Skyrim is the next logical step in the TES series. I'd say the same thing about Dragon Age 2, actually. I sorta get people's disappointment with that game, but in so many ways it was a natural evolution of what Bioware's been doing for 10 years. Pay attention. Has Bethesda or Bioware been making more complex games with more numbers, stats, more complex AI, deeper quests with multiple choices and real consequences to those choices? No. In every new game from those two big developers we get better graphics, more flashy cinematics, more voice acting and, basically, fewer buttons for the kids to mash on their X-Box controllers. Totally predictable evolution and, honestly, I think both Skyrim and DA2 are great for what they are and they are exactly what I expected them to be.

I agree but you could have summed it up a lot easier just by saying most people do not like change which we all knew anyway.

BTW You missed Fable 2 off the list.

Todd Howard clearly stated that each Elder Scrolls game is a new game and not a sequel at all. They like to change things up so that it isn't another is software game (same game in a new pair of pants since 92). Skyrim is exactly what I thought it would be... Oblivion-ISH game with many of the game play mechanics and changes we saw in fallout 3 and new vegas. He admits that not every change they make from previous ES games is perfect, but I think they get plenty of things right and Skyrim is a great game and a good RPG. It's better than Oblivion in almost every way. I think the only reason we're seeing complaints is because the game is selling so well its inevitable that there are more complainers on board. Oblivion had loads of complainers too.

I do think Skyrim's quests are lack luster compared to 3 and 4 but game mechanics are better by far as well as nearly every other aspect.

My opinion is simply that they added a lot of content I like, removed a lot of it I liked, and failed to improve a lot of it that should have been. It's definitely a damn good game, just not as good as it "should" have been, and easily "could" have been.

Better:

Insects flying around, fish swimming up streams, VASTLY better looking npcs, better magic effects, no having to put ALL attributes into endurance from the start in order to not play a gimped as hell character, far more voice actors, not every damn npc is level scaled, etc.

Worse:

No spell making, far fewer spells, removed half of the games skills, removed ALL of the game's attributes, combat is too easy most of the time, enchant/crafting/potion making mechanics are broken as hell and obviously were not even somewhat tested prior to launch, game is generally dumbed down for lower IQ players compared to older ES games, etc.

Should have been improved:

Floaty combat (aka no feeling of contact), rain still goes through solid objects (Just plain lazy, this one.), pathfinding AI is so bad I can kill level 50 npcs at level 1 with enough time and some rocks/cliffs/stumps. can still reach godhood, now don't get me wrong, I like reaching demi-god status, I just want other demi-gods I can still fight at that point for a challenge. Many other issues I can't think of atm.

I'm liking it so far. There's the odd glitch here and there and I can't enter Markarth, but other than that I'm having fun with it. It might seem there is some repetitive overlap from other Beth games, but I like them any way.

I'm just trying to figure out why FF X is on that list. It was a great game and a huge commercial success. Maybe op meant X-2?

Because opinions are like backsides. Everybody's got one and everyone thinks everyone else's stinks.

Your Avatar reminds me of a movie for some reason...is that the guy from Dune?

Simple is better, just because a game has ridiculously [censored] game mechanics and is super complicated, does not make it good.

Skyrim is best so far

Cheers

it was a massive improvement to oblivion, therefore your argument is moot.

Seems like a TES game, seems like an RPG, and seems very much like an "open world" game. Certainly more than, say, Fallout: New Vegas.


So, yeah.... not sure where the OP is coming from.

Oh NO GOD FORBID THEY TRY TO ATTRACT NEW GAMERS!!!! Been playing games since 1990, And i think this game is great, aside from the occasional backwards flying dragon.

Well no, I bought Skyrim because i did my research and thought that it would be my type of RPG. And it is! Even with the bugs, I'm not disappointed. It's the best RPG released this year, hands down IMO. With the addition of mods, it's only going to be that much better.

I never buy any game just because it's predecessor was good. I'll definitely look into the game because of that fact, but not purchase it blindly, that's stupid if you ask me. In any case, I feel Skyrim is far superior to Oblivion anyway, so I guess I have to disagree with the OP on this one.

Thing is, there should be a balance. Mass Effect is one of the better examples. It was stated to be a trilogy from the get go, so you get the whole experience by getting all 3 games. The first one is released and eventually a fanbase appears. Those fans loved the game for reasons, sometimes different reasons. Still, the game had its fair share of criticism; inventory is a clutter, planet exploration is repetitive, combat could be better. Second game is released: instead of fixing the inventory or improving planet exploration, they both get on the chopping block. Combat is kinda improved, but then the RPG aspect of it almost disappeared. Combat no longer take place in the normal gameplay areas, but areas specifically designed for combat. So basically, the world gets disconnected, and you talk to people to start your "missions", which are now basically Gears of War missions with a couple of dialogues in-between, making level design quite different. Instead of feeling like playing an RPG in which you shoot enemies, you feel like playing an RPG with shooter missions. So what happens, is we get two similar, yet very different games, there were some fundamental changes. And as much as it's a good idea to change things a bit, you have to keep in mind your fanbase likes your game for reasons, and if you ditch some of the reasons, they're gonna get angry. Personally, I thought Mass Effect 1 was a good game with plenty of potential. I thought planet exploration was a unique feature which offered those "sci-fi moments". As much as some planets were repetitive and all, I found them a nice touch that added immersion and atmosphere. Sure they could be better, but imagine if it was better! I also loved how the combat was implemented in the first, it was not disconnected from the game, you were not playing 2 different kinds of game. These are elements that made me like Mass Effect 1, you take them out, and while I may still like the end product, it's still what made me like the game in the first place, with that gone, it's not as appealing. And those are not the only problems I got with the game, like the feel was from more old-school sci-fi to campy Hollywood stuff. And when you make a trilogy of games, with a story that follows, there's a problem if a fan of the first can't enjoy, or not as much, the other ones. It's an hyperbole, but imagine if Halo 2 was a racing game and the 3rd a fighting game. Doesn't make sense, does it? It's just normal to expect certain things from sequels.

Sometimes the developers feel to ditch and replace, when all they could do was improve, while still innovating. It's like with Splinter Cell Conviction. Fans praise the better AI, when it's only a granted, it's not the original design that made the AI less good, it was the technology. Or the more open environments, again they could have improved on the original design and made the environments more open. In fact they got a bit more open with each game. Splinter Cell Conviction is an offensive one. I mean, you have a legion of fans who loved the original games, and then you change the WHOLE thing. You know, when you make a sequel, it has to earn the name.

LOL at fallout, you couldnt even jump over hills, without hiting an invisible barrier, yeah, thats REALLY an open world game, hahahahahahaha.

It just makes the old fans sad because they're the only company making such grand free roam RPG's in a video game format. If they sell out all of the things the old fans thought made TES special compared to other games for shiny trinkets from more popular games, then where are the old fans supposed to turn to ?

Yes money makes the world go round but it feels sad to spend one day arguing that games should be considered art just as much as books or movies, and then the next day be witnessing gaming companies throwing out their artistic talents to stuff their games with "what sells" instead. Especially when good looks, graphics, voice acting and safety of actions (being unable to break your game by running rampart killing everything or by making poor quest choices) is "what sells" over diversity and well designed freedom of choice.

I thought this game had enough diversity, too much diversity makes it too complicated and tedious. Simple is better, and this game hit the perfect mix between complexity and simplicity.

It feels like a TES game to me. I can step into the world, pick a direction and discover as I go. No other series of games has given me that kind of freedom and Skyrim follows suit. Each game in the series has its own story and vibe but IMO, I don't think the designers have strayed too far from the core concept of the TES games.

What in god's name are you talking about? This is a TES game through and through, right down to the buggy release. Everything they did change about the series they made us aware of well before the game released. This isn't a bait and switch in any sense of the word.

I am usually one to complain about dumbing down and streamlining of games. I play some extremely complex turn based strategy games that take months to even get a basic grasp of. I had reservations coming into Skyrim about some features that were getting cut like abilities, but I have to say that I don't miss them. I think Bethesda trimmed the fat on some useless mechanics that didn't feel right in Oblivion.

My friend also told me that when I told him Skyrim has only around 91 spells (ignoring range) where Oblivion has 2314 given the same restrictions. But something like that is stuff that can easily be ignored. You could start up Oblivion and only play with the spells you could buy from the guild and never make a spell of your own. And you didn't have to use a big part of those spells. Heck you could get by as a mage with just the spells you can get in Skyrim today. This is the kind of small thing that doesn't truly add to complexity yet was scrapped in Skyrim.

Then we have Attributes, a feature that could baffle some who did not care to spend too much time thinking about them and they got reworked for Skyrim so people would only need to keep track of 3 "attributes" with very obvious effects. So I realize that's something that could be too complex for some and hit the "in-between mark".

While the attributes may hit the mark the spells is an example of Skyrim taking the scrapping of any complications too far so I don't think Skyrim really hits the middle. In fact in my opinion Oblivion did as it had quite a few changes from Morrowind to make it less complex but Skyrim really just takes the cake when it comes to streamlining the game to make it easier to understand.

I'm soon stopping following new video games. Even if everyone in Bethesda would love to make a more traditional TES game, they can't. The stock owners want their investment back, and want more even if it's enough, that's how capitalism works. So the publishers will do everything in their power that the developers make a game that sells. They won't only do that, but they'll also try to make the game sell themselves with the hype machine, reviews, events and such. The video game industry is now (since a lot of money could be made from games) a complex self-serving machine. The moment you have a little of public exposure, you'll have to lie, deform information or only show what works best to a certain extent. You need to act as a phone seller, you need to tell what people want to hear. The moment you have a little of public exposure, you need to forget following your heart, you're not talking as yourself, but as a figure. Reviewers will give the 9/10 publishers want, and then they'll plaster their websites with their honestly earned awards. If not, reviewers will loose their privileges and no one wants to read a review for the next big upcoming game a week late. So we're going to get increasingly accessible games within a the industry's machinery to make them sell more, continuing the process.

The story is random.

It should be called "how to shout at your dragon."

I'm not frustrated with the bait and switch because I don't feel the game changed as drastically as ultima 7 to ultima 8.

But I am disappointed that the things they mentioned about radiant AI aren't working or were cut out. Don't make promises that you can't keep.