Bad or incomplete animations should not be used as an argument against the actual mechanics behind that system of combat. I can guarantee you if every dodge, dip, dive, duck, and dodge was animated in Morrowind that there would be FAR, far people who complained about combat in that game.

Never played that one, but the [censored] Battletoads But i did get to next to last level, more than once And i did beat Megaman 1


That really says it all.

I can't imagine anyone liking Oblivion over Skyrim. I booted Oblivion up again the other day out of curiosity and found that, compared to Skyrim, it just svcks in every way.

I can imagine people liking Morrowind over Skyrim though. Although I haven't gotten much of a chance to play Morrowind myself yet, from what I've been told it sounds quite good.

I never played Morrowind so I really can't speak to that. As far as Oblivion goes, I like Skyrim better, but it's close and I'm not even sure I can put my finger on exactly why I feel the way I do.

It should also be noted that being able to do certain activities doesn't make for a substantial RPG element.

The fact that you can sit and cut wood doesn't make for a substantial RPG element. It just doesn't do enough to stand on its own. Coupled with greater, truer RPG elements its great (like a real jobs system where the fruits of the labor actually provide a benefit besides gold). But alone, its just a random animation you can sit and watch every once in a while.

In my opinion each game in the series has it's pluses and minuses.

And it just seems inevitable that people will compare games.

Although some comparisons are presented as objective (eg "Morrowind was clearly better") they are actually subjective. Because some people emphasize some features in the game and de-emphasize others.

I like all three games (Skyrim, Oblivion, and Morrowind). All three are, in my subjective opinion, offer much more gameplay and enjoyment than other video games. Of the three I prefer Oblivion at the moment, but after so far I don't feel as though I've fully experienced Skyrim, and might change my mind. Also I started with Oblivion which might affect my opinion. But that said I really enjoy all three games (and Fallout 3 for that matter).


Yeah, just let them eat cake.

I didn't think metroid was that difficult really. I actually finished it.

There are many games from that era that were difficult to the point of most people never finishing them.

I found Rygar, Wizards and Warriors, Megaman, and Ghosts and Goblins were harder to beat.

In 1994, you beat games like you beat your opponent in the Olympics.

In 2010, you finish games like you finish eating a sandwich.

Yep,
I was just discussing this with my wife and telling her about the difference in main stories with roleplaying. In Morrowind there was doubt here and there whether you were the Neravarine or not and even told you weren't but could become. This IMO left alot of the roleplaying element open to interpretation, unlike TES IV and V where the main NPCs push you into the role of the hero. The writting in Morrowind and questlines were more complex, but I am liking Skyrim for what it is and still playing.

yeah, nothing like those days, when game makers would use tactics to hide the lack of content, Game only has 3 levels, make them all impossible! what? You can beat the game in the time it takes to watch an episode of Inspector Gadget, Let's add some jumps that require pixel perfect precision and bam. I liked RPGs because they were the games that didn't pull that crap (though some did make you grind your ass off.) Those days are quite dead and I'm happy for it, there's still a niche with games like Dark Souls and Super Meat Boy but that's fine, they can be a niche but for the days when masochistic crap was mainstream was when things svcked.

Granted. The wood-chopping bit is just a bit of interaction with the world that has no real purpose, and which people get tired of very quickly, just like sitting in the chairs and the like.


You lost me there. Can you rephrase that?

For me no TES game is better than another. All have its pros and cons. Your play style and personality will choose your favorite game.

Alot of gamer prefer depth of play . And the older games beats Skyrim hands down in that area .
One of the things I have yet to find in Skyrim is a quest or puzzle which required much thought .
Typically Skyrim spoon feeds the player and the quests are of very limited difficulty . I do think the puzzle solutions being on the underside of a particular 'claw' was entertaining and the pillar puzzles a nice touch but
like I said they cant be considered to required much thought especially when the pillar solutions are in the same or next room of the dungeon .

In Morrowind and Oblivion you almost needed to look under items on shelves and tables to find the needed key or item underneath .
In skyrim I didnt bother looking for little hidden things after the first 30 hours gameplay as I knew it was not going to happen .
There is no reward in actually thinking outside the obvious with Skyrim as it was apparent early in the game that it was not designed for 'depth'.
As far as underwater adventure in the older games , you can take it or leave it ...but again ..it boils down to depth of play , an added emmersion into a game world .

The decisions the player made with character developement and general playstyle decisions had a much greater impact in the older games than in Skyrim , again ... depth of play . Mistakes made in Skyrim are barely noticable .

Again , I enjoy Skyrim ..but after 5 weeks of owning the game I no longer play everyday ...and almost loaded up morrowind this past weekend .

~M~


I play Skyrim , I enjoy playing it but the luster was gone early $59 for 5 weeks of gameplay is . Folks who have not played the older games really should !
Skyrim has areas which I enjoy more than the older games , but it is lacking it many areas the older games excelled at .


~M~

There is nothing wrong with dice-roll combat (like that in Morrowind) so long as every miss is animated. Sure you might look like you're right in that squibs face stabbing it but that doesn't actually mean you're doing so. If dodges, blocks, and just sheer misses were properly animated combat would not seem near as bad. Though in the case of squibs it was just a matter of silliness, as a squib should be able to be hit regardless. But thats more with the creatures being too 'powerful' relative to their size moreso than the actual combat mechanics.

Yeah, i'm not denying that was the idea in some cases. Mask lack of length with extreme diffculty. Partially that was also because many games were converted from arcades that were designed to eat all your quarters

Still, i feel were now at the opposite extreme

Skyrim is a better game period than the two previous titles and in my opinion has more skills choose from and level up that actually have a REAL effect on combat or gameplay.

Well, I can see your point, but it might be a bit hard to do and have people buy it, at least in first-person view. I mean, I think "What do you mean I missed? I'm swinging a three-foot-long sword and my target is right %$@#& THERE, you stupid game!" is gonna be kinda common if hits are determined totally by dice rolling. I think Skyrim seems to determine hits by player skill almost totally, but determines damage by character skill in the relevant weapon - and that might be a little easier for players to swallow. I.e., if your character svcks with battleaxes, and you swing a battleaxe at that bear, you're only gonna nick it, but so long as you, the player, manage to get the crosshairs on target you'll at least hit it. That seems to be an effective compromise between (1) having success revolve around the character skill, and not the player skill, and (2) not frustrating the player by having him miss when he's clearly got the reticule on-target.

Seems like you're dealing with cognitive dissonance there .

There is no fact when attempting to discern what one thinks is an RPG or between being an RPG, or being an RPG between TES games, and then what makes one TES game better over another. Simple reason why: because another person finds the aspect their tastes disagreeable to that of another. Therefor, the only fact is that there are differences between gamers. I personally do not think Skyrim is close to being an RPG, that is solely my opinion because I am not getting the role playing I expect from an RPG. But I will never tell anyone that they are not role playing when they get their own definition from it. It then all boils down to an argument no one wins.

Bottom line is, if one likes the game, that's great, I really mean that. If one doesn't like it, that's just as good too.

I love this anology !

Good anology. The activity would have more meaning if getting good at wood cutting meant the area folk could build more homes or experience warmer winters with fuel for their fires. That aspect was added solely for an achievement.

This^ and that is funny as well as so apropos.

You make it sound like that is a fact, It might be better in your opinion but not mine. Although in my opinion, i think Skyrim is better than Oblivion so i'll give you that.

What it comes down to is the shift in gameplay direction. While I consider both Morrowind and Skyrim to be RPGs, Skyrim most definitely leans more toward the sandbox action-adventure style approach.

If you like open-world RPGs, Morrowind is going to be superior by far. While if you prefer sandbox action-adventure games, Skyrim is probably going to be superior. Oblivion is somewhere in the middle.

Of course, a lot of gamers (especially younger ones) think they like RPGs when really they just like action-adventure with very basic RPG elements... and this is where the confusion comes in. They hear experienced players talking about how poor Skyrim is as an RPG and take personal offense.

But the phrase "role playing game" has a meaning. It can't just mean "whatever I want it to mean". Space Invaders was not an RPG, and anybody that says it was is just wrong.

LOL! Nothing more needs to be said really.