So...is Bethesda selling out? : V - Skyrim

» Tue Jun 12, 2012 6:45 pm

Would you like guns or cars in TES?

Illogical Extreme any?

Several points to make here:

If Bethesda put lore-friendly guns and cars in the game, you still can't describe them as having sold out. It's their game, their lore, and they get to market it however they like. Unfortunately, you don't have any right to the content of the game and they don't have any obligation to you to do it the way you like. If someone in the TES universe figures out how to make Dwemer steam-cars and Arcane Boomsticks, fine, whatever. I would probably still play that game, and if it svcked terribly I'd stop buying TES. However you look at it, they didn't sell out. They did exactly what you expect a game company to do, try something new and market their game.
If they put lore-unfriendly guns in their game, effectively making it GTA TES or something, they wouldn't call it The Elder Scrolls. There's a clear difference between changing the way a series implements certain features, and flat out changing the whole series into something else.

But you know what? Let's just assume that they did do something that silly and put modern cars and guns in TES VI. Why do you think they would have done it? To sell the game? Oh. Yep, that's the same reason they do anything in this series. To sell the bloody game. Whether you like what they do or not is up to you and it has nothing to do with how they decide to make their game sell.

You can't "sell out" when you entire purpose is to sell something.

» Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:37 pm

Read the whole thing. I'm not running any sort of campaign. I'm simply asking a question which is ''do you think Skyrim is more simple because Bethesda chose to focus on other type of content(graphics, environment etc), or do you think it is to appeal to a broader market?''

I don't think that Skyrim is "more simple"

» Wed Jun 13, 2012 3:19 am

I agree with you Red Guardian, I don't understand what got into them to remove the stats from this series. It's such a bad idea, you remove where you should put your mind at work and balance. World of Warcraft, to many a staple for 'casual' gaming, is 10x deeper than Skyrim in character stats and I've never heard of anyone being killed by attributes, armor slots and weapon degradation.

» Tue Jun 12, 2012 8:29 pm

The inability of most people to rationalize their position from a perspective other than their own makes a potential thread like this devolve into nothing but flame bait.

The only way you know if Bethesda is selling out, is if you yourself have been in the games industry (The industry, modding doesn't count), at the mercy of an unfair market in a fiscally unstable decade. Creatures bent on mere survival may have to compromise their position merely to survive and wade the storm. It's unfair to immediately jump to the "Omg, sellout" conclusion simply because you don't like a game, or it becomes popular. Honestly, I look at Skyrim, and every Elder scrolls game, and I see the opposite of selling out. In an industry all about the "Annual Sequel", "On-Disc DLC" "Shortchanged content" and virtually no aftermarket support for their product, Bethesda is a beacon of light against the darkness consuming the industry.

Do they make questionable design choices? Yes. Do they sometimes compromise their vision for a broader appeal? Maybe, have they sold out? Absolutely not. When we have Day 1 DLC for an Elder Scrolls game, then I'll say they sold out. (Seriously, how many companies support a game after release like Skyrim has been supported, All free of charge)

» Tue Jun 12, 2012 9:44 pm

You can't "sell out" when you entire purpose is to sell something.

That ^^^

Face it, none of the big gaming publishers gives a rats ass about us (the consumer) other than the fact that they want our money.
The days when a game was made by gamers who actually had a say in their company are over.

These days, all the larger gaming software houses are run by a board of directors and/or shareholders who's only concern is their own profit-margin.
:dry:

» Tue Jun 12, 2012 5:03 pm

No.

» Wed Jun 13, 2012 2:29 am

That ^^^

Face it, none of the big gaming publishers gives a rats ass about us (the consumer) other than the fact that they want our money.
The days when a game was made by gamers who actually had a say in their company are over.

These days, all the larger gaming software houses are run by a board of directors and/or shareholders who's only concern is their own profit-margin.
:dry:

That's why a game that I used to find immensely fun back in 2002-2007 is now a poisonous cesspit. The game was taken over by a board of investors after the original creator sold his 55% stake in the company. (I'm talking about RuneScape.)

» Wed Jun 13, 2012 12:49 am

That's why a game that I used to find immensely fun back in 2002-2007 is now a poisonous cesspit. The game was taken over by a board of investors after the original creator sold his 55% stake in the company. (I'm talking about RuneScape.)

It happens.
In truth, though? Just because a company is run by a BoD doesn't mean the quality of their products is going to collapse. A big profit-driven company is perfectly capable of turning out quality products. They are, after all, what sells.

» Wed Jun 13, 2012 7:05 am

U know what, I wanna take back my original statement.
I dont believe they sold out, they tried something new and while it did give us a glimpse of customization, I believe they did a bad job of it. But I believe and hope next time around they do a better job. As far as atributes, the current perk system im still in favor of atributes because the current to me is to restrictive, but if they did a good overall, id problemly jump camp. But they would also have to work on dialogue, story, the world npcs culture and vibe needs to be more connected, and the consequences. Those are really all I see that they need to work on. Tbey are alrdy working on bugs and glitches, hence why I didnt name that. Also the ui for PC as well.
All those things can be doable, I just pray to God, the next game they bring back more stuff instead of cutting out core components.

» Wed Jun 13, 2012 5:56 am

If this 'streamlining' continues in TES VI, I'm done with this series. *sigh.* Well, in the meantime I have Daggerfall, Morrowind, and Neverwinter Nights 2 to fall back to.

» Wed Jun 13, 2012 1:19 am

There is absolutely no point in discussing whether or not they sold out. They HAVE to appeal to the masses to be able to survive as a company. They have share holders that demand profit, they must generate enough to make the next game and so on.

The question that I find extremely interesting is: are they making the games they want to play themselves? Given how ambitious Morrowind was and the philosophy behind the older games, does Skyrim really correspond to their vision? Is it really the game they wanted to make? Or did they really want to make an extremely complex game?

» Tue Jun 12, 2012 9:05 pm

I think people are underestimating the amount of ambition in Skyrim. They did a huge amount of improvement to the game's mechanics and engineering.

» Wed Jun 13, 2012 8:25 am

I see more ambition in previous games. But maybe that's just me :shrug:

» Wed Jun 13, 2012 7:57 am

I see more ambition in previous games. But maybe that's just me :shrug:

I see more stats, but not more ambition.

» Wed Jun 13, 2012 8:15 am

I see more stats, but not more ambition.

Ha, funny. Skyrim may be better executed, but you can't tell me it has more ambition than, say, Daggerfall. If anything, one of the flaws of that game was that it had too much ambition. Morrowind was a happy medium for me. Oblivion and Skyrim? Nah, not so much. What can I say, I like my stats and my well-written quests. I enjoy Skyrim for what it is, but not in the same way as previous games.

» Tue Jun 12, 2012 11:46 pm

Skip to last paragraph you Skip want to avoid the tl;dr.

Honest question, I couldn't help but wonder. I'm playing my 4th Skyrim character now and noticed how many more elements they added(and subtracted) to appeal more to the casual gamer.

The obvious first is the removal of attributes. It makes character creation, choice of race and skill far more simple. I recall when I played Oblivion, I looked at each of the races about 10x before making my choice. I ended up choosing a Redguard and was warned it was a very poor choice for a mage. I did try the mage's way and ended up paying the price. Same thing happened when I chose a High Elf as a warrior. Races in Oblivion and games before weren't just preferential, they were extremely important factors in character building. It seems like Bethesda simplified this part to make things easier for the casual gamer. Hell, even running speed has been standardized.

Second is magic. Spell creation has been removed. Although I feel this part was necessary as I like the system in Skyrim more than in Oblivion. Sure, there were choices in games before Skyrim but the effects were pretty boring and most spells ended up looking like the same, save for a few variations. I think this was subtracted to have quality over quantity. I may be wrong though.

Third is romance. There was an uproar when Bethesda announced you would be able to have a lover in Skyrim. The hardcoe RPG'ers thought it would be a horrible idea because it risked being poorly executed. The casual gamers were overjoyed. My little sister wanted to play it only for the romance factor. hardcoe RPG'ers ended up being right. The romance is Skyrim is pretty bad, courtship is shallow and there is almost no point in doing it. It's not rewarding, realistic and has no depth at all. They dropped the ball on that one and I do feel they included that solely to please to the masses.

On the third place you have the fact that building a character is FAR easier than before and you can pretty much play as anything you want, long as you pick perks in the right threes. Redguards even have a bonus in magic(Alteration or Destruction, maybe both), correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't that contradict the lore of The Elder Scrolls? Again, the main thing that separates RPG's from other games is the fact that in Role Playing Games you build your own character. You choose what your character will be good at, you choose what you will focus on and you level him up accordingly. Skyrim character building system is much less complex than its predecessors. I personally don't care whether a system is complex or not, I simply care if it allows us to play many different builds without ending up taking the same things over and over again. In that part Skyrim kind of fails. Again, it seems Bethesda chose the easy route to make the game more appealing to everybody rather than their loyal fans.

Now fellas I'm asking YOUR opinion. Bethesda is a company and obviously, their goal is to make money. Nobody can blame them if they choose the way that will reward them the most. I somewhat feel that Bethesda is letting us, their loyal fans down to make the game more mainstream and more accessible to the casual market. An example of a developer that does the exact opposite is FROM software(Dark and Demon's Soul). Their sequel is everything the first game was, except more extreme, more complex and even more unforgiving. I don't think anybody here could even think that FROM software has sold out with Dark Souls. That game is pretty unpopular for casualer gamers(mainly to its high difficulty level). Most things in Skyrim have been simplified and to me, it looks like it was purely to sell more copies. Skyrim is a game mostly oriented on the action rather than the character building.

What are your thoughts?

Edit: Don't get me wrong, I love Skyrim, I simply feel some elements that were really good were removed for no good reason.

IMO; Skyrim is a modders game. It may not be the best game ever developed, but it is playable. Yes, there are many flaws. I could nitpick all day about the things I see wrong about Skyrim. But, I find myself playing it anyway. Thankfully, Skyrim hasn't turned out like Dragon Age 2 did for that series. i have long since thrown that disk away.

» Wed Jun 13, 2012 12:37 am

But why did they try to streamline the game for the masses that have an attention span of a dog, eg heres is cookie snap gone is cookie.

» Tue Jun 12, 2012 6:33 pm

From Software focuses on gameplay mechanics, and not fluff. Fluff is what mainstream gaming loves. Beth focuses on fluff. Fluff makes money. But its still a genre that isn't tackled by many other companies, Bethesda really should be focusing on ways to enhance their games based on their track record and core audience, not some hidden other audience. They made this game imo to attract the Call of Duty audience. This game OOZES call of Duty. - Skills are useless. Perks are the real damage makers. - Bows shoot like guns (you have to shoot "over" the crosshair to hit) - There's "killstreaks" that you earn from the perks. You may not see it because its not distinctly called a "killstreak" but its right there. It comes from the Kill Animations that you only unlock by spending a perk point. - There are no FREAKING STATS. How do you have a Elder Scrolls Game without stats? Even Fallout had more emphasis on stats than this game. - Almost every "tedious skill" is broken as hell. Iron dagger * 100 = 100 skill in Blacksmithing. Wow, immersive. - Melee combat is a joke, just swing your sword mindlessly till someone dies, which works good for Call of Duty players since melee combat doesnt exist in that game. I mean the list goes on, I could talk about this for days. Skyrim sure as hell "sold out", and its probably just gonna get worse. In the end every company wants to make money, so they all target the Call of Duty audience by trying to make Call of Duty clones. That's the problem with the gaming industry today. You made a mistake by comparing Skyrim and Dark Souls though, the production of those games have two entirely different focuses. Dark Souls isnt' aimed towards "being hardcoe". It's aimed towards creating a truly rewarding experience that you create through your own methods. They give you all the tools to do so by making the gameplay elements so deep and limitless. They encourage you to truly "be who you want" in their world. Skyrim has very little of that, because it wasn't made for gameplay, it was made for fluff, and unfortunately that's how it'll probably stay for future iterations of the game. The core company goals have to change. Skyrim could have been fantastic. Imo it could have been better than Dark Souls even, the potential is "there". I think as a rival company making a similar game (Miyazaki, the maker of Dark Souls, said Oblivion is one of his favorite games after all), they actually were making their game so good in an effort to compete. Not THAT much of it being their goal, but I'm pretty sure it had crossed their minds. I'm pretty sure they're disappointed =/.

Bethesda going up against Activision? No

» Wed Jun 13, 2012 6:31 am

"Casual Gamers?" And just what is a casual gamer? Am I a casual gamer because I like the simplicity of the new leveling and attribute system?

That's funny, because I still play tabletop Dungeons & Dragons too.

» Wed Jun 13, 2012 5:52 am

"Casual Gamers?" And just what is a casual gamer? Am I a casual gamer because I like the simplicity of the new leveling and attribute system?

That's funny, because I still play tabletop Dungeons & Dragons too.

It's just a way for some users to insult those who like the game, as if comparing them to little kids who only play Dance Central or Wii Sports.

» Tue Jun 12, 2012 6:26 pm

Simply put, every generation is getting dumber and dumber, therefore everything needs to be simplified so their brains don't hurt making the easiest of decisions. Hence games today....

» Wed Jun 13, 2012 5:43 am

I skimmed a bit of discussion but I'm not seeing much other then discussion whether games should be complex or not and what should be possible. Nobody seems to notice that the OP's argument is incomplete. This makes discussing it a bit pointless.

Selling out as the OP suggest means that some particular ideal by which the game is designed is given up in exchange for an increase in sales an appeal. The first and most important thing in such an argument is to show that such an ideal exists. Then the OP has to show this ideal is given up. The first part is is missing from the OP.

Now from the OP's post I can't really make out an ideal which is given up. From his examples and commentary I would guess though that the ideal the OP has in mind is that "games should be be complex" but it is never argued that this was ever an ideal. I also can't recall any interviews suggesting that Bethesda ever had this is as an ideal. I do understand though that past games were more complex but I would say that the complexity the OP is thinking of is just heritage of old of PnP games, rather then something put there intentionally.

Now of course this should not stop anybody from discussing what ideals make a good game, should they be complex, simple, elegant, provide freedom, or if they should or should not appeal to casual gamers. However, not in this topic.

» Tue Jun 12, 2012 8:29 pm

Skyrim is far more complex than Oblivion, though not as deep as Morrowind or Daggerfall. So...I think they are heading in the right direction. And, Bethesda is probably one of the few companies right now, along with CDPR who aren't nickle and diming everyone with day one dlc, appearance/weapon packs, and that stuff.

» Wed Jun 13, 2012 6:06 am

Bethesda going up against Activision? No

Activision is a competitor so is EA so is CD project red so is Mojang and so on.

Will it be something public like DICE calling out IW and vice vera for battlefield 3 vs MW3? Most likely not but Activision is competition to beat the competition you need to give consumers of the competitor to come to you and stay with you for money.

Bigger the company is in the chain though the harder they need to try to stay there. Eventually go into Activision level and pump out the same game but back it up with a PR campaign no one else can match.

» Wed Jun 13, 2012 1:11 am

"Casual Gamers?" And just what is a casual gamer? Am I a casual gamer because I like the simplicity of the new leveling and attribute system?

That's funny, because I still play tabletop Dungeons & Dragons too.

you can be a casual gamer who likes the simplicity of skyrim and enjoys to play dandd.

you can be a hardcoe gamer who likes the simplicity of skyrim and enjoys to play dandd.

but, no rational mind can prove that skyrim is not a simple game that appeals to casual gamers.