Would be a bit rediculous if people were baited from Oblivion since most Morrowind-players, including myself, found plenty of stuff to complain about that one as well

Might say it's inherent to TES games to change from previous incarnations, pissing a lot of people off. So it's not really a bait and switch, as the switch is to be expected

So you spent all this time typing up the original post listing examples of what a bait and switch is, then didn't say why you felt Skyrim was one.

'kay.

*leaves thread*

You realise that Oblivion was the only bright-shiny-stereotypical-European-esque-high-fantasy-world TES game, right? (Unless I'm grossly mistaken as to what Arena was like, although I'd still say that DF and MW set the precedent over Arena and OB).

Not "bait and switch" for me because this is my first TES game but I am certainly disappointed with short quest lines, lack of choices and some design decisions like smiting. Its one of the most beautiful games I've ever played which makes my disappointment even greater.

I agree with you 110%!

I've played them all and I can tell you now that I never felt Morrowind was "dark" or "gritty" (so clean and cheerful... wondrous and fantastical... where people get "dark" and "gritty" for Morrowind is beyond me, but it was not either... the gameworld was just a bit sterile) and Daggerfall was not the "dark" and "gritty" dreadful world of Fallout 3. It was "mature" in tone, although very stereotypically European so I'm not sure what your gripe with Oblivion is, but not so forcefully "gritty" as Skyrim is. Arena was pretty bright in line with Oblivion. I believe Oblivion was an homage to Arena. In any case, my gripe with the setting is a very minor one, but that game generally feels like Fallout 3.

I see Skyrim as an improved Oblivion. It's definitely not a bait and switch. Morrowind to Oblivion was a bait and switch though. And even though it was, I still spent a hell of a lot of time on it, and I will do the same with Skyrim.

Well everybody has their opinions. Personally i found Morrowind very dirty and not cheerful at all. Everybody said something like F*** YOU when i walked past them and 70% of the game was blighted ashland and the 30% was a dark swamp. And i also find Skyrim to be more daggerfall like, with all the random things and the overall style.

I think any "game" reviews or arguing is always going to be opinionated.
As an open world RPG, Skyrim is great!
So is the previous TES games.
Complaining that it's not like TES games is pure nonesense, since Bethesda has made them and Bethesda still makes them. They own the property, they own the liscense, and they can do whatever they want with them. Whether good or bad, it's their game.
Game companies (or many in general) make changes to a game series which they think will make the game better. Whether this is true or not is based on opinions.
A bait & switch, this game is not. So is ME2, Civ 5, and Fallout 3. The companies didn't promise anything that wasn't delivered. As a consumer you should also know what to expect before you spend your money.
I use those games because I played them and can tell you first hand that they did not once promise something and then not have it in the game.
I for one hated some of the changes in ME2, but I didn't rage about it on forums, then refuse to keep playing.
Skyrim might not be what "you" wanted out of the newest TES game, but it's what the developers wanted, and many gamers expected.
Sorry you and many others were disappointed, but svck it up, play the game or not, and then next time voice your opinion with your money on the next game.

I have, and Arena before them. Since they use pretty much the same rules (leveling based on skill usage to name one), I think I'd recognize them as easily as the appearance of the Avatar signaled an Ultima game.

My point was that the feel of Skyrim is very much the same as the one I got playing Bethesda's Fallouts (which also felt a lot like Oblivion, but with guns). The trouble for me is the direction Bethesda is taking with all their titles seems more rewarding for players who aren't like me, but that's a whole different subject.

Skyrim has been a let-down for me. I was one who wanted Morrowind 2.0.

Which type of gamer would you be?

Sequel where nothing is changed = Rehash! OMG stagnant gameplay!

Sequel where gameplay is changed = OMG my series is ruined forever. Look at all these new people playing my game!

Amen.

Guy:"CoD svcks, the developers have just made the same game over and over again!"
The Same [censored] Guy:"Skyrim svcks, it changed the gameplay from the way Oblivion and Morrowind had it!"
Me: /wrists

Clever... it's the way it changed, not that it changed. Oblivion is actually my favorite in the series (gasp!) despite having started with Morrowind.

That pretty much sums up my feelings. Personally, I've never been able to get through Morrowind. Why? It's not a bad game, but it's lacking in so many ways once you've played the 'inferior' TES titles.

Anger and frustration? Uuuh Huuuh.

Funnily enough I don't feel any anger and frustration. The developers did a lot of talking before the release, and it allowed me to develop and image in my head of this, the latest in the TES series.

Did it match exactly what I pictured? No.

Was it a totally different game then the one they were talking about? No.

Did I love it? Yes.

As a TES RPG? Oh hell yes.

So I struggle to see the bait and switch (in fact I struggle to see it based on the definition of a bait and switch). Unless you are saying all the angry frustrated people buy solely on their personal picture of the name, separate from reality and don't listen to anything else...which is kind of silly again because the developers talked pretty extensively. People talked pretty extensively on this board based on that, and others. Reviewers talked pretty extensively.


And deaf. And have possibly have been living under a rock.


Indeed.


I doubt it. If they had managed to keep TES connection out of it completely I would have bought it because it looked like an awesome RPG in the lead up to release. Then I would have played it and gone about the time I first encountered something quintessentially TES "holy crap this is a TES game! Why didn't they have that on the box *glee*"


So are you saying bait and switch anger is silly in relation to these games? Because I agree.

And honestly bait and switch is a very specific thing and few of those titles fill the criteria. Few of those games promised an identical experience. Many of them said things would be different and sometimes said how. They were promising an experience that built on or dived off of the originals, not a "you liked the Mako? We have the Mako no changes! Oh wait, we lied, svck it fans, bait and switch!"

ME2 I certainly can't see "it would be a good stand alone game, but it is a terrible ME game" - WTF? Especially since it is a story and that story would be weird by itself. Civ5... huh?

And again - if "fans" go into anything thinking something developed some time after the originals will mechanically be identical they are deluded. Especially when the developer reveals so much about changes or new things. They might not know how well it will work, but they will have an idea mechanic X has been removed/replaced/overhauled.


How different is "quite different" - I could tell pretty damn easily ME2, Civ5 etc were parts of the series and I didn't have to spend the first 2 hours relearning to play it because the game play was so different and new. They hadn't put ME1 in my hand then replaced it with a game alien to me.


Which is different to "bait and switch" again, unless the Goo Goo Dolls played up that there album was going to be garage punk/rock just like always but actually sold you soft rock/advlt contemporary. Since a lot of bands release radio edits, demos, singles before the CD even hits shelves the customer has time to hear what the new stuff is before buying the CD.


And the "bait and switch" aspect? People start complaining when the movie is announced, they don't even need to see it to know they wont like it (except sometimes they do see it and they don't hate it). There was a lot of material out before Trek was released, trailers, everything. If people going to see were still so ignorant of the nature of it it was like a bait and switch... well. They have no one to blame but themselves.


Which they can. I can't take them seriously however if they blame it on Bethesda baiting and switching because that is silly.

Skyrim is only a bad RPG when you desperately cling to the old school way of what RPG's used to be and refuse to like anything else. And it most definitely isn't a bad Elder Scrolls game, at all.

Oblivion
-Level-scaling
-Attributes
+Balanced smithing, spellmaking, alchemy and enchantment
+Talking companions
+Spears
+Faster two-handed attacks (They're not even double damage, and yet they attack half as fast as the regular one-handers??)

= Perfect

Skyrim
+Balanced smithing, spellmaking, alchemy, speech, lockpicking, sneak and enchantment
+Talking companions (I refer to Dragon Age 1)
+Spears / Polearms (War Scythes!!!)
+Faster two-handed attacks (They're not even double damage, and yet they attack half as fast as the regular one-handers??)

= Perfect

A whole lot of this

I disagree. So long as there is new content, people are happy. What happened here is that they pretty much REMOVED content.

You forgot Metallica.

Failed to see how skyrim is not a TES game.

Technically, It even suffers from the same bugs and limitations. Although you have to give credit to the optimization team. Could you have 50 NPC on screen at the same time in oblivion or fallout? In skyrim you can without drastic hits to fps.

TES games have just become bland and predictable. That's not to say they aren't good games, but I'm never suprised or really interested in any of the 'plots' or 'dialogue' in Skyrim. To say it is dumbed down would be under exaggerating.

Re: the rpg tears, tbh, I prefer action-adventure. RPG is just nerdy statto stuff and 'power gaming'. The only thing that matter is the writing and the depth of immersion. Slyrim is better than Oblivion by a mile but sadly doesn't feel 'advlt' at all. Not in the same way other games have, such as NV.

Skyrim needs more mature writing and more advlt themes of moral dilemna to really be great. Right now it reminds me of Doctor Who. The Mccoy years used to make me literally [censored] my pants and scream all night alone in the dark. Now its more like Pop Idol meets Songs of Praise.

I have to disagree with this topic, I don't think Skyrim does massively vary from Oblivion all that much, they're built on the same formula in some respects, you get released out of jail and can do the quest lines in which ever order you like, you can level your character in a pretty similar way. This topic is about games that are different but I'm just not seeing it, Skyrim does have a lot of new things but it hasn't really lost all that much from oblivion other then attributes and spell making.

To me the major gripe is the shortness of the guild lines and the main quest line, they're just too short. There are many issues but most are forgivable and most Bethesda fans are already use too but the issue around the (in my opinion) lack of storyline and compelling quests is an issue that really does need addressing. The storyline is still in a similar style, it's literally the length of it that is the issue. It's like buying a 1KG pack of sugar for 2$ one week then buying a bag of sugar the next week also for 2$ which turns out to only be a 0.5KG pack of sugar; You've got what you expected but there isn't as much of it as you were expecting.