Hand Holding? Explain Yourselves (+ use of patronising langu : V - Skyrim

» Tue Jun 12, 2012 4:42 am

You're one of the debbie downers I was referring to, so thanks for responding

1, 2 & 3 - I can understand this falling into the description of the (still needlessley condescending) term; these can all be switched off though
4 - Cite one example of when the 'Location Discovered' message makes something easier for you or holds your hand. If you're travelling to a village or cave, approach said village or cave and it says 'Village/Cave Discovered' - how is that any more of a spoiler than the fact that you can already see that you're at that location?
5 - How is enemy health bars 'holding your hand'? If you don't like enemy health bars, which have been a staple of the series and are in no way exclusive to Skyrim, a game which many Elder Scrolls fans like to suggest 'holds your hand' more than previous titles, I can understand that but why on Earth would you choose to describe those health bars as 'holding your hand'? Also, TURN THEM OFF
6 - I dislike essential NPCs too, and can see why this could be described using the needlessley patronising and obnoxious term. A simple message a la Morrowind (you have severed the threads of fate etc.) would be much better. This is so far the only valid example of 'hand holding' that cannot be disabled.
7 - Auto health regeneration does not protect the player past the first few hours of play. The amount of health it regenerates and the time it takes to do so is not even close to protecting the player, let alone to the extent that it prvents Armour degradation is something that should definitely have been kept, but to describe that as 'holding your hand' is just silly. If you really must describe the removal of an interesting and important combat related element in an overly insulting manner, 'dumbed down' would be the way to put it.
8 - I'm fine with the dungeons, but I can see how people who preferred them to be more realistically lit could, if they wanted to take the tone of a conceited critic, desribe it as hand holding. That's valid example number two.
9 - Don't use fast travel. Again, I don't know why anybody would choose to describe this as 'holding the player's hand' - and I don't say that to be pedantic, it's just not a description that fits that which you're trying to describe. I would say that people who fast travel all the time are, at worst, lazy - but not 'having their hand held'.
10 - "Player is capable of beating important bosses like Alduin at a fairly low level" - this does not affect you or I. Perhaps some players out there decide to breeze through the main quest and not level up. That's not me, nor is it you. I would wager that fighting Alduin with low level equipment at a low level would be pretty damn difficult, but as I say - neither of us are doing that so why is it a criticism of yours? It also has nothing to do with holding anybody's hand.
11 - Scripted events have nothing to do with hand holding. The opening cinematic does nothing but put the player into the game, no more than the opening sequences of Morrowind or Oblivion. You're a prisoner who espaces execution when a dragon attacks - that does not "railroad" anybody into anything whatsoever.

1, 2 & 3 - Not exactly. You can adjust the HUD opacity, but can't just decide to have a normal functioning compass and map with no markers - which is how it should be.
4 - It means the player can run around mindlessly until the noise and text pop up and tell them they've reached something important. :confused:

Without it, they may pass through an area several times before stumbling upon a hidden entrance to a cave. Blatant hand-holding.
5 - Hand-holding isn't exclusive to Skyrim. The previous games had it as well to an extent. It just seems so much worse in Skyrim... due to Bethesda's self-confessed push for greater accessibility.
6 - Glad you agree.
7 - Ok, if you prefer to call the removal of armour degradation dumbing down instead, that's fine.
9 - Just because something is optional, doesn't mean it's okay for it to be in the game as a default feature. It's still hand-holding at it's worst, along with markers.
10 - Of course it affects me. Aside from giants (who aren't that aggressive anyway) there weren't many moments during the game where I ran into creatures far beyond what my character could handle. It felt like most enemies (dragons especially) were scaled down to be beatable at any level.
11 - In Morrowind, you get off a boat, create your character, and that's pretty much it. You're thrown into a strange new world, unsure of where to go or what to do, which is how it should be. In Skyrim, you're railroaded into both the civil war questline and main questline straight away.

Grand total of two valid criticisms our ot eleven.

All were valid.

For a person who comes across to me as a miserable, never satisfied complete downer of a gamer, you really didn't provide much when given a forum to air your reasons for being so.

It should be noted that I actually enjoyed Skyrim, despite it's many obvious flaws. I consider it to be a good game. :confused:

I'm not this hate-filled person you're making me out to be, who considers the game to be utter trash.

And honestly, I think you're getting too worked up over the term 'hand-holding'. Don't take it so personally. It's just a term to describe features that (in my opinion, and the opinion of many others) overly simplify things for the player at the expense of immersion, sense of discovery, challenge, etc. It's not a personal attack on you or any other player.

» Tue Jun 12, 2012 7:40 am

What, so I am not enough of a "debbie downer" for you to address my comments? :biggrin:

One reason why people use confrontational language is that it gets more of a response on the forum. For example, yesterday there were two threads on playing with no HUD. One used more confrontational language in the OP and one used very delicate language in the OP. The delicately worded thread began first but soon languished and died. The more confrontationally worded thread hit post limit in one day.

Granted the more confrontationally worded thread had a lot of confrontational posts, but among all that there was some real discussion of the issues and I learned a few things from that thread and even changed my views about the crosshair somewhat. The delicately worded thread was just a bunch of high fives and I did not really learn anything from it.

Actually I thought the thread was MOSTLY folks taking offense and people apoligizing for the OP with just a few constructive commnents and the OP disappearing from the thread but maybe that's just my perception. I will tell you folks who use the term "dumbed down" have to have much better arguements that polite folks for me to bother to listen to them at all. IMO rudness and excessive aggressiveness are not good debate tools.

» Tue Jun 12, 2012 11:25 am

Matteo, I fixed a problem in your post. Seriously, you made good points that will be even more pursuasive if you delete the last sentance. Like my grandma used to say "you catch more flies with honey, than vinegar." :biggrin:

Precisely

» Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:44 am

You can't fail.

Not true, you can fail Namira's quest in a way that an NPC recognizes. So that's one out of ...several dozen quests :teehee:

Then again, when did Bethesda's game have options or consequences? Apart from that one quest in Fallout 3 used excessively in it's marketing :hehe:

Edit: Namira, not Hircine :facepalm:

» Tue Jun 12, 2012 2:45 am

I've only one complaint... I'm an archer/swordsman, and I play with no HUD or crosshairs, Some people seem to think it's impossible to use a bow with no crosshairs but it's possible and very rewarding when you plant an arrow in the neck of an enemy on the horizon. =] Back to the point at hand... I've one complaint with the game, wouldn't call it hand holding by any means... it's just it's hard to play with no HUD bc it also makes the status updates dissapear ie: quest rewards, ingredient affects, ect. I wish I could get rid of the HUD but keep my status updates.

» Tue Jun 12, 2012 8:23 am

Actually I thought the thread was MOSTLY folks taking offense and people apoligizing for the OP with just a few constructive commnents and the OP disappearing from the thread but maybe that's just my perception.

I play on console, and I had previously tried going without HUD and gave up because of the loss of the status bars. So I immediately understood his "no excuse" language to be motivational, rather than telling people how to play. You see I had been using lack of status bars as an "excuse" not to go HUDless.

Once it became clear people were misunderstanding the OP he probably should have edited/clarified the OP, but I think he felt unjustly criticized by some pretty harsh responses and he responded in kind. It is too bad he did that because the OP had some good points to make that got lost because of the bickering.

I can understand why folks who play primarily on a PC would have read the OP differently and felt like the "no excuse" was a derogatory way of saying his way was the best way to play. PC players may not intuitively understand the console player's dilemma between loosing the status bars and having the GPS compass with enemy radar detecter staring them in the face since PC players can turn off the compass in the ini file and they have Immersive HUD at their disposal.

But between all the folks taking offense and appologizing for the OP there was a lot of good discussion there on things like the different tactics you use in combat depending on whether the HUD is on or not and I even began reconsidering my position on whether the crosshair was immersive because as one poster pointed out it is like an extension of your hands. I still prefer no crosshair, but my stance on that has softened somewhat as a result of that thread.

I will tell you folks who use the term "dumbed down" have to have much better arguements that polite folks for me to bother to listen to them at all. IMO rudness and excessive aggressiveness are not good debate tools.

I agree with that 100%.

» Mon Jun 11, 2012 11:26 pm

@Steamteck

BTW, my post about why people use confrontational language was not intended to encourage people to use confrontational language. The intent was to encourage folks to pay more attention to the people who don't use confrontational language and just ignore the confrontational posts. If the confrontational posts did not get so much attention, we might see less of them.

» Tue Jun 12, 2012 4:10 am

@Steamteck

BTW, my post about why people use confrontational language was not intended to encourage people to use confrontational language. The intent was to encourage folks to pay more attention to the people who don't use confrontational language and just ignore the confrontational posts. If the confrontational posts did not get so much attention, we might see less of them.

I thought that's what I agreed with??

» Tue Jun 12, 2012 5:39 am

I play on console, and I had previously tried going without HUD and gave up because of the loss of the status bars. So I immediately understood his "no excuse" language to be motivational, rather than telling people how to play. Once it became clear people were misunderstanding the OP he probably should have edited/clarified the OP, but I think he felt unjustly criticized by some pretty harsh responses and he responded in kind. It is too bad he did that because the OP had some good points to make that got lost because of the bickering.

I can understand why folks who play primarily on a PC would have read the OP differently and felt like the "no excuse" was a derogatory way of saying his way was the best way to play. PC players may not intuitively understand the console player's dilemma between loosing the status bars and having the GPS compass with enemy radar detecter staring them in the face since PC players can turn off the compass in the ini file and they have Immersive HUD at their disposal.

But between all the folks taking offense and appologizing for the OP there was a lot of good discussion there on things like the different tactics you use in combat depending on whether the HUD is on or not and I even began reconsidering my position on whether the crosshair was immersive because as one poster pointed out it is like an extension of your hands. I still prefer no crosshair, but my stance on that has softened somewhat as a result of that thread.

I've seen several of these threads (we've both posted in some of the same) that just have a badly worded title but the OP seems to make some valid arguments. There are usually some good discussions in them, but there inevitably is some level of flaming-flame baiting or people sounding defensive or seeming to be personally offended by any criticism of the game or a certain way of playing. I always hesitate before responding, knowing what I'm getting into by now, but like I said, often, there are some good discussions amidst the chaos, like in this thread.

I've said before, if people made less confrontational thread titles, there might be less flaming going on, but even if the OP learns, new ones always pop up. I guess they figure the confrontational tone will get responses, and they do... but are more responses always better? Hmm... careful what you wish for, I guess.

Interesting note about the crosshair - it gives you a frame of reference that you just don't have looking at a blank screen. I tend to play with it off b/c I don't like having that cross in my field of vision all the time, but it might be more useful and more immersive if it only came up when you pulled out your bow or readied a ranged spell, etc.

Also, the compass, I wouldn't mind, if I could just take all the quest stuff and enemy radar off and just have the directional thing. I mean, once I have a frame of reference like the sun in real life, I tend to have a pretty good sense of direction, but in a 3d game, I just don't retain that sense of bearing the same way (ear fluid doesn't track turning the mouse to look around the way it tracks your head movements in real life (if that makes any sense). So I can see how people might get lost easily without the compass. I just learn to follow landmarks and refer to the map when I have to. The sun doesn't really help in game either b/c half the time, it's practically invisible or behind clouds, etc.

» Mon Jun 11, 2012 11:07 pm

Ahaa! A door that needs Spell X to open.... crafty level designe.... nevermind, it's right here on the pedestal beside the door.

» Tue Jun 12, 2012 3:08 am

I thought that's what I agreed with??

I know. We are on the same page. It's just that after re-reading my post that you quoted, I realized it could be misconstrued as advocating confrontational language so I just wanted to clarify so no one else misunderstood.

» Tue Jun 12, 2012 6:03 am

Ahaa! A door that needs Spell X to open.... crafty level designe.... nevermind, it's right here on the pedestal beside the door.

Ha! Yeah, that is a good example. They had some stuff like that in Oblivion too. I remember one mage's guild quest where I left the dungeon, scoured the land for a merchant with the right spell only to return to the dungeon and find a scroll that would do the trick right there next to where I had been orginally standing. :banghead:

» Tue Jun 12, 2012 8:22 am

Also, the compass, I wouldn't mind, if I could just take all the quest stuff and enemy radar off and just have the directional thing. I mean, once I have a frame of reference like the sun in real life, I tend to have a pretty good sense of direction, but in a 3d game, I just don't retain that sense of bearing the same way (ear fluid doesn't track turning the mouse to look around the way it tracks your head movements in real life (if that makes any sense). So I can see how people might get lost easily without the compass. I just learn to follow landmarks and refer to the map when I have to. The sun doesn't really help in game either b/c half the time, it's practically invisible or behind clouds, etc.

I might use a compass that only had the directional markers on it. An earlier poster said he would like to see the compass as an equipable item. I'd like to see a compass that could be toggled on and off quickly and that appeared in the corner of the screen and looked like an old fashioned dial compass, so it really looked like you were checking your compass. The compass has been around for almost 1,000 years, so it is not beyond the realm of a fantasy game to have some sort of basic compass to follow.

» Tue Jun 12, 2012 2:09 am

Streamlining/Dumbed down - For me, it works like this. There's all sorts of unique elements that can be added to the game. Every movie, storybook etc has a specific theme and an audience it caters to. For example, someone who's never been in love might not appreciate Romeo and Juliet as much as someone who has. Someone who's never felt helpless to change the cards life dealt them might not appreciate Cowboy Bebop as much as someone who has.
Streamlining is basically the desire to expand your audience gone wild. Let's say the devs planned to add very serious philosophical overtones on the pointlessness of war. "Wait, should we include that? Not everyone cares about and/or fully understands philosophical viewpoints on that topic." You're right, let's leave it out so we don't confuse or frustrate anyone.
Next maybe they wanted an action game complete with attack combos and several different moves needing to be pulled off in every fight. "Wait, not everyone is good with action games; some players are quite slow and relaxed and wouldn't appreciate a fast-paced game." You're right, let's omit that then.
Or maybe we should include some RPG elements? Instead of fast-paced fights, let's make things more strategic, where the skill is in building up your character properly. "Wait, some people are bad at properly developing and planning a character, they'd hate it!" You're right, let's leave that out!

That's where the term dumbing down and streamlining comes from. It's not saying it's for stupid people, but rather, instead of picking an area of expertise: a theme and style for the game, they're trying to have EVERYTHING. (streamlining) And since they want everyone to be able to pick up the game, they can't involve, for example, historical topics that would demand some level of college education, because not everyone has that. They can't involve a complex RPG system, because not everyone's experienced with that. The result is that EVERY aspect of the game is adjusted to match the IQ of Mr. Average Joe. EVERY aspect. The story, the complexity, the gameplay, the character design, etc. (dumbing down)

Again, they do this in hopes of inviting everyone to play, but the problem is that Skyrim will ALWAYS be lacking compared to other titles because it's not ambitious in any one direction. For example, I often rant about how the storyline and character customization is absolute crap compared to New Vegas. Why? Because it's [censored] true. "But Skyrim has better world exploration!" Yeah it does, and better graphics. However, a big difference is that Fallout New Vegas knows what it wants to be, Skyrim doesn't. Fallout New Vegas takes a stance and picks a direction knowing full well that yes, there WILL be audiences that it's simply not cut out for, but for those who do prefer that type of game, it's marvelous. Skyrim on the other hand is absolutely phobic of closing out anyone, and the result is that yes, any idiot can pick this game up, but VERY few would walk away praising this game as having the best ______ of any game they've played.

I firmly believe that instead of trying to be EVERYTHING is stupid. FFS, in the basic economic classes I have, I remember a lesson where they taught that if France can produce wine faster and cheaper than the Netherlands, but the Netherlands can produce sofas faster and cheaper, then they both should accept that for maximum productivity. France trying to produce both instead of focusing on their specialty is counter-productive. It's the same concept here. Some might argue they're doing that (with exploration), but the disappointment of Skyrim comes from the fact that this series was once an RPG, now the RPG elements of the game have been streamlined severely.

Hand-holding - The Compass shows you exactly where to go. There is more gold in this game than you could ever possibly need. There's no worry about missing out on "that really OP item" because "that really OP item" is always self-made via crafting. Quests never have real consequences. You CANNOT kill anyone involved with ANY quest. You can't fail, basically. The only place this game lets you fail is in combat. Why can't I fail in quests?

FFS, it's to the point where your imagination has to decide your character's morality. Like as an example, if I blow up Megaton in FO3? Yeah, I'm probably evil. The game takes a stance and says "hey, you're evil." This is GOOD. Again though, Skyrim is SOOOOO phobic of taking stances on anything that the quests provide no information on what's going on. I have to go beat someone up as my job. Why? I don't even [censored] know. I suppose I'm supposed to fill in that blank, but the problem is that when I fill in that blank, there's no point where I get a quest that DOESN'T fit my character and I get to take the stance of "no, I refuse! It goes against my honor!" I do a quest to find a missing person for someone. They accuse the missing person of being a criminal, the missing person answers back and says the group hunting her is actually an evil group of assassins. I think "omg wonder who's right" and make my choice to see who was right.....and the game doesn't tell me. The side I chose says "thanks" and then the game says "THE END LOL NEXT QUEST." Are you serious? Are you THAT phobic of hurting my feelings? Let go of my hand, I'm a [censored] big kid, I'll get over it if I made the wrong choice.
Maybe some people prefer this type of gameplay, where their imagination fills in the blank, but I don't. If I buy a book from the store, I don't expect to open it up and read "Once upon a time, a dragon captured a princess and a prince tried to save her! Then the issue was resolved somehow in what may or may not have been a good resolution. The end!" I expect no less from Skyrim, but sadly, that's truly how most of Skyrim's quests and stories are.

You cant really establish what kind of person your character is cause he or she is all over the place. As you said, they made the game to try to appease everyone and that is never the right formula. It's the same with films and music. Transformers is a good example of a film trying to be liked by everyone's grandma. it doesnt work.

» Mon Jun 11, 2012 11:46 pm

il explain it in these forums the term is used to describe a developement choice that feels as if the devs are holding your hand and telling you where to go and what to do and preventing any unpleasant events like you not knowing what to do. usually when it is used the person who uses it sees the development choice as an insult to there intelligence tho of course not a direct insult.

» Tue Jun 12, 2012 5:06 am

I don't understand, the entire argument about being able to turn off the HUD flies right out the window once you realize that the quest markers are necessary. Anybody who disagrees with this, I challenge you to play through the Main Quest without them. Go ahead and try, its actually interesting. I'll just save you the time and tell you right now that it is impossible.

Because of this, turning off the HUD is not an option for anybody who wishes to not use the quest markers, making such "hand holding" inevitable.

» Tue Jun 12, 2012 8:42 am

I don't understand, the entire argument about being able to turn off the HUD flies right out the window once you realize that the quest markers are necessary. Anybody who disagrees with this, I challenge you to play through the Main Quest without them. Go ahead and try, its actually interesting. I'll just save you the time and tell you right now that it is impossible.

Because of this, turning off the HUD is not an option for anybody who wishes to not use the quest markers, making such "hand holding" inevitable.

Unfortunately, the game wasn't designed to be played without using the markers, this is true. However, the big problem I think most people have is not with markers being placed on the map itself, its mostly just the compass and the magical direction arrows and the way it shows you every location within a square mile of your location, and the way it magically detects enemies. Thankfully, I play on PC so I can turn off the compass without ditching the HUD altogether but there are many players out there who can't do this.

» Mon Jun 11, 2012 8:12 pm

Not true, you can fail Namira's quest in a way that an NPC recognizes. So that's one out of ...several dozen quests :teehee:

Then again, when did Bethesda's game have options or consequences? Apart from that one quest in Fallout 3 used excessively in it's marketing :hehe:

Edit: Namira, not Hircine :facepalm:

The Daedric quests are the exception, with.....4 being failable?

But my point is that the general trend of the game is that 90% of quests can't be failed. To the guy who said he failed quests because his target died, I'd love to know how this happened and if he considers it unorthodox. Cause personally, I've done those escort quests (someone's in a dungeon, you have to get them out) before and I've retreated after seeing I was in over my head, yet the follower could only go unconcious, not die.

For example, in Oblivion, the Jermaine Brothers quests. This quest had two ways of solving it, though one had a MUCH better reward, so much so that the other would definitely be referred to as "failing."
The quest to protect that farm, there were three rewards: one for both brothers saved, one for only one, one for both dying. The one for saving both brothers was, again, a unique weapon (a very strong one) whereas anything else was like 100 gold coins.
Mazoga the Orc. Her quests could fail when she died, meaning you couldn't continue and gain more reputation and loot.
The Thieves' Guild initiation. You could fail it. There, failing it meant you had to beg for a second chance before they'd give you a second task (which I don't believe could be failed, but it was a quest nonetheless). Here? Here you fail initiation and his response is "oh.....WELL UR MY NEW PROTEGE ANYWAYS U SEEM LEGIT, WELCOME TO THE GUILD!!"
The Knights of the Thorn. Again, saving them provides a far better reward than failing to do so.
The vampire hunters in the Imperial City. Again, if you believe the wrong guy, you end up killing the innocent and then you miss out on a ton of good rewards. If you believe the RIGHT guy, you get one of the better rings in the game. The game doesn't write itself AROUND you. In Skyrim you could kill some mofo with a halo over his head who snuggles puppies and donates half his paycheck to charity because the guy with devil horns and the evil moustache asked you to, and the game would say "CORRECT! He was the evil traitor! Good job, you got him!"

Somewhere in my post I said an issue of Skyrim was that the quest rewards are NEVER a unique OP weapon or armor and that all of the best armor is self-made, and I referred to this as dumbing down. OP responded and said this has nothing to do with dumbing down. My point was this:
Remember the Dark Brotherhood in Oblivion? That "bonus reward" for certain conditions met was ALWAYS a unique item that was far better than the basic reward, with some of those unique items even being "one of the best" of their kind. ALWAYS. It gave you motivation to do them, and you definitely didn't want to fail those conditions. The bonus reward in Skyrim? It's always gold. FFS, they switched them around; I came to find out that a certain DB quest in Skyrim has the default reward of giving you a greater power and the BONUS reward is ~500 gold. No wtf, that's backwards. Let me FAIL. Give me incentive to want to perform well. Yes, technically it will say "condition failed" on my screen, but do I care? It's 500 gold, ffs my character eats and drinks gold he's got so much of it.

Melphala in Oblivion. She gave you a condition (a very simple one) and you could fail it, again, forfeiting your reward. (and forfeiting a reward for another Daedric Lord in the process) For what it's worth, "failing" the daedric quests in Skyrim generally just involves opting not to take part in whatever task they're demanding from you, so you can't get their reward. Still nice to see some characteristics of your character fleshed out via actions of course, but it's still very limited compared to past games.

And Morrowind? I don't even think I need to make a list for Morrowind, since every NPC could die. You could accidently kill your guild's leader ffs.

What quests does Skyrim offer where you can fail? And I don't mean like an escort quest where the person your escorting goes unconcious when enemies attack them, then YOU can actually finish them off if you're careless enough. No, I mean as in the quest provides you meaningful options and one option is generally "false," providing less reward, whereas the other is "correct" (NPCs seem to acknowledge it as such) and provides a meaningful reward. We've already established that SOME daedric quests have this, and I BELIEVE Windhelm has one of these (not sure, I forget), but are there ANY others? I doubt it.

» Tue Jun 12, 2012 5:50 am

Ahaa! A door that needs Spell X to open.... crafty level designe.... nevermind, it's right here on the pedestal beside the door.

As someone who doesnt play Skyrim loads I quite like this idea, I dont want to spend 30 mins going through a dungeon to get a spell and another 30mins to get back to get one spell to open a door I would rather the spell was used earlier on in the dungeon so at least you would have for the later encounter /or dont have excessive back tracking as really I dont find that fun , which would mean i dont see more of the world as I am going back to the dungeon. however a solution where the quest had a hint over needing spell X would be better as then it would be my fault and not some random thing just to artifically increase play time.
But regarding OP I dont think there is excessive hand holding compared to Oblivion , I have played oblivion for hours and when playing Skyrim I dont think well compared to Oblivion this is awful or stupidly easy etc, the red dots on the compass meh, im not that bothered doesnt really effect me and is quite useful , quest markers werent they in Oblivion and I also prefer the character creation as I change whenever I want to what I want to do which is fun at the time, my only grievance is guild quest length ( but thats not handholding).

» Tue Jun 12, 2012 5:05 am

Compass and map icons showing locations / points of interest the player hasn't even discovered for themselves
Floating markers within the gameworld itself telling the player which building to go into
Red markers showing where enemies are
Quest markers showing where on the map they need to go
Sound effects and big "YOU'VE DISCOVERED [INSERT LOCATION] text when the player comes within a certain radius of an important location
Enemy health bars
Essential NPCs, so the player doesn't have to deal with the consequences of killing someone important and thus being unable to proceed further in a questline
Essential quest-related items that cannot be dropped, in case the player is stupid enough to drop or sell them
Auto health regen and no armour degradation, so the player can waltz through hundreds of dungeons without needing to plan ahead
Brightly lit dungeons, so the player doesn't need to worry about bringing a torch or feeling too lost and disoriented
Excessive fast-travel, with next to no consequences... so the player can just beam themselves everywhere
Level-scaling, so the player is capable of beating important bosses like Alduin at a fairly low level
Scripted events (like the opening cinematic in Skyrim) that deliberately railroad the player into certain questlines

ummm /topic

» Tue Jun 12, 2012 12:35 am

I don't understand, the entire argument about being able to turn off the HUD flies right out the window once you realize that the quest markers are necessary. Anybody who disagrees with this, I challenge you to play through the Main Quest without them. Go ahead and try, its actually interesting. I'll just save you the time and tell you right now that it is impossible.

Because of this, turning off the HUD is not an option for anybody who wishes to not use the quest markers, making such "hand holding" inevitable.

The Quest Arrows are necessary only in the Map screen because the quest locations aren't mentioned in Journal. I play the game without Quest Arrows in my HUD/Compass all the time. And I don't use the Clairvoyance spell either.

» Mon Jun 11, 2012 8:53 pm

Handholding?

Well. I can start a quest in Skyrim - any quest - play for a while, and then stop, close the game, go away and do something else for a month. Then I can come back and start up the game. I'll have no idea what the quest was. I'll have no idea what to do or whom to talk to or anything.

Yet: I can go on and complete that quest. It doesn't matter that I forgot what the quest giver told me; I'll just follow the marker, kill anything that attacks me, take whatever unique item I find in the chest next to the strongest enemy, follow the marker again until it leads me to some guy (oh, now I remember, he was the quest giver), give him that thing and I'm done.

Be honest: 90% of the quests in this game are exactly that. The types of locations, enemies, objects and relevant NPCs vary, but I could skip the entire conversation with each and every NPC and just follow the "follow marker and kill everything in your path" routine in almost every single quest. And those quests with a 'twist' to the 'storyline' will force that upon me, anyway. Say; this time something weird happens when I arrive in the target dungeon. Well; I'll just watch what happens, behave as usually, and do not adapt to the new situation at all, because after a few scripted events that I can't avoid anyway, it's back to slaying monsters and collecting items, again. If I'm lucky there'll be the odd 'puzzle', which consists of turning some rocks to show the same symbols as the ones on the wall directly opposed to them. Or I find a claw at the entrance of a dungeon and put it in a door at the end of it. Or sometimes the quest giver gives me the claw. Whatever.

Be honest, everybody: When was the last time you were 'stuck' in a quest in Skyrim for a while, had to think and figure out how to proceed, and then finally had a great idea and it worked? This never happened to me. The most direct way was always the one that worked, so why stray? Why bother thinking when just going in and killing everything is all you'll ever need to do?

I know in Morrowind, I was sometimes puzzled. I was reading through the pages of my journal trying to find out what hint I missed. I came to a new city where I was to search for someone and I'd ask around until someone could show me the right way. I'd need to find a location in the wilderness and I'd need to figure out where I even am, first. I'd need to come up with my own solutions to problems, every now and then, or find the hidden solution, instead of just doing the most obvious thing.

Granted, Morrowind wasn't exactly great at this, either, but Skyrim just... takes it too far with the "let's not make this too difficult" business.

I don't feel like I ever really deserve all the patting on the back I get. I mean; the first quest for the bards college, for instance. I'm doing basically nothing else than I've always done in every other quest so far; a dungeon raid and retrieving an item (this isn't even a spoiler), and then I click some random responses in a dialogue. And then I'm celebrated like a hero. And I'm just feeling like banging my head against the wall when I hear that horrible poem and everyone in the world goes "woooah, great job at this! We're soooo impressed! You're truly a hero!" - no, I'm not! Let me do something that I actually almost gave up at doing due to frustration, and then finally manage to get it right. And THEN call me good. Not for doing something I could program a BOT to do.

At least in the Morrowind quest where I had to slip in the role of an actor for a while, I had to correctly remember my lines to get my payment!

» Mon Jun 11, 2012 7:42 pm

Handholding?

Well. I can start a quest in Skyrim - any quest - play for a while, and then stop, close the game, go away and do something else for a month. Then I can come back and start up the game. I'll have no idea what the quest was. I'll have no idea what to do or whom to talk to or anything.

Yet: I can go on and complete that quest. It doesn't matter that I forgot what the quest giver told me; I'll just follow the marker, kill anything that attacks me, take whatever unique item I find in the chest next to the strongest enemy, follow the marker again until it leads me to some guy (oh, now I remember, he was the quest giver), give him that thing and I'm done.

Be honest: 90% of the quests in this game are exactly that. The types of locations, enemies, objects and relevant NPCs vary, but I could skip the entire conversation with each and every NPC and just follow the "follow marker and kill everything in your path" routine in almost every single quest. And those quests with a 'twist' to the 'storyline' will force that upon me, anyway. Say; this time something weird happens when I arrive in the target dungeon. Well; I'll just watch what happens, behave as usually, and do not adapt to the new situation at all, because after a few scripted events that I can't avoid anyway, it's back to slaying monsters and collecting items, again. If I'm lucky there'll be the odd 'puzzle', which consists of turning some rocks to show the same symbols as the ones on the wall directly opposed to them. Or I find a claw at the entrance of a dungeon and put it in a door at the end of it. Or sometimes the quest giver gives me the claw. Whatever.

Be honest, everybody: When was the last time you were 'stuck' in a quest in Skyrim for a while, had to think and figure out how to proceed, and then finally had a great idea and it worked? This never happened to me. The most direct way was always the one that worked, so why stray? Why bother thinking when just going in and killing everything is all you'll ever need to do?

yeah i agree. basically they've made it so that no one has to use their brain and think about what they are doing. even with puzzles. the claws are jokes. and the turning stones are just pointless..

Edit: When i would walk into the hallway with all the carvings on the wall that led up to the doors that needed to be opened with the claw, i always thought the walls would have something to do with the door. like you'd have to find the code in the wall somewhere to open the door. guess not.

» Tue Jun 12, 2012 8:02 am

OP, as you've no doubt figured out by this page of the thread, these terms are universally used by people who are too condescending to even think about the idea that they don't represent the majority of gamers playing Skyrim. And when they do think about it, they simply lament the fact that everyone else is so dumb, while their enlightened style of play lets them enjoy (or not, I suppose) things on a different plane of existence than us mere mortals who label ourselves "casual" gamers.

You aren't going to convince them to stop using terms like "hand-holding" or "dumbed down" because it's always more fun to insult everyone who doesn't like the same things you do than it is to try and understand their position (even if you disagree with it).

» Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:42 am

The Daedric quests are the exception, with.....4 being failable?
...

Good points, and i had forgotten those about Oblivion. It's funny how simple Oblivion makes Skyrim look like, considering the reputation it had before Skyrim :lmao:

Back in the day you had to work hard in games to succeed, in Skyrim you have to work hard to fail, in the rare events that is even possible. But, like i've said. I don't consider it a "RPG", i consider it a dungeon crawler with just enough plot to have an excuse kill things :hehe: