I have accepted the simplification of the series. : V - Skyrim

» Sat Jun 09, 2012 7:28 pm

I disliked Morrwind....so... i went and play Baldurs Gate..... and was glade i did Morrwind was just to simple.... i mean come on no feats???? or multiclassing, i could increase attributes every level....madness!

» Sat Jun 09, 2012 11:18 pm

Simplification isn't always bad. Attributes: annoying. Stupid. Especially Intelligence and Speed. I love how intelligence is the greatest thing that mankind could ever have and it's only useful for mages. Could they have been good, hell yeah! Look at the Legend of Dragoon! But still, getting rid of them is good either way.

They could have been made better.

Getting rid of Athletics: Genius. I don't want to run around at the speed of sound and level by holding down W and moving in one direction for 18 hours.

Acrobatics: Getting rid of it, genius. Possibility to do parkour existed but at Oblivion's state, Acrobatics is stupid. Jumping like you're on the moon doesn't fit with Skyrim's gritty realistic tone.

Then don't do either of those things? Who are you to decide how people want to play?

» Sat Jun 09, 2012 7:37 pm

Rational advlts can acknowledge that the simplification of Elder Scrolls is just a symptom of the unfortunate reality of business, and that apportioning blame to Bethesda and Zenimax is unwarranted.

ALL businesses strive to maximise financial return - you can't reasonably begrudge Bethesda for behaving like any company would do in their position. The problem with commercial success it it tends to stunt creative growth, and Bethesda are not immune to such a phenomenon. The bigger the market, the more "mass appeal" the product must have.

So be upset that the intellectual depth of this series has waned, but rationally concede its inevitability. Decrying it (though sometimes a satisfying outlet) is ultimately pointless. The tragic reality is that intelligent, maths-and-literature classic RPG players like you and I are a curious relic that barely registers on the market demographic.

It took Morrowind two years to reach 1.4 million sales. Skyrim achieved nearly three times that amount - in two DAYS. The intellectual devolution (and consequent growth of mass appeal) is not going away, friend.

And always remember - we have at least mods to shape the game into something superior. Naturally that isn't ideal - but having the power to correct the game is nonetheless appreciated.

So onwards and downwards, I say!

You sound like a disgraced Party offcial reaffirming his loyalty at his own show trial. :lmao:

» Sat Jun 09, 2012 10:48 pm

The reasons behind Skyrim's success:
1) Marketing
2) The success of their previous games
3) It's a cool game.

Bethesda knows what they're doing. They know how to sell things.
You can't deny it.

It isn't because the game is simple...
They are able to make a complex game, put TES in the name, and sell it as water.

» Sat Jun 09, 2012 8:20 pm

You just said you never played any other TES game before or even an RPG, yet you cannot understand why some are unhappy with Skyrim. KInd of an odd statement to make form one who has zero experience with RPGs :blink:

Imagine if I stated that the same thing along the same lines, regarding a shooter series that went totally against it predecessors.

I said I can understand why people would be unhappy with Skyrim.

» Sun Jun 10, 2012 1:24 am

[/color]

Oh I'm sorry, I wasn't aware the little fly on my wall that sees what I've done in the game posts on the forum. Sorry, but I have been through whats worthwhile, and whats left is not worthwhile at all. Silly micro-stories that tickle the mind for all of 5 seconds do not make for worthwhile content, sorry to break that to you.

Did you actually just admit not experiencing content, then claim that content to be worthless? Bravo, Aesop.

» Sun Jun 10, 2012 12:11 am

I said I can understand why people would be unhappy with Skyrim.

Exactly why I replied to your post the first time and my statement stands. How can you say what would make experienced role players unhappy or even happy, since you stated you never played TES game before Skyrim ro even an RPG? What would bring to your mind that which would make experienced role play gamers unhappy with your total lack of experience in it, especially the older RPGs?

What I am saying is, that you have no other experiences to relate and compare Skyrim to any other RPG since you never played them.

» Sat Jun 09, 2012 8:14 pm

The reasons behind Skyrim's success:
1) Marketing
2) The success of their previous games
3) It's a cool game.

Bethesda knows what they're doing. They know how to sell things.
You can't deny it. :smile:

It isn't because the game is simple...
They are able to make a complex game, put TES in the name, and sell it as water.

Bethesdas propaganda campaign would have made the likes of Josef Goebbels(if he was alive of course) proud I fell for it hook line and sinker

» Sun Jun 10, 2012 12:41 am

the next game announced will be my deciding point

-if it drastically simplified, I give up the game, might hang around for the lore

-if it makes a effort to return to its "hardcoe" roots in any gesture, I will pledge total fan hood to it... Kinda

-if its more of the same, I will buy it and enjoy it but more so the series over that said game, if that makes any sense

Bethesda's new fans could enjoy a spiral into fable like mediocrity, but I will be alienated by such a move, as much of you could too.

» Sun Jun 10, 2012 2:02 am

Bethesdas propaganda campaign would have made the likes of Josef Goebbels(if he was alive of course) proud I fell for it hook line and sinker

I'm callin it!

» Sun Jun 10, 2012 1:15 am

complicated is bad when the complicated elements subtract from the overall content. It can clutter the game with things that remove from the focus of the game. I agree with what you are saying.

» Sat Jun 09, 2012 9:45 pm

complicated is bad when the complicated elements subtract from the overall content. It can clutter the game with things that remove from the focus of the game. I agree with what you are saying.

Ok, I'll bite, what is the focus of the game?

» Sun Jun 10, 2012 1:32 am

Ok, I'll bite, what is the focus of the game?

Shiny and dragons :teehee:

» Sat Jun 09, 2012 4:17 pm

Did you actually just admit not experiencing content, then claim that content to be worthless? Bravo, Aesop.

*pretending that not going through the 75% left of worthless micro-content makes what I said any less valid*

» Sun Jun 10, 2012 2:11 am

I'm callin it!

What are you callin?

» Sat Jun 09, 2012 7:49 pm

lol

I can't even begin to think of how Oblivion was "intellectually deeper" than Skyrim. I never played Morrowind, but Imma bet if I did, I wouldn't be equating it with Aquinas, Melville or similar.

Yes, the complexity and depth of Morrowind is vastly over-rated around here.

Before Skyrim, Morrowind was my favorite game of all time, and even now is still #2. Skyrim isn't nearly as simplified as people want to believe it is, and Morrowind isn't nearly as "smart" as people want to believe it is.

» Sat Jun 09, 2012 4:19 pm

OP this game could have sold just as well off the marketing of the dragons and pretty graphics even if it had the depth of Morrowind.

They gutted the game because according to Todd Howard they felt the game was to spreadsheety: but when the did that they have farther alienated us long time RPG fans and vets of TES.

I refuse to except the simplification of this series.

I am a longtime RPG fan and a vet of TES, and I don't feel alienated in the least.

In fact, I feel very happy knowing that Bethesda continuously improves this series.

I won't -accept- the simplification either - I'm glad it hasn't been simplified.

» Sun Jun 10, 2012 8:02 am

Morrowind required a LOT of thinking to play the game.

No it didn't.

» Sun Jun 10, 2012 6:54 am

No it didn't.

And it was completely shallow, more of the same type of repetitive features and quests does not add depth, neither does having a bunch of extra skills that are simply worse than other options in every way (medium armor), (all weapon skills besides long blade).

» Sat Jun 09, 2012 7:48 pm

[/color]

They could have been made better.

[/color]

Then don't do either of those things? Who are you to decide how people want to play?

Because Athletics and Acrobatics level up regardless of our approval just by running and jumping.

Athletics and Acrobatics by their nature force playstyles on players. I don't want my characters getting faster and jumping farther without my approval.

» Sat Jun 09, 2012 7:46 pm

[/color]

They could have been made better.

[/color]

Then don't do either of those things? Who are you to decide how people want to play?

Yes, they could've been made better but it could've been made way worse and the chance of making it worse is a more likely scenario.

As for athletics and acrobatics, it's impossible NOT to run and jump! You can't complete the game without jumping or running. Unless you want to walk everywhere, even in dungeons, then be my guest. But making skills that improves your speed to game breaking levels is absurd when that said skill is leveled by doing the most essential tasks in the game.

It breaks immersion, makes combat and dungeon crawling stupidly easy, and allows you to bypass many fun parts unintentionally.

» Sun Jun 10, 2012 4:29 am

Ok, I'll bite, what is the focus of the game?

Character development and customization.

» Sat Jun 09, 2012 6:45 pm

Rational advlts can acknowledge that the simplification of Elder Scrolls is just a symptom of the unfortunate reality of business, and that apportioning blame to Bethesda and Zenimax is unwarranted.

ALL businesses strive to maximise financial return - you can't reasonably begrudge Bethesda for behaving like any company would do in their position. The problem with commercial success it it tends to stunt creative growth, and Bethesda are not immune to such a phenomenon. The bigger the market, the more "mass appeal" the product must have.

So be upset that the intellectual depth of this series has waned, but rationally concede its inevitability. Decrying it (though sometimes a satisfying outlet) is ultimately pointless. The tragic reality is that intelligent, maths-and-literature classic RPG players like you and I are a curious relic that barely registers on the market demographic.

It took Morrowind two years to reach 1.4 million sales. Skyrim achieved nearly three times that amount - in two DAYS. The intellectual devolution (and consequent growth of mass appeal) is not going away, friend.

And always remember - we have at least mods to shape the game into something superior. Naturally that isn't ideal - but having the power to correct the game is nonetheless appreciated.

So onwards and downwards, I say!

This simplification of games isn't new.

In the past when games were 2D, Baldur's Gate offered incredible story. They put a lot of emphasis on story and less on 2D graphics. I'm sure that people who were there when games moved from 2D to 3D, have lamented that games are becoming more about graphics, and less about gameplay and quality story telling.

In Ultima Underworld, they did not tell you where the bones of Garamon were. You had to really read the clues to find it, because it doesn't say "Bones of Garamon". It just says "a pile of bones" like every other bone in the game, and there are thousands of them.

Garamon spoke to you in a dream saying "... somewhere to the south east" then the dream faded.
On the last level, there is a note that said a powerful wizard died somewhere, giving you a location.
During the search, there was one spot where there was blood everywhere and a lot of magic items. There was also a pile of bones in the middle. Putting 2 and 2 together, clearly those bones are the bones of Garamon, the powerful wizard.

Putting those bones in his grave then allows him to speak to you in spirit form instead of just in brief dreams, who can then tell you how to stop the Slasher of Veils.

RPGs back then were really hard and immersive.

All I'm saying is, you shouldn't be surprised that games sacrifice some things for the sake of money. It has been happening for a long time.

» Sat Jun 09, 2012 11:14 pm

I never understood why the story has to suffer on popular big selling game.

Will consumers just not like having an interesting story? It doesn't make sense.

» Sat Jun 09, 2012 5:37 pm

This simplification of games isn't new.

In the past when games were 2D, Baldur's Gate offered incredible story. They put a lot of emphasis on story and less on 2D graphics. I'm sure that people who were there when games moved from 2D to 3D, have lamented that games are becoming more about graphics, and less about gameplay and quality story telling.

In Ultima Underworld, they did not tell you where the bones of Garamon were. You had to really read the clues to find it, because it doesn't say "Bones of Garamon". It just says "a pile of bones" like every other bone in the game, and there are thousands of them.

Garamon spoke to you in a dream saying "... somewhere to the south east" then the dream faded.
On the last level, there is a note that said a powerful wizard died somewhere, giving you a location.
During the search, there was one spot where there was blood everywhere and a lot of magic items. There was also a pile of bones in the middle. Putting 2 and 2 together, clearly those bones are the bones of Garamon, the powerful wizard.

Putting those bones in his grave then allows him to speak to you in spirit form instead of just in brief dreams, who can then tell you how to stop the Slasher of Veils.

RPGs back then were really hard and immersive.

All I'm saying is, you shouldn't be surprised that games sacrifice some things for the sake of money. It has been happening for a long time.

I agree for the most part but The WItcher 2 offered a great story that branched in different directions with pretty amazing visuals.Easily the best RPG i have played since Dragon Age Origins.