I myself have only spent a fraction of the time I spent on Oblivion, on Skyrim. This has to do with a great many factors but there has always been one that sticks out for me and that being the blatant lack of spells with Skyrim having about 25,43 (rounded up to the 2nd decimal) times less spells than Oblivion had by a formula of number of spells = X where for each case of unique spell effect+rank+type of casting combination = add 1 to X and where two effects made into new effect (shield+frost resistance = frost shield) by Bethesda = included as spell effect.

That's over 25 times more options in the spells section alone, I don't quite care how pretty the spells are if most of them are gone, it's better to at least be able to use a ugly spell than to not be able to use a spell for the sake of variety and choice. And the worst part is that even when you remove all the spells that could only be in Oblivion because of stuff like there being no real attributes in Skyrim, that is if you only take the spells that could have been translated to the gameplay of Skyrim without changing it any, then you would still have 16,45 times more spells in Oblivion than in Skyrim, so it's not like it's only because Oblivion had all of those fortify attribute spells and such that it had so much more spells than Skyrim.

Again this is only the spells section, I've also found other sections of the game lacking which is why I've not even reached my 100th hour in Skyrim. I would pay 70$ again for a game like Skyrim, but only if it didn't have the same kind of DRM Skyrim had and still has.

Ehh, In truth it just comes down to matter of opinion there, especially considering this forum is hosted by the very company that made the games in question. I played Oblivion for....30 hours? Max. had a friend download me about 8gigs worth of mods, then never bothered to install them because I just couldn't stomach the idea of loading Oblivion back up again. On the other hand I have already, in one just play-through, 80 hours invested into Skyrim. I'm not denying there hasn't been a major decline in the quality of video games, I 100% wholeheartedly agree with that, I just disagree on the subject of skyrim versus oblivion.

A decline in quality in which area, though? Graphical fidelity has steadily increased, and that's one of the most expensive (if not the most expensive) aspects of developing a AAA title nowadays.

This is how I feel. I understand that's quite subjective but a chore is what it felt like after a while, like I was forcing myself to enjoy it. I never had to do that with Oblivion or Morrowind. I'm just glad I only paid ￡27 for it. I gave it a few playthroughs but I probably won't go back to it much.

I think perhaps if we lose physical distribution, there will be online release day prices, and hopefully online sales for older games. That way the company gets a sale, but it also gets some profit from the later sales that would have passed them by completely with the second hand market, and this would not harm the customer much either.

I disagree. Bethesad put more thought into Skyrim than Oblivion. Just compare the huge mountains, rivers, forrest, weather effects ect, compared to Oblivions hills and flat land, that wasnt even handcrafted but was generated by a computer.

Oblivion had 1 dungeons designer, Skyrim had 8.

Skyrim may not be a huge jump in the TES series, but it certainly was more thought through than Oblivion.

You might want to read the Future of Console gaming thread then.

Self-interest is at the heart of pretty much any business transaction. Game companies aren't running charities here, and neither are the people who buy games (which is not to say that gamers don't engage in gaming-related charity, as various Kickstarter projects have shown, but that's charity, not business). I fully expect game companies to adopt pricing structures that maximize their revenue (although in this case I'm not sure if increasing initial game prices to $70 will actually accomplish this), and by the same token game companies should expect people to only buy their games if those games are being offered at or below the price that people choose to value the games at. Basically game companies need to look out for their interests, game purchasers need to look out for their interests, and it's in the middle ground where these interests overlap that the business of buying and selling games gets done.

Trying to mix business and charity just results in messiness and people often making rather foolish decisions that are followed by frustration. However, this isn't to say that there's no value in businesses treating their customers well, as doing so can often translate to customers assigning a higher value to a business' products, and thus be willing to pay more for those products. It should still be noted that this is ultimately just a simple value calculation for those doing business, not a form of charity, and should be recognized for what it is.

For people like me this strikes so true, I have spent more on MLP:FiM figurines than I would ever have spent on buying the episodes for the show on DVD, and I only started buying the figurines out of respect for Hasbro for practically allowing the show to be put on Youtube for anyone to watch. Here is a picture that should give an indicator of the money spent out of pure respect for the business ethics of a company. http://i.imgur.com/RGsSM.jpg and this is not the only ones I've bought, also bought two other for two of my friends (each got one) and I bought 6 of them for my little brother (the goal was to buy at least 1 for every single episode released in season 2 of the series but I've already gone a bit beyond that) who could also watch the show for free like I could.

Graphics? Who cares about graphics except teens? And they aren't the primary market of video games anymore, the primary market is people my age, who grew up during the early rise of video games and whom helped bring it to mainstream. By quality, i'm talking about plot, gameplay, gameplay mechanics, control scheme, and how much depth there is to the game, and in that regard, most games nowadays completely fail. When Video games started, if you didn't have a story, you didn't have a game. Too many companies nowadays rely on exactly what you mentioned: Graphics, and graphics mean jack[censored] to a large number of people, and jack done left town(I love that corny old joke). Really though, the amount of gamers who would prefer a strictly graphical game to one with story and depth are, as far as my experience goes, both in real life, and on any forum I've ever visited, in the strict minority. I'd be just as happy if they took the graphics back to N64 days if that meant they would put a little more effort into developing a coherent storyline and workable play mechanics, instead of just throwing them on haphazardly.

That's the point I was making, although I think you're underestimating the game selling power of shiny graphics. Many studios blow their budget on fancy graphics because that's what the marketing people at their publisher are telling them to do. I'm not advocating it. I'm just saying that there isn't all that much money left over for other things.

BTW - I am your age...older, actually.

I'm in the US and a vast majority of my PC games are used. I had to buy them that way because there was no other way to get them. I'm not sure if it's just me but most PC games don't seem to stay in print for very long in the scheme of things. I had a heck of a time finding a new Morrowind recently and even more trouble finding Oblivion. (I have bought multiple copies for friends over the last couple of years.) I also realize these are old games, but when I bought even older games - the Myst collection - THE only way I could get them without spending thousands of dollars was used via Amazon Market. This was the same with Beyond Good and Evil. I refuse to use Steam for a multitude of reasons so digital copies are not an option for me.

So... I like to frequent thrift stores and consignment shops. I guess Nike, Aeropostale, and every other company who's product I bought second-hand at a cheaper price should be getting a cut too huh? The only reason electronic goods are being treated this way is because they have the power - to a point - to restrict resale. If there was a way to restrict resale of clothing or furniture, I'm sure companies would try to do that too, they're all greedy. And gaming companies can continue to treat their consumers this way because the vast majority of those same consumers will just allow it to happen so long as they get to play the game of the moment.

Umm... if you're going to compare Skyrim with any of the games in the TES series based on depth and quality, please use Morrowind. Since that game we've seen huge downgrades in the quality of the series.

That did have a little something to do with where the games were located in the TES universe. Skyrim is rugged and wild... Cyrodiil isn't.

Personally, I don't think I'll have to worry about the prices of games in the future. I don't agree with the shift in DRM over the last few years so I haven't been buying many anyways. ( I play mostly on PC. ) And console games are already too expensive as far as I'm concerned so I usually only buy one or two games, on sale and usually used, anyways. I can't afford to keep up with the ever increasing demand of machines, especially PC systems, so I rarely have a system that can run the new games anyways. I eventually "upgrade" to a computer that can run games that are about 5 years old. *shrug* Though I'd like to add that if Skyrim hadn't been attached to Steam, I would have happily - and still would be happy - to pay over $100 for a copy. But having Steam made the game worthless to me.

Cyordil was supposed to be full of lush jungles. I don't know about you, but I didn't see a single solitary jungle in the entirety of Oblivion ><


Which is why I'm saying they need to stop focusing on graphics as much and put a little more effort into their games. And I will concede that OMGTHARSHINIESHEEHEEMELIKES games(sorry, I get kinda riled up by that kind of attitude) do make a large amount of money, from the aforementioned teen market who throws hissy fits until their parents buy it for them, but the fact remains that the primary market for games belongs to people like me(and you ^^), who are older, and(I hope I'm not assuming wrong) prefer games of substance over flashy ones, and game developers need to start relearning that, especially if they want to start charging $70 for a game.

yeah, when a game looks nice & perty it can be a a good means to draw people in and have them pry open their wallets/checkbooks & or unsheath the cards & while all the good gameplay elements can keep a player playing awhile but that doesn't necessarily net devs more money (at least in the short term)

lol I'm poor.. I haven't upgraded my "gaming" system in so long that I couldn't run Oblivion with all the greenery so ... I could have been running through the Amazon and not known. (I had all grass and such off.) But I'm pretty sure I read that Cyrodiil was originally jungle but was changed by Tiber Septim. Oh.. because I did read that on http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Lore:Cyrodiil. For the most part, Oblivion looked like it was suppose to.

Edit: Can't comment on Skyrim as I've never played it.

The part where digital media (vs, say, clothes or mechanical devices) don't typically "wear out" or become truly "used" has to factor into it somewhat. Second hand clothes may be somewhat worn out. They won't last as long as new. They're not in as good condition as new. Meanwhile, the 1's and 0's on that game dvd are exactly the same as new (ignoring online passes and other devices to make used games not be the same condition as new ones). The used copy of Halo from the shop performs exactly the same as the new copy.

(Similar to the issues of internet piracy. One CD of digital music can become hundreds or thousands of identical copies. Meanwhile the shirt is just a shirt. It can be given, sold, or stolen, and it's still just one shirt.)



Lots of people. Style over substance? Michael Bay movies sell hundreds of millions of dollars of tickets, while being terrible, terrible movies. Because of the shinies. Don't act like it's only 14 year olds who like the pretty or the stupid. The world is full of people who aren't as apparently discerning as you are (it must be, given the incredible crap on TV that keeps getting high ratings. And those same attitudes carry over to other media. Flashy but lousy games? Terrible romance novels? Stupid action flicks? Millions of people out there love 'em.)



Meh. These are complex issues with no simple solutions. And that certainly deserve better than the crappy presentation I can give 'em. Never been the greatest debater. Ah, well.

Ehh, I feel ya, I have such great presentations inside my head, but I'm never quite able to express them as well as they deserve. Makes me wish my high-school had had a debate club when I was there, might have helped me express my viewpoint a bit better

As far as movies go, yeah, lots of people, even myself get drawn into stuff like that, but when it comes to video games, which is an entirely different form of media, I would think(given my experiences, again, in real life and on various gaming forums) that style over substance wouldn't win out nearly as much. I admit there is every possibility that I"m just deluding myself, and that I just happen to have a fairly discerning group of friends and run into similar minded people onto the internet. The brain is a powerful thing, and is quite capable of ignoring the instances where I have encountered people who prefer flash over depth(and no, I'm not being sarcastic, I do really mean that, it wouldn't surprise me a bit to find out I've blocked those people from my mind).

Games are overpriced as it is. Why does every single game cost the same amount? The same amounts of effort and man hours and expertise are not put into every game. CoD 4: Map Pack #2000 costs the same as Diablo 3? A game which has been in development for 11 years?

They may not wear out as quickly, but they do eventually wear out. They're not indestructible. The point isn't how long an item can be sold and resold, but that the original producer/creator of that item doesn't deserve a split of any money made after the initial sale. They ask a price that will cover costs and still give them a profit from each sale of each new item... expecting anything beyond that sale is just pure and utter greed. I truly believe this is why there is a hard push towards all games going digital only. Without a physical copy in your possession, the companies can literally force you to follow their criminal EULAs, can revoke your use of their product at any time, can remove that product from your "possession", eliminate any second hand sale so that ALL the people playing the game legally have to buy it directly from them for the price they choose and therefore removing any competition in price, etc.

Piracy will ALWAYS exist. Punishing the paying customer with horrid DRM or increasing restrictions isn't going to effect piracy in a good way. I can only see it adding to more piracy and a greater loss of sales.

Edit: And used games and discs aren't in as good as shape as new either. They don't last as long as a new disc, they have some "wear and tear" on them as well. Nothing is new that's been used - even games. And it can take just one single nasty scratch to render any disc useless.

While I agree with all you said I wanted to add a bit to this part...

any backup of a DD title (if allowed) is only as good as the medium it's on & none are infallible

It took me almost 6+ years to get a decent rig. The rest of my PC's have been heald together by duck tape and bandaids. So I totally feel you here. My last system went through 4 major upgrades and was almost 5 years old. And each time I upgraded it was because something broke and it was replaced by budget parts that were slightly better then the parts they replaced.

What really makes me mad is even though this PC is decent (Not great or top end). I am going to need to upgrade at the end/1st of the year to keep on on the decent status level. Other wise its going to become good and then subpar.

Greg

I guess I'll throw my two cents worth in about the used game sales. Why should the consumer be punished and be deprived of a way to acquire a video game. It seems to me that the publishers missed the boat when they began to see used game sales as problematic to their bottom lines. They should have approached the used game sellers a long time ago and made a deal with them to get a cut of used game sales. Now all they want to do is get rid of used game sales and the competition so they can have what is basically a monopoly and fix the pricing on all games. This does not really seem legal to me but I am not a lawyer.

As far as $70 dollar console games go, I know I wouldn't pay it. I haven't bought a console game since the original Xbox was replaced by the 360. Those games seemed worth the price for most of them because of the content they contained but I haven't see very many new generation games that I was interested in to really be worth the price tag. I saved my money and bought a decent pc instead of wasting it on a 360. This is just my opinion.

Why not use a game he's familiar with? Personally I don't think Morrowind is better than Oblivion, though people are entitled to that opinion; but I think it's often treated with a reverence it doesn't deserve, in much the same way that it seems virtually impossible to talk about its successor without one of the usual culprits going "lol Oblivion". For the record, I like both, and find the years of rather extreme opinions about them to be a bit wearing. Then again, I don't think much of Skyrim and I guess it could be argued that all three are broadly similar.

It's always full of people, everywhere, anytime. XD

Uh... I haven't been able to upgrade my system since I played DAOC... and I quit playing that over 8 years ago. This rig is probably 10 years old... maybe more. I guess it's a good thing though - it keeps me from being able to play 99% of the games released now so it keeps me from spending money I don't have.

I guess I should have put a smilie or something after that post - it was meant as more of a joke then anything. I realize everyone has their own opinions on which game is best in the series. I didn't mean for it to seem like one of those "Morrowind is the best! Everyone who doesn't agree is a moron!" posts.

Ah, er, yes; I do seem to be guaranteed to be one of those people who rather misses the point...