply merged with Alteration and Conjuration. Spellmaking, and select spell effects were removed, but we got newer styles of casting mechanics that offer variety that hasn't been seen in Elder Scrolls before (we finally get to reanimate the dead, for instance).

Could Skyrim benefit from removed features being reimplemented? Yes.

But my opinion is that what was added is better and deeper than what was removed. Yes, the game would be EVEN DEEPER if ALL things were implemented. Smithing, for instance, would be even DEEPER if it kept equipment degradation WITH fully craftable armor and weapon sets. Yes, the game would be EVEN DEEPER if it kept Spellmaking and the older spell effects WITH the newer casting mechanics. But the point is, in the debate over whether it is Morrowind or Skyrim that is deeper, the point is what we GOT in Skyrim is deeper than what was REMOVED from Morrowind. And thus, it is my opinion that Skyrim is a DEEPER game, with BETTER RPG mechanics, than Morrowind. And YES, Skyrim COULD be better. But I can't judge Skyrim for what it's not, I can only judge it for what it is. And it is, in my opinion, the deepest Elder Scrolls gaming experience yet.

I say it's because the haters:
a: Haven't found Lost Valley Redoubt.

OR

b: are mental degenerates incapable of processing its beauty and awesomeness.

How ironic, because in doing so 99% of the critics make themselves out to be dumb asses, which would make them feel inferior.

I don't agree with most the critics, but then again I view the game as a whole, and not judge it based on a few things I may have liked better in the past games. As a whole it destroys all previous Elder Scrolls games. To me the fun factor is achieved by combining all the little experiences together as you play. Sure there are things which I think were better before, but the things Skyrim does better as a whole causes me to have tons of fun, so I don't worry about it. Once the CK comes out all my desires will become reality and who cares about the 10 things I don't like after that? I guess the console players will because they are powerless.

I'm stealing this for my sig.

Skyrim has a following that crosses a couple generations, so the expectations, maturity levels, and definitions of fun are different. It shows in the forum.

The main difference is that in Morrowind, you end up with the same character, while in Skyrim, you start out as the same character.

My problem with Skyrim's system is that it means your character has no past. It has no experience. The perks also limit you in what you can become... which isn't necessarily a bad thing. But Morrowind's was more realistic in that you could learn everything by doing everything. Really, why shouldn't a elf mage who lives a thousand years be able to out-learn a mortal human at swordplay? The elf should be able to be better at everything in such a situation... he has longer to gain more experience at everything.

What I do wish, however, is that racial abilities were much improved. A woodelf should never be as strong as an orc... even if both are in their peak condition. An orc should never have the potential to be more agile or stealthy as a woodelf. And so on and so on.

A past is what you give your character. It is completely player dependent, and exists outside of the game.

I would much rather -start- the same, and have a different journey that takes us to a different destination, than to start different, but all end up at the same final destination.

My character had a past just fine, and I feel it was reflected just fine in my character's actions.

Instead of needing a boost in numbers to tell me that my character had a "past" with certain skills, I instead simply used that "past" as a reason why my character gravitated towards those skills on his journeys. He's starting at level 1 anyways, it's not like his past with Conjuration is going to make him a master Necromancer right off the bat. But instead, it is because of his past, that I assigned him, that he decides to pursue the dark arts.

It's simple, really. A character's past is what -you- make it, not what the game makes it.