I clearly am speaking for myself.

As for time spent, I did about 100 hours on my first character. By that point I already had the sinking feeling that nothing was ever going to change. I decided I'd try a new character. Tried a completely different build (went from evil duel weilding, male stealth assassin to a good, honorable sword and board female barbarian) and after about 15 hours simply couldn't go on. Two completely different builds no difference in anything. Same outcomes to everything and every quest. I couldn't bring myself to go through all those quests again knowing they were all going to be exactly the same.

The article was pretty " bashy ".... and proabably either ment to provoke a response or writen by a non-advlt.... maturely written articles seemed to have a more balanced perspective.

Do I think Skyrim is great? Yessir I do.

Do I think I think it could be Better? Yep.... but I've never played a game for a signifant amount of time that I felt couldent be better in a thousand different ways.

Thats kinda what happens I think... ya get a good game.... yer blowen away... but after awhile you start to take the good aspects for granted and begin to see the glass as half empty.

Caps right, skyrim a play once and done game. since everything is linear and non branching. I havea main character that was Mage, I made an archer girl that did companions/nord civil war and will do thieves and DB and I made an Imperial that did civil war imperial that uses sword and board.


Oh It's not too bad, and is a nice change to al lthose "skyrim can do no wrong" reviews and such.

When people say they want consequences, they mean different things, but they're usually along the lines of: if you join or help faction X, then faction Y likes you a little more, and faction Z hates you. If you kill somebody's sister in the game, maybe the brother shouldn't continue you to sell you his goods, and maybe he shouldn't give you quests and then get lovey-dovey after you do them. If you're a known mass-murderer, maybe the game should track that.

In terms of impotent, what the IGN reviewer meant is similar to the idea of consequences. It has nothing to do with skills or level, it has to do with the ability to change the game world. No matter what your character does, the rest of the world is always the same (with a few minor exceptions like the Gildergreen quest).

I disagree it is related though not directly i read the article and while they didn't make the same exact point i did they did talk about the lack of consequences and that goes back to characters and story.

thats usually what I mean when I say choice and conceqence.

that artical gave facts for half of it (it is impossible to argue that skyrim has consequences, the most that can happen from your actions is some poorly made NPC with only 2-3 lines of diolog dies/dissapears), the two about leveling and combat are subjective

Pre-Release IGN: Skyrim svcks, Dark Souls is Better.
Release IGN: Skyrim is Amazing!
Post-Release IGN: Skyrim is a Gaming Failure!

I don't have much time for IGN but at least they have the balls to post an article being critical of certain aspects unlike many other sites which seemingly can't find fault with the game and plan on having Beth's babies.

At the end of the day I give it as much merit as a post here, especially when I've read way better criticism and more structured/valid opinions from forum members.

While I think their is some truth to the article, I think also that it is only from a slanted point of veiw. Everyone has their own idea of exactly what an RPG should be. I know alot of ppl on here love FO:vegas, I plodded through 50 hrs, and never got into it (I stuck to it because I kept expecting it to get better). I played Dragon Age III and thought it was ok, It took me a long time to get used to the mechanics of the game. I really liked Fable ( I, II, III ) and couldn't play it at all when my husband was home as he hates the series.

Thing is I could pick apart anyone of those games and many others. And from MY Ideal of an RPG everything I say will be my truth. I do not think Skyrim is perfect. I think their are many things that could be improved. Theirs a few things that I really don't think makes much sense. But over all I think Beth came out with a really good game, flaws and all.

At least they are being somewhat honest in their review, unlike some other reviews I've seen on Skyrim. Its not the end all be all game, and it certainly doesn't measure up to previous TES titles. In my humble opinion. There is plenty to complain about with skyrim as has been done since release.

Same.

Skyrim is great, but it's big two flaws (imo) are lack of consequences and it's paper thin plots and characters. Skyrim is amazing, but I agree that because it's so fantastic in some areas, the other areas where it's not good at all are even more noticeable.

Not a terrible thing, hopefully Beth learns from Skyrim shortcomings and does something amazing with it's future titles.

11 posts over limit, so some one make a new one if yo uwant to continue the descussion.

Gonna have to agree with IGN mostly here. Most of it is true.

It does seem to summarize fairly well what a lot of people "dislike" about Skyrim, and hes not overly negative or hostile about it.

Especially good points like this:

Honestly why cant we let them live? We dont get EXP for kills, and theyll respawn in a few days anyway. Mod idea? Lol.

But this has been true for every TES game(well, Ive only played Morrowind+), and its due to the sheer scope of the game world. Were all playing for the open world, not the depth of the combat system(Dark Souls) or RP consequences(Witcher).

Post limit reached, methinks it's time for a lock. Feel free to open a new thread if you think there's more to discuss.