In a way, it has kind of been downhill since Daggerfall. Oblivion is the last great game in TES series, Skyrim is just good.

Of course 90% of you probably think The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion is the greatest game in the history of the universe, but I love it. Especially compared to Skyrim which is too watered down for me.

EDIT: WHAT THE HELL. I'm not allowed to say the words "Oblivion s u c k s"? I wrote "Oblivion s u c k s ", and it changed it to " TES IV: Oblivion is the greatest game in the history of the universe".

svcks svck The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion is the greatest game in the history of the universe.

Okay, this is weird.

Eh, I would consider Morrowind to be the last great ES game. Oblivion was a little too much flash and too little substance, though it's still worlds above Skyrim in its current state. Skyrim's modding community will, however, make the game a little more bearable, no doubt.

I still like the game and stand by my earlier statements that is is my game of the year, narrowly edging out Dark Souls due to Skyrims amazing world design adn free form gameplay.

I really miss some things and I thought they were brining some things back (spears and polearms and soem spells). I didn't follow the info before release because I didn't want to spoil the game. I had no idea there wasn't spellcrafting and that certain weapons were not returning. Some of the things they added are really cool but we lost quite a bit and they really haven't advanced in ways I would like to see. For example, why don't the Khajiit merchants recognize my Khajiit as a Kahajiit? This is a small example of a much larger problem in the game.

I would have preferred an expansion and rebalancing of attributes. I wish there were MORE attritbutes and I also wish that there would have been a system in place to make impossible to max all attributes and max all skills. The perk system is fun but not enough in my opinion.

The cities kind of feel like hamlets and I get a strong style over substance feeling from the game. I have accepted that style over substance is the way things are now and that's just the way it is. I can still have fun.

There is no game company that will make a game in a way that I would be completely satisfied with and I feel like 95% of all games created are utter garbage.

For the time it was out, Oblivion was considered the low point by most due to that word that is like a swearword 'round these parts nowadays (streamlining) and also for being quite disconnected from the series lore.

Now Skyrim has usurped, so Oblivion doesn't really get noticed that much anymore.

The main issue is that most people don't think like you, I, nor most of these posters do. Most people are content with being spoon-fed "moonshine" games (all flash, no substance). It seems gamers now-a-days don't want to savor games like New Vegas, Morrowind, FO1/2, DA: Origins, and Baldur's Gate (basically, the "fine wine" of gaming). But hey, at least Skyrim's not as devolved as Call of Duty (that trash isn't even fit to be called "moonshine" - more like yesterday's garbage).

Oblivion is far from perfect, but it's still a hell of a lot better than Skyrim. What I don't get is, all these people who said Oblivion was a corporate sell-out are now the same ones praising Skyrim. Wait, what?

Wow, this thread is just....

As far as "redundancy" in opening locks/doors/whatever, in one chapter of fiction:

-the possiblity of using fire magic to melt a lock is mentioned, and discarded because the main character is not powerful enough.
-it's mentioned that some people could pick it, but the main character lacks the skill and training.
-shattering the lock itself through brute force is dismissed because the main character lacks the upper body strength.
-the end result is that the wooden door gives way around the lock after it is rammed a few times. The lock itself is intact. (I would suspect this door is not exactly sturdy)
-if you knew it was there, you could push part of the decorative ornamentation and the lock would release.
-a less complex lock is actually picked.
-the hinges are beaten off a door, rather than unlocking it.
-more locks are dealt with using pillaged keys.

That's 7 ways to deal with locks. Redundant? Not in the least. Situationally, each one makes sense for the associated character.

Somehow, a writer having 7 ways to undo a lock is OK, but asking for THREE in a video game, just so the player has a choice is too much?

I would have added 3 sub attritbutes to every attribute and make cross referencing direct and inverse relationships between attritbutes, as opposed to merging them into the 3 we have now. There would not be full voice acting, only key dialogues would be voiced (think BG2 style, really made Irenicus stand out). Almost all dialogue would be text but there would be way more of it and more stat checks in dialogue and branching dialogue paths. I would have put substantially more focus on non combat gameplay with entire questlines based around diplomacy, entertaining, and subterfuge to questlines about consoling, advising, and articulating.

I told myself I wouldn't come back to this thread, but here I am. Alright, last word!

Since Morrowind runs even after ten years, I'm thankful I can get my open-world, RPG fix because few, if any, titles have matched it in that time. I love Skyrim for what it is and I have tremendous fun with it, but it doesn't feel like a true, Elder Scrolls RPG. You can't avoid combat and character customization feels a little shallow when considering how immersive it could have been. I just hope the next title, or maybe future DLCs, will address these issues. I hope.

Do you not approve of how we critique Skyrim, because it has shattered the standards of the series we once truly loved?

Or did you simply come here to remind us that there is a "majority" enjoying Skyrim, a majority which is probably not made up of actual TES fans who have ever played Arena, Daggerfall, or Morrowind? I'm curious, really.

Leaving out spellmaking was most likely a design choice. The ability to make very powerful spells would have people on the forums crying how easy the game is. Also it would be alot more work to add the effects and details for combination effect spells. Maybe it can be done in dlc, but ill really not complain that they left it out in main game being that theres tons of content already.


Weapon types? I cant see how anyone complain about a lack of spears and crossbows when the weapon selection is fine. I used spears in Morrowind, but whats the big deal? The weapons that are present look great, usually have cool killing animations and get the job done. If they add spears then there will be people crying about not having Halberds. In a game with horrible combat and similar animations such as Morrowind i would expect almost every type of weapon known to man, but if they can have a bunch of weapons and ALSO make the combat really fun i can do without a few weapon types

As for clothing, i saw a few variations that werent just change in color. This is possibly the most minor of gripes ive heard, although i wouldnt mind a seperate set of greaves once in awhile

As for Guilds, whats the complaint there? Companions, Thieves, Assassins, Mages, and i consider the legion a 'guild' of some sort. A guild for almost every playstyle. And what is it fewer guilds compared to what game? Morrowind? Oblivion? Im sure they couldve added a few more guilds and made them standard fetch quests, but quality is better than quantity sometimes... And its not like the quantity is lacking much as it is.

I wouldn't mind if they put unlock spells back in and bash locks for warrior types but they damn well better leave some chests and doors only pickable with lockpicks by high level thieve types. If someone is going to specialize as a thief character and invest perk points in then they should be rewarded with the ability to potentially pick any lock in the game.

If you pick alteration then you have to invest perk points into being able to open higher level locks same with a warrior bash which would probably be put in one-handed skill. first perk lets you unlock novice locks, second unlocks adept locks etc. For warriors it would be the first perk slightly reduces noise and damage to items inside, second perk would to bash harder locks and further reduce damage to items inside etc. Thieves would be the same as it is now except that before you can even attempt to pick an expert lock you would need all the perks up to that point. That way everyone can pick a style of lockpicking that suits their character but they will actually have to invest precious perks into it.

Yeah, because the new Beth team does not know Fallout from Elderscroll. There are so many things gone from this series it is not even worth calling part of the series. I think Todd is FULL of himself and hates his customers and loyal fans. The fallout animations are so lame. I feel like I'm 5 years old when I see them. Kill me now.

Exactly. You should still have to invest into a specific lock-picking skill in order to pick locks. That skill, however, should naturally flow with your character archetype. Mages should invest in lock-picking spells, warriors in bashing attacks, and thieves in good ol'-fashioned lock-picking. Each type should have its ups and downs, but they all should be available. As was stated earlier in the thread:

Mages: Can unlock using spells (saves money and doesn't damage items) but alerts nearby enemies
Thieves: Can unlock using lock-picks (stealthy and doesn't damage items) but uses lock-picks
Warriors: Can bash open locks (saves money and does not require specialized skills) but may damage items and not particularly stealthy

Warriors may be on the less-endowed end of the field, but warriors are not supposed to be crafty anyways. Warrior archetypes are brutes - those who think with their muscles, not their mind. Warrior characters would be able to spend more skill points in their preferred skills, while still being able to unlock doors and get some items from locked chests.

matteo78: we got cool finishing moves in Skyrim? Where? How does one access them? All I get are the same overplayed ones I've gotten since the start of the game.

Don't mistake this thread for wanted to put up barriers to make life harder for the "average gamer" this thread is wondering why options are being omitted as the base game aside from graphics and tech advancements, still functions the same gameplay wise since its Progenitors over a decade ago.

This. I'm all for making the game more accessible to all gamers, but not at the expense of features that define the series and the genre. Making a game more accessible would be like adding a more in-depth tutorial system, perhaps including a system of tips, and maybe boxing a brief but sufficient manual to help the player along. Those things make a game more accessible. Dropping features that you think players will not understand does not make a game more accessible - it just makes the game more shallow.

This is up to 3 threads, didn't know that Skyrim got rid of a cookie jar that always broken but added in a Piggy bank that works really well in comparasion to the past product.

The cookie jar was broken but you got the cookies. the hell am I gonna do with an Empty Piggy Bank?


ZIINGGAAA


<3

Except that the piggy bank is nearly empty, while the cookie jar was full of delicious snacks. I'll take a somewhat imbalanced game that offers substance over a balanced game that's so shallow that choice means nothing any day.

Oblivion wasn't so bad, though. At least a lore reason was given for the loss of levitation (Act of 421), and Mark and Recall weren't too bad of a loss since Cyrodiil was more hospitable than Vvardenfell and there were no damned cliffracers. There were still a breadth of spells - more Conjuration and Destruction spells, for one - although the loss of the Enchant skill was a bit painful.

Skyrim? Where did all the spells go? Did vampires everywhere steal away the memory of Absorb Health? Did every mage forget Reflect and Spell Absorption?

For Bethesda to spend 5+ years working on a game to only market a small "hardcoe" crowd would be absurd. The game has been stream lined, because a lot of western RPGs have been stream lined. Games like Dungeons of Dredmor cater to a more hardcoe RPG audience, or those who enjoy roguelike games, but those games don't have a huge budget behind them.

Bethesda knew they had a giant market for the game, and they could've easily attracted that market with proper marketing tactics without having to streamline the game. The excuse you provide, "That it's fine for them to do it because everyone else is doing it" is utter garbage and it's the reason why we have Call of Duty milking out installments that are exactly the same, one after the other. If companies would embrace the unique, deep designs that have come to define every genre of gaming, rather than attempting to homogenize gaming with games that play nearly identical, then maybe western RPGs would actually be respected by the RPG fanfare. As it is, eastern RPGs tend to garner more respect on forums and on the internet because they're ACTUAL RPGs (who would've thunk it), rather than hack-and-slash games (like Skyrim).

Because 50 million cigarette smokers can't be wrong!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Just because a lot of other people are also doing it does not magically justify anything.