Great way to talk nonsense.

Sigh. I still see it as we lose things and gain things. Lots of people miss stuff so its simplified to them because the new stuff doesn't matter to them . To others,. like myself , it just gives a different form of immersion. Any new TES game is going to be inferior in some ways to its modded predisixr in any event. Personally I see far more in Vanilla Skyrim than I did in vanilla Oblivion and I ened up loving that game to death jusyt like I did Morrowind before it.

It's the Toyota Production System at work, baby. Love it!

There was much more of that in Oblivion and much much more in Morrowind and even Daggerfall.

These are the kind of attitudes I can resonate with.
I cannot resonate at all with the whingers...who take aspects of the game that dont quite suit them and then take their dissatisfaction and mix-in a good dollop of nostalgia for the good ole days/games to trash Skyrim.
skyrim is an astonishingly acomplished game...and as another astute poster notes above we are only at the beginning and barely scratching the surface of this game.
Instead of whining on about some small quibbles blown-up to portend the decline of Western civilisation, why not criticise in a postive and constructive manner and suggest how this game can be developed and expanded.
What pisses me off is not that players recognise short commings in the game in its initial release condition...It is the whining negativity that saturates and vitiates much of the criticism I read on this forum that pisses me off. It is spoilt bratish and lacks any grace or gratitude for the amazing accomplishment Skyrim is...IMO

Those who feel insulted by my comments?...you're the people I'm talking about.

"The longer we travel the roads of Skyrim, the more empty this game seems."

YOU might accept it, I don't. There are many others who don't.

I don't buy into the lie that a complex RPG can't sell just as well as Skyrim.

A complex RPG that compares to Morrowind and Daggerfall would sell just as well as Skyrim, if not more. The only difference is that Bethesda would have to focus mor on promoting and informing people what an RPG really is and how much fun it can be once you get started playing it.

When you give people dumbed down games they won't have an incentive to actually learn how to play it.

Mods absolutely CAN do this. I totally expect someone to tackle the project eventually. It might be a while, but I'd be shocked if it didn't get done at some point.


They might be able to with SKSE. Time will tell.


There are already mods that add new spells, so it's certain spells can be added. I'm sure it's only a matter of time before spell making is modded in as well.

The main problem with modding in attributes is first off working out what the point of it is, then rebalancing the game to cope with all the bonuses that will be given.

I don't know what you mean by barely scratching the surface. Skyrim is an ice cube in a pond not a glacier. I see quite clearly all of what it has to offer. Morrowind and Oblivion too for that matter. It's not like RPGs have hidden charms like RTSes and FPSes that add depth when discovered. And while nostalgia is a dangerous thing indeed(one of the games I hated most at the time I now think was pretty peachy) you can't just wave your hand and accuse everything of being nostalgia. And if those elements of the game are what I consider core, then yeah I'm gonna be dissatisfied and criticize("trash") Skyrim.

This is a good point and I totally gree that this behaviour is common. But the future will show how the TES series will survive within the mass market once it is cut down more and more to a product which is not different from all the others.

This was always a huge advantage since the very beginning of the series and it was successful. With Skyrim the success just came from the wider audience it addresses but not from the quality of the game itself. You might be able to improve this quality for yourself with mods but this adds only content but not necessarily style or originality. Besides that the game probably suffers from a lack of re-playability and players will rather switch to another title then to play some game again when it is just mainstream.

I actually enjoy a lot of what they've done with the game and I've played since Morrowind. My favorite part is not knowing when a dragon battle will occur.

My take on this is that sometimes developers loose it and dont know what aspects of their games should get simplified and what not.

Things that should be generally made as simple they could,are things like menu navigation,controls,and tutorials.
What shouldn't is gameplay variation and mechanics.

Here are some examples:

Skyrim's UI for the PC should be more simplified,while it became even more complex than it was in Oblivion.
This was a wrong move because it made gamers fighting the menus more than fighting monsters.

Some features of past games of the series like the ability to alter an npc's disposition,athletics and acrobatics where removed to make gameplay more specific.
That was a wrong move,because removing those features limited the ways which with you can engage situations,something which wasn't good because the more choices the player can get,the better.




Some aspects of a game should simplified,and those are aspects that would make the game easier to start playing it,but these aren't gameplay aspects but aspects that play the role of getting the player to understand and realize how the game works easier.
So instead of removing whole parts of a game so someone who plays it have less choices to take in it,you just find a better and easier way to describe to the player what are these choices and how will affect his experience.
If choices are understandable,they are very welcome.It's when a choice is difficult to completely understand how it works and its concequencies that it makes someone frustrated.

For example take the mining mini game Mass Effect 2 had: You had to move the planet around to find the perfect sweet spot to maximize the minerals you'd get,and you could mine many times until the planet was depleted.And you HAD to do that,so you could gather up resources to buy upgrades for the Normandy,so it will survive a later event,because if you don't,some characters would die and you'd get a bad ending.
The mining mini game made many players become frustrated and hate it. But it wasn't because the way it worked was wrong.
It's because there was no indication at all about how to properly mine a planet and how important mining would be in the game,neither in the instructions manual or the game itself.

I thought that I could only mine a planet once,and that I just had to throw the pod wherever on its surface,so I ended not having enough resources to buy the upgrades,and I had a bad ending.
I then thought that the game wasn't properly balanced and should give me more minerals,or that I was a bad bad player.. So I got a bad feeling out of it that I didn't liked.
And after a while I realized that there where some game mechanics in the game I never used,because nobody ever told me they where there in first place,and I had to find it out myself,something that would require me to do crazy random things that make no sense all the time in hope to find something...


The point is that it isn't gameplay or content variation that should be getting simplified in games.
It's the way you tell to the player how to play your game that should be improved,and streamline everything that doesn't involve gameplay itself,like menus,installation procedure,connection and logging to a server if you are making a multiplayer game...

Certainly not true of Fallout. Not sure about Vampire:Bloodlines or Planescape, but I don't think they had poor sales.

The issue isn't "did you make a great game that sold well". The issue is, does every single game you publish make a decent profit? That's why the small studios get bought up and end up under a giant shop like EA. It allows them to share risk and survive stumbles. If you have 30 employees getting payed an average of $60k/year working on a game for 3 years, That's $5.4 million per project--and that doesn't count the cost of hardware, $20k/month office rental, utilities, etc. That also doesn't count the costs of distribution, marketing, and publishing. And they actually need more than 3 years of cash, they probably need at least 5 years of money to keep going, or they're not going to last long enough to publish their next game.

So assuming a total cost to survive to the next game for a small publisher is $20 million (and I think that's on the low side), that means each game has to sell 500,000 copies, or rather, that's the minimum average sales of all published games required to survive. And this still doesn't factor in the profit that investors are expecting, and the bank loans you have to pay off.

Counting taxes, mandated health insurance and so on.

That can get pricey.

Baulders Gate.

You still seem to be making this assumption that because some success can be achieved with a good game, that making a Morrowind 2.0 is a better business move, and it just isn't. Look at the psychology of the market. The vast number of gamers don't want a Morrowind now. What happened to the audience between the old RPGs and the present day? It became larger. More importantly, it became more representative of the overall populace. Instead of pure geeks, computer lovers, and spreadsheet/stat lovers, the audience wants smooth combat, clean mechanics, and easy to grasp goals. Beth could probably make their next game risky and still get sales. However, that would cannibalize future sales. Furthermore, marketing is also enhanced by general reception to the game. Almost every review of Skyrim was positive. Every Joe out there saw a game that looked good graphically, and had amazing review scores. Skyrim's success is NOT just a function of gaming itself being bigger. It is the result of a game that appeals to a much wider segment of the population.

If a random player picks up a hypothetical elder scrolls game, finds it confusing, alien, and too "nerdy" --> they quit the game --> they tell their friend (who is similar) that the game svcks --> that friend doesn't buy it --> neither of them buy the sequel

That player picks up Skyrim --> enjoys beating the crap out of draugr --> tells friend its a sick game --> friend buys Skyrim --> both buy sequel

An Anecdote: One of my housemate's friends (girl who isn't into video games) now plays Skyrim at her house with all her housemates (who aren't gamers). That is the kind of market power Skyrim has. Non-gamers enjoy it enough to play, so do casual gamers, and so do the veterans. I've heard arrow to the knee jokes in lectures. Contrary to what this forum believes, they are an inconsequential minority whose tastes are not reflective of the target market. Bethesda is doing well marketing to the masses, why would they stop?

I am afraid what you say may be true. The same thing happened to Burningman. It became a victim of its own popularity. Any time something gets too popular, it gets watered down in order to appeal to a broader spectrum of individuals.

Firstly, you already lost your credibility when you pulled out the Morrowind 2.0 card. That argument is worthless. No one wants Morrowind 2.0 so shove that stupid argument right up a giants ass.

More importantly, it became more representative of the overall populace. Instead of pure geeks, computer lovers, and spreadsheet/stat lovers, the audience wants smooth combat, clean mechanics, and easy to grasp goals. Beth could probably make their next game risky and still get sales. However, that would cannibalize future sales

Lol, more credibility lost. Insulting the people you're arguing with doesn't do anything for your argument and just points you out as a child. And whats worse you're misrepresenting the entire population you refer to.





1. *Pretending that an Elder Scrolls game wouldn't get good reviews just by the sheer fact thats its an Elder Scrolls game. Pretending that an Elder Scrolls game that returns to its former depth wouldn't still get good reviews*

2. *Pretending that depth returning is going to take away from what people were actually sold on.* Graphics won't suffer, the Dragons won't suffer. All of Skyrim's commercials can indicate either a game like we have or one that actually has depth to it. And the vast majority of people who bought Skyrim will have based their decision mostly on those commercials, if not entirely on those commercials. Some will be basing it on past Elder Scrolls games.

But I've already explained all that. Perhaps if you actually read what I said you'd know that.

If a random player picks up a hypothetical elder scrolls game, finds it confusing, alien, and too "nerdy" --> they quit the game --> they tell their friend (who is similar) that the game svcks --> that friend doesn't buy it --> neither of them buy the sequel

*Pretending that a deeper Elder Scrolls game would fall under any of those idiotic descriptions.* *Pretending that those are actual turn-offs for the vast majority of people in this day and age*



Because you don't have to strip your game of its actual worth to still appeal to the masses. If you do it right you'll appeal to everyone you'll actually want to be appealing to and then some.

There is this idea, that if the ART is great enough, they will read, or watch, or play or do whatever work they have to in order to reach it. Human beings have proved this right for thousands of years.

Trying to reach the audience by dropping downwards will build a road with no destination in it. It's crazy.

You really think Beth would sell more copies by making their games more complex? Really? Or do you want Beth to sacrifice some sales because you think it would result in a better game? If you truly believe what you said, I recommend you stay away from marketing. Lets take a look at the statement...

1. You think a more complex game would sell better than Skyrim if
a) Beth spends more money marketing it
Beth "educates" the public about why they should like proper RPGs.

for A) This is a cost. To make up for this cost, Beth has to make MORE money. So you have to ask the question, why does Beth need to spend more money marketing? Could it be because....the public isn't as receptive to that game?

for There's a giveaway if I ever saw one. The Khajit's out of the bag! Whenever Beth needs to "educate" people, that implies people need to be taught, and that they DON'T LIKE IT ALREADY. Sounds like you are attempting to push your taste on others...."Well if I just force them to listen to my music lots of times, they would like it"

ask yourself, what is better business:
A) selling a game that the majority of people like
selling a game that the majority of people don't like, and spending money to try to educate the world as to why they "should" like your product.

You really think trying to change people to a game will be more successful than adapting a game to people?

This is so pathetic.

It boggles the mind how easily people mistake tedious busy work for "intellectual depth."

Yeah, it was really intellectaully deep when I had my character hammer away on the armor he was wearing after every little fight to level up Armorer.
Yeah, it was really intellectually deep how I was forced to use up a major skill with Armorer so I could level it up faster just to make it less annoying.
Yeah, it was really intellectually deep when I had my character spend hours hopping around in a circle to level up acrobatics.

It's not "intellectual depth" you're craving Mr. Fuzz, it's "mindless repetition."

Wrong. Beth only needs to spend as much as they did for Skyrim and it'd be just as adequate. Commercials and other advertisemant never indicate the actual complexity of the game, and most people are not going to be looking for how complex X game is in determining whether they buy it. They're going to look at the shiny, and if its good enough, they'll buy it. Whether they'll like it after they buy it is another story, but at that time it isn't the point to JUST appeal to the hardcoe players. And it isn't the point to cater to the casuals either. The point is to create a game that will appeal to both by making it possible for both to have the experiences they hope to gain from the game.

A deep game doesn't need to be riddled non-optional hardcoe features. A casual game doesn't need to be plagued by utter shallowness. A great game lets the casuals just play, and the hardcoe game the game to their hearts content. A great game is a game thats easy to pick up, hard to master. Casuals are not the sort who will worry about getting to a master level, and the hardcoe will not mind the game being easy to pick up and play.



People who fail to grasp how to play Morrowind and hell even Oblivion astound me.

Damn you speak my language.

Unfortunately, extreme capitalism kills art.

I totally agree with you. If you focus at one specific group of people that are specially interested in that "type" of wares, then they are likely to spread the information further. As an example, if one guy in a group of mates at school find out about Skyrim, he might tell his friends and then make them interested in what Skyrim is. But then again, that might be a contributing factor in BGS's decision to make the game simpler, because the simplifying makes it easier for "everybody" to understand the game.