ViolentRiC -

None of that changes my opinion whatsoever. You're still wrong, and i'm still right.

If two people who have never touched an Elder Scrolls game in their life sat down, and one played Skyrim for 30 minutes, while the other played Morrowind for 30 minutes (time spent faffing around in character creation excluded), there's an extremely high chance the person playing Skyrim will feel much more "involved" in the game's main quest and will have a much better idea what's going on in the game. If you asked both players to explain what's going on in each game after that time, the one playing Skyrim would describe how dragons are attacking... how there's a civil war going on... and how they were told to speak to a Jarl. The other one playing Morrowind will most probably say they've been wandering around a strange alien world for 30 minutes, and maybe come across a town.

To even try and argue that Skyrim isn't more accessible and doesn't try harder to pull the player into the main questlines is completely ludicrous. It's laughable.

You're absolutely right that people supporting Skyrim are also prone to using patronising language and generally being insulting towards those they disagree with;I know exactly what you mean about people having to add a disclaimer that they "enjoy the game, and aren't a hater" too.

I admit that I'm as tribal as the next guy, at my core, but the essence of this post was not to change the 'other side's' opinions of Skyrim, but to call people out on their use of a very widely repeated term. I wanted to know what they were referring to specifically, because what I'm trying to do is debunk false claims - false claims are frequently made when people compare Skyrim to previous TES games. It seems that some people are unhappy with aspects of Skyrim and then forget that they're aspects the previous games too. That doesn't mean I want them to be happy with the faults, just blame the right thing - many people are drawn to the whole 'something used to be good but nowadays it's bad' thinking.



I agree with you on gameplay elements but story? The civil war story and the Thalmor's involvement wasn't lacking in maturity at all, and the main story, once you learn of Alduin's history and how he came to arrive in present day Skyrim isn't any more immature than their usual main quest stories either. The seconday questline's story (which I believe is a new format, with a primary side quest) is particularly well constructed and much like real life in that there is no clear right and wrong side between the Imperials and Stormcloaks, and it comes down to your own personal opinion on what's best for her people.


Heh, no! I can't remember who the poster is, but his avatar has a white background and is in monochrome; the avatar is a guy who looks to be around 30 lifting dark sunglasses above his eyes. He's the only good thing about that board member's posts, in this humb'e mer's opinion.

Sheo, I don't usually say this to people, but you are utterly pigheaded. I take the time to illustrate in explicit detail, knowing that only this will be enough, how something you not only said but mocked me for challenging, was utterly wrong. I honestly expected you to have the character, maturity, and integrity to say "ah okay, I was mistaken on that - my bad"; but you've surprised me here and I won't have anything more to say to you past this message because I don't respect you.


This is again not true, and the reason why nobody should take any of your messages seriously. This isn't mindless mud slinging, I'll again (for the last time) explain beyond contention how what you have said is not true:

What a Skyrim player would have done after their 30 minutes is ENTIRELY DOWN TO THE PLAYER. Both Skyrim and Morrowind force the players to embark on the main quests and, in Skyrim's case, the side quest the same amount - THEY DON'T. If YOU or anybody else decided to follow the instructions and follow the suggested path then THAT'S YOUR CHOICE. BOTH games tell you what your first mission is and then leave you alone to do it. If you're going to continue to claim otherwise, then having plainly put the facts to you I'm going to have to start calling you a liar. "Dragons" aren't attacking, *A* dragon attacked Helgen and freed you so that the game could begin - you DON'T KNOW that more dragons will attack, or that it was Alduin, or ANYTHING unless you CHOOSE to play the main quest. YES you can see signs of the civil war, and WHY IN THE NAME OF THE DIVINES WOULD YOU NOT? Are you testing me? Are you trolling? You're arguing now that the game developers should make sure that there's no suggestion that there's a major quest in the game lest unsuspecting players accidentally embark on it within the first thirty minutes of their game? Is the clue in the title, Sheo? You'll drag me down into madness if I waste much more time on you.

The hypothetical player playing Morrowind will have the SAME instructions - meet a person in a certain location and deliver a message/item. Your statement that they'll "most probably say they've been wandering around a strange alien world for 30 minutes, and maybe come across a town" is based on nothing but, presumably, how YOU behaved in your play through of the game; this makes the most sense, as you seem to be consistently self absorbed. The fact is that Morrowind tells you to visit Caius Cosades in Balmora and SUGGESTS THAT YOU TAKE THE NEARBY SILT STRIDER TO SAVE WALKING THERE THROUGH THE WILDERNESS. I know this because I'm playing Morrowind as opposed to remembering it through rose coloured glasses.

Nobody's arguing about Skyrim not being more accesible, either you're trying to throw a strawman at me or you don't even know what it is you're trying to discuss. "Pull the player into the main questline"? Well I've just explained twice now how it doesn't do that in the sense of literally pushing you into quests, and if you mean "pull the player in" as in 'impress the player and create curiosity' then you're definitely a troll because nobody who can work a PC can be backwards enough to claim that the opening sequence should have been less interesting as it pulled the player into the main quest too much.


That's it, Sheo, you're either a troll with no sense of compassion, or one of the stupidest people who's ever strung together more than three syllables. I have no interest in responding to you any more either way.

-RiC


+++And to Staind716 - North Americans can choose to alter the English language however they wish, but I am from England and I speak English-English (aka English) - please do not try to correct me into spelling it your country's way as it is more arrogant ignorance than I can stomach tonight.

Honestly, I think various "Hand Holding" aids are crucial to many games. In the real world if you don't quite understand the directions a person is giving you because you're unfamiliar with the terrain, you can ask them for clarifiers. In a gaming world it's not possible to do that, so things like quest arrows are crucial to people trying to traverse unfamiliar terrain. This is especially true for people who, for whatever reason, are just bad with directions.

Some things (like enemy health bars) are a substitution for things like being able to visually see that a person is stumbling around and about to pass out. I don't see these kinds of aids as anything other than developers being courteous enough to provide you with something that your senses cannot perceive in a digital world. I mean if you were trying to find a pig farm, I'm sure someone would tell you just to follow the odor to the edge of town, you can't miss it. But those kind of explanations are just lost on a living breathing person with multiple senses. Some things just have to be substituted in certain situations. Otherwise a frustrated gamer might put a controller through their screen, lol.

Why the hell would I admit i'm mistaken, when i'm right? Nothing you've said has proven me wrong. You're essentially clutching at straws in the hope that i'll give up and let you win.

This has never been about "forcing". When did I ever say Skyrim forces the player into a questline?

I didn't. All I said was the game tries a lot harder to involve the player in the main questlines right from the start, which is a fact. It's completely ludicrous to argue otherwise. Even the developers would admit that was one of their goals when making the opening cinematic + the first two NPC companions you encounter.


I've replayed Morrowind fairly recently too, so the start is fresh in my memory. Even when I know what happens next, the opening still seems far more understated and less involving for the player than either Skyrim or Oblivion.

Again, the player can choose to do their own thing in all three games... but it's blatantly obvious to anyone with an ounce of common sense which two games of the three try hardest to engage the player in a storyline right from the start.

In an open-world game like this, I do think the opening in Skyrim is too much. Almost to the point where I'm put off making multiple characters because I don't wish to go through the whole scripted intro again.

Scripted / cinematic intros that try and pull the player into a main storyline right from the start belong in linear, story-driven RPGs. Not TES RPGs.


You're lucky i'm not a petty jerk, or I would report you for that. I've been banned for a lot less than calling someone a troll or stupid.

I'll let you off, and attribute your rude remarks simply to being mad at losing an argument.

One last point -

Take a look at http://www.gamesas.com/topic/1323597-this-is-what-is-missing-from-modern-games/.

The OP and some of the responses sum up rather nicely why I love Morrowind's no hand-holding approach.

In fact, this comment in particular from a first-time Morrowind player sums up rather nicely what the opening can be like for new players:

"I do like Morrowind, as I've been playing it more recently.(first timer) The lack of hand holding is great, but it'd be nice if there was more of it at the very start. THey just throw you into the world with 80 some gold and say "Have fun out there!" Other than that it is pretty cool."

This is exactly the kind of thing I mentioned a few posts ago in this topic. A lot of people have actually complained about Morrowind's opening being too harsh and confusing for the player.

Wow, talk about claws. Ordinarily I'd just shut-up and say nothing, but this is a pretty ridiculous argument. Sheo has presented some facts about Skyrim v. Morrowind and how it's a more involved storyline and RiC gets all pissy about it in spite of the fact the developers said this was the route they were going for repeatedly? Skyrim's story really is much easier to follow than Morrowind's. It is more dynamic and it is more engaging. That's not to say it's the best I've seen in a game, but it is definitely better than MW's. And Oblivion's is as well. I didn't read Sheo saying you have to follow anything, only which one it was easier to follow. Such needless hostility, really... Where's the maturity?

I do understand why some people prefer a game style without hand-holding, but that's just not me. If a game has the option to turn them on and off at will, that's even better. But when I play a game, there are times when I want to be immersed in a world where I can just be completely lazy and just enjoy kind of drifting along in it. Life is stressful enough, I don't want to add to that stress in my games by not being able to follow simple directions. After all, when I played MW on the XBox and they told me "It's a ways to the North", it would turn out being way off more to the east and just a little bit north and it was frustrating. Some directions were spot on, a lot weren't. I mean if the game developer wants to give you visual animations instead of hand-holding aids, that's cool. But if what they're thinking and what the gamer are thinking are on two different levels, it might make it hard for the gamer to follow them. So quest-aids, I feel, are useful to keep around for those gamers who are just playing on a different field, but still would like to enjoy the world.

You're comparing different games with different types of plots. In Morrowind, they didn't want you to know much of what was going on because they wanted to present you with a realm that was shrouded in mystery, the mystery was the plot they went with for that game. In Skyrim the plot line is perhaps more overtly thrown in your face because Skyrim isn't really a mysterious place, its a war torn wasteland thats filled with brutality and civil war. Any character that lives or walks in Skyrim knows this, you would have to have total amnesia to come into Skyrim and not be exposed to the plot line.

I don't know how "hand holding" relates to any of this but I do think that the developers did a good job of making each province somewhat unique in how they're presented. Skyrim is a realm that we expected to be, its harsh and unforgiving and barbaric, the left some mystery in there for the people who like it with the ancient nord culture. But mystery wasn't the right motif for this game, it was meant to be more overt.

With that said, in none of the TES games do I feel like the game is forcing me to do the main quest. In fact, the only game that I ever did the main quest in was Morrowind because I felt more drawn to it than I have in either Oblivion or Skyrim. In Skyrim, I have played over 300 hours so far and I have only step foot in Whiterun two or three times.

The developers admitted in an interview that they pretty much failed in story development in MW and really have been trying to make immersion come more easily in Skyrim. It wasn't because of some cloak of mystery, it was because they weren't very good at it. That's their words. That's the why they made such a big deal about Skyrim's intro. Because it was more compelling than their previous attempts.

Sheogorath, you made some legitimate points and you're right to a certain extent, but you don't have to be a dike about it.

You prefer the motif of Morrowind over Skyrim, that much is clear. I do too. But you shouldn't be a dike to people who prefer the way Skyrim is setup and you come off like a doosh-bag more often than not.

I would like to see that interview you're talking about.

Personally, I loved Morrowinds plot because I couldn't wait to see what was going to happen next. Oblivion and Skyrim were too predictable for me, I haven't even completed the main quests in these games yet.

Considering how many interviews and articles I've read, I don't know if I could find that one again, but I'll give it a go. If they've said it once I'm sure they've said it twice, lol.

How am I being a dike about it? Please explain. ViolentRiC is the one getting rude and abusive. Not me.

Its not so much that I don't believe you, its more the fact that I want to read it for myself. I have always thought from day one that the guys who made Morrowind were under the influence of many dangerous substances and as such I wouldn't put much stock into anything they said.

Its the way you respond to people, you try and turn everything into an argument when its just a bunch of advlt people voicing their opinions which are no less valid than your own.

All you had to say in this thread was, "I think you're wrong, here is my evidence as to why I think you're wrong. . Have a nice day."

Back in October that statement was much easier to find. But so much news has developed since then that it would take more time than my present state of fatigue is willing to invest to find in this statement that I know was put forth because of how well it stood out not just to me, but to those who were with me and saw the statement as well. And we discussed it at the time. Eventually I may try to dredge it up, but the longer I wait, I know it will only get worse... Too much junk for one little search engine to sift through by this time, lol. Sorry I ddn't bookmark it. I never thought I'd need to bring it up, honestly.

Well, it is true that it's easier to predict a game that follows conventional storytelling methods.

Video games are a multi-billion dollar industry now, as such most developers are always going to say whatever the big suits tell them to say in order to promote the current product and explain why its better than the previous product. This is just business and marketing 101. No developer is ever going to say that they prefer the old product over the new one, regardless of whether the old one was actually better.

What's wrong with this? (from earlier in the thread)


Sounds perfectly civil to me. Frankly, the debate should have ended there. VioletRiC is the one who couldn't let it go had to have the last word. When I replied again stating that my stance had not changed and nothing he'd said had proven me wrong, that's when he started getting abusive.

As far as i'm concerned, i've done nothing wrong.

Thats great, you don't have to defend yourself any further from that. Just let he/she deal with it.

Your comments afterwards started to deteriorate. It became more of an "Im right, and you're wrong" thing. When you start arguments with words like "Well, everything I said is 100% true" while debating a subject that is entirely subjective it makes you look like a doosh.

Even if they're just catering to pressure, if they've said it, it becomes the truth for the company and will negate any previous statements they've made that contradict the notion unless they're called on it to clarify otherwise. Even so, it could be a genuine agreement on their part of where the previous games failed to live up to certain expectations. If they've worked to improve upon something, the general consensus is what worked before isn't going to work now because people are expecting more. If that means they are going to state a white lie about the reasons for the change, their general audience isn't likely to nitpick over the detail. If the product they're delivering is "better", most people are satisfied with a reasonable explanation.

Amen.

Then it's going to shock you to hear about a man named Adolf Hitler...

What constitutes a "good" debate tool is another debate in and of itself. In fact, political bullying is still a viable tactic most frequently seen in commercials especially during election season. Irregardless, I do believe the rules of the forum, however, prohibit abusive speech. This being said, I do believe that a certain someone had definitely stepped out of line, henceforth, now, out of sight.