» Wed Jun 13, 2012 12:42 am
Aside from the fact that this is clearly an "I hate Skyrim and my opinions matter" thread in disguise, I find the issues raised by the OP to be fallacious. I’ll keep it in bullet points just be simple:
- Skyrim’s visuals aren’t that hi-tech. In fact, I remember at the time before and just after its release people were complaining how Skyrim’s graphics looked old compared to modern games. So in sense Skyrim already has toned down looks if you ask some people. The fanbase should make up its mind on that one.
- 2D doesn’t guarantee depth, just as modern 3D doesn’t mean the lack of it. It’s certainly true that making games as large as TES both modern looking and in-depth would be a real task. But that’s fine by me. Going backwards isn’t very artistic if you ask me.
- Just because a game is “deep”, it doesn’t mean it’s more fun. And just because a game is “shallow”, it doesn’t mean it’s bad. I think the terms deep and shallow nowadays are used by people who want to feel intelligent about the games they play. I’ve played plenty of simple games that were also a lot of fun. You see, I try not to be pretentious about what I enjoy, and because of that I feel that I enjoy games more than someone who is constantly hung up on such issues.
- Depth is not something that is universal in a game. Allow me to make a comparison between two excellent games; Morrowind and Mount & Blade: Warband. Morrowind was simple in many respects; it had little in the way of consequences and world movement. Nothing really ever changed in Morrowind beyond a few NPCs dying. Compare that to M&B, where the actions of the player could lead the toppling or rising of kingdoms, the deflection or exile of nobles, or massive shifts in alliances and power.
And in terms of hand holding, M&B would laugh at Morrowind’s hand holding, giving the player a “starting village” with easy quests to learn. Not to mention that silly journal that tells you where to go. In M&B if you get told to report to a noble’s roaming army there’s no promise that he’ll wait in same location for you; if you’re late and he’s buggered off with the other armies, you better start asking for directions from anyone you can find.
M&B also blows Morrowind out of the water in terms of choice. You don’t want to fight in M&B? That’s simple; you could focus on being a savvy merchant, buying and selling to different cities, and then buy lots of troops if you ever need someone to fight your battles. Just as freely, you could gather a small following and becoming a fearsome bandit party, ransacking every village you come across. Those two represent just a tiny fraction of how one can choose to play this game. You can be honourable person who saves villages and asks for no reward or a rotten bastard or marries their way into nobility. You could even start your own kingdom, and turn your companions into vassals or convince nobles of other kingdoms to join you.
In these respects, Morrowind is the puddle and Mount & Blade is the ocean trench. However, there are also areas where Morrowind is much deeper. M&B has almost nothing in the way of storyline beyond the backstories of a few companions and throne contenders. Morrowind’s quest characters have far more to say. M&B has no voice acting, it’s all text like Morrowind, but probably has less dialogue than Skyrim (proving that text dialogue doesn’t always mean more topics).
From these two games we see how a game can be both deep and shallow at the same time, because games have many aspects. That said, the shallower parts of these games never ruined the enjoyment for me.
Sorry if my response ended up being an advert for Mount & Blade. If you’re looking for an RPG with some deep gameplay you should give it a whirl.
