[Emily Jones]

No, I don't "see it" the way you do, and I never will. I don't lend much credibility to the argument that Skyrim isn't an RPG just because certain things that were done in past RPG's aren't the focus anymore. I don't see it the way you do because I don't see less choice, I see more choice. It's just handled differently, it's a different level of choice. It's not the choice between Long Blade and Short Blade, it's the difference between specializing your One Handed Weapons to fit the image of your character. It's many different areas of specialization within each skill that lead to many new choices and possibilities that weren't there before.

How is Skyrim less open than Morrowind? Is it just because there are now essential NPC's, and you can't kill everyone and break your game?

You can develop your character the same as Morrowind, perhaps even moreso, you're just doing it with perks instead of Attributes.

Quests actually have choices in them now, something that didn't exist in Morrowind. In Morrowind, you couldn't join the 6th House. But in Skyrim, you certainly can kill Paarthurnax and completely destroy your relationship with the Greybeards.

Yea, there's less armor choices, less weapon choices, and less spell effects in the game. That is definitely an area where Skyrim lacks compared to previous games. I'll give that.

But in the areas where the customization actually counts - skills, specialization, character development - it is superior, there is more choice.

Combat is so much better than Morrowind, and contrary to popular belief, is not all "player" skill based. It is still very character skill based. Your skills with weapons (or magic) certainly have a huge impact on the outcome of battles, just as it should. It's just not tedious like Morrowind's combat.

What the argument ultimately comes down to is that it's not exactly like Morrowind, so it's not an RPG, which you pretty much just admitted in your last paragraph by your constant reference to Morrowind on every single element.

Morrowind isn't like Final Fantasy, or Dragon Warrior, or Neverwinter Nights, or Baldur's Gate, or Knights of the Old Republic, or Mass Effect, or Dragon Age, or Summoner, or Fable... I guess Morrowind isn't an RPG either then...

Jagar - The idea that it's a great game but a crappy RPG makes absolutely no sense. If it's a great game, and it is an RPG, that would mean that it is a great RPG.

As far as imagination goes - I don't use imagination to replace missing game mechanics - the game mechanics that the game employs encourage me to use my imagination because of how strong they are.

But at the same time, if my character is evil, and does bad things, I don't need the game constantly beating me over the head with NPC's reminding me that I'm evil to know that my character is evil. Yea, karma systems are nice, but they aren't always necessary. I am able to know full well - without relying on imagination to make up for missing game mechanics - that I am playing an evil character if I go out and kill innocent people, steal their souls, and raise their bodies from the dead.

I haven't argued that any games are RPG's with imagination. I am arguing that Skyrim is an RPG because it is built upon the player building and developing a character, which is the core essence of an RPG.

Call of Duty is not an RPG, because it is not about character development. It is about shooting other players in a competitive environment. Red Dead Redemption isn't an RPG, because it's not about character development, it is about experiencing a virtual story where the development is already pre-determined by the existing story.

Skyrim is an RPG because it is about taking control of a character, and experiencing the story as that character, and making choices that develop the character according to the player, not a pre-determined story.

I don't even know a damn thing about Minecraft to be able to say what it is or isn't. I've heard the name, and that's about all I know about it.

[SaVino GοΜ]

How is Skyrim less open than Morrowind? Is it just because there are now essential NPC's, and you can't kill everyone and break your game?

I don't feel like getting just too detailed right now because it's 1:30 AM. But I think that you made my point for me anyways. Morrowind is more open because it lacks those training wheels - nobody idiot-proofed it. I see a lot in Skyrim that 'forces' me to play the game a certain way, whether this is being unable to walk up to Ulfric and kill him on his throne before doing the quest-chain, or the fact that I basically HAVE to go through the early part of the game like Bethesda wants me too. Each game they won't let me into Whiterun unless I tell them about the dragons. And I can't walk within a hundred yards of Jarl Balgruuf without Irileth jumping me to demand why I exist, and then I need to tell her that I'm here to see Balgruuf about the dragons. And then by that time there's so much "OH MY FREAKING GOD DRAGONS EVERYWHERE PLEEEEASE HELP US WE CAN'T STOP THE WORLD FROM BEING EATEN BECAUSE YOU ARE THE ANAKIN SKYWALKER OF SKYRIM!" that it's hard to roleplay most characters just walking away to do their own thing.

Quests actually have choices in them now, something that didn't exist in Morrowind. In Morrowind, you couldn't join the 6th House. But in Skyrim, you certainly can kill Paarthurnax and completely destroy your relationship with the Greybeards.

Morrowind had more choice in the quests than you give it credit for, and a greater variety/more interesting assortment of quests in my mind. The thing with Paarthunax is one example of like three where some brave soul at Bethesda broke free and must have snuck something meaningful in when everyone else had their backs turned, working on getting rivers to flow so nicely. Saadia and the Al'ikr would be another example. Of course I have to wonder why I can't just cut Delphine's head off as my way of saying 'no'...but everyone in Skyrim is essential so bleh.

What the argument ultimately comes down to is that it's not exactly like Morrowind, so it's not an RPG, which you pretty much just admitted in your last paragraph by your constant reference to Morrowind on every single element.

If you look closely at my previous post, it was in direct response to a quotation from you saying that you couldn't 'possibly' see how people argue that Skyrim is a different type of game than Morrowind. So naturally the portion of my post replying directly to your quote would mention Morrowind often, and draw distinctions between the two games to justify the point that, in fact, Skyrim is a very different game than Morrowind. I'm not saying and as far as I can tell no one has ever tried to say that because Skyrim 'isn't Morrowind' somehow that automatically means it's not an RPG.

[Naomi Ward]

http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?app=forums&module=forums§ion=findpost&pid=20621318Azrael00, on 12 April 2012 - 11:51 PM, said:

"To make it "not an RPG" you have to niggle and nit pick your way to a self imposed obtuse view of what an RPG should be".

To which Darkside Eric Replies:

Not entirely correct.

The RPG genre has set itself a number of standards that set it apart from other game genres.

One of those standards is that RPGs are, more often than not, far more stat heavy than any other type of game.

Skyrim, obviously, does not have a lot of weight to it in the stats department and thus removes one of the core standards that sets RPGs apart from other genres.

The fact that your choices are of little consequence, another standard for open world-esque RPGs, continues to reduce the weight that Skyrim has as an RPG.


"Skyrim" is very stat heavy. You have stats. Your armour has stats. Your weapons have stats. Your enemies have stats. Your friends have stats. Your spells have stats. The plants have stats. The game itself is a Computer Program and itself is founded on mathematics and statistics so saying the game is light on stats doesn't really hold any water.

This takes us back to my original point:

To make it "not an RPG" you have to niggle and nit pick your way to a self imposed obtuse view of what an RPG should be.

Because "Skyrim" is an RPG and a TES game then to try and claim that it's not I have to seek to re-define what an RPG is.

To do this I simply pick elements from other RPG's who's sole qualification for being used as my 'justification' is they cannot be applied to "Skyrim".

So I could say 'Skyrim is not an RPG because in a REAL RPG you use pencil, dice and paper'.

And when someone cleverly replies 'The program simulates the dice rolls for you' I come back with 'There's no substitution for an actual human player'.

Az

[X(S.a.R.a.H)X]

IMO Skyrim is a great RPG and the best TES game so far. However, I didn't buy the game with preconcieved notions of what it had to have and what it had to not have in order to meet my criteria for fun. I was simply anticipating a fresh, new experience in a huge open world where I could be who I wanted and do what I wanted, and that's pretty much what I got According to Steam I've played 1000 hours worth of this game and I don't feel like my interest has waned in the slightest. Can't say that for most games.

[Jeremy Kenney]

How is Skyrim less open than Morrowind? Is it just because there are now essential NPC's, and you can't kill everyone and break your game?

Skyrim has FAR too many essential NPCs. It completely kills the believability of the world at times. Also, it does sometimes feel like you're hitting an invisible wall when you deviate from the path when climbing mountains. Aside from that, i'd agree - Skyrim is fairly open, like Morrowind.

You can develop your character the same as Morrowind, perhaps even moreso, you're just doing it with perks instead of Attributes.

How many times do people need to be told? Perks are NOT a substitute for Attributes! They're completely unrelated as far as i'm concerned. Attributes define who your character is physically and mentally. Perks are connected to skills for extra specialisation.

Attributes - Is your character physically strong or weak? Are they intelligent? Are they naturally agile or slow? etc.
Skills - Combat or non-combat skills that your character learns and improves gradually over time, like skill with a certain weapon.
Perks - More specialist, 'one-off' skills your character learns once with limited or no improvement after.

That is how it should work.

Quests actually have choices in them now, something that didn't exist in Morrowind. In Morrowind, you couldn't join the 6th House. But in Skyrim, you certainly can kill Paarthurnax and completely destroy your relationship with the Greybeards.

Don't be ridiculous. The "choices" in Skyrim are completely shallow and meaningless with no real consequences. Morrowind at least had some meaningful choices when it came to factions, and which race you chose.

But in the areas where the customization actually counts - skills, specialization, character development - it is superior, there is more choice.

Superior? LOL. Skyrim's character development system is abysmal. You start out with a blank, generic avatar, pick a few perks which make them feel slightly unique for a short period of time, then after around 30-40 hours you start feeling all-powerful and generic again.

The character development system is so lacking that I have absolutely no incentive to make any new characters because they all feel pretty much the same, and cannot really offer any new experiences that the previous character couldn't.

Combat is so much better than Morrowind, and contrary to popular belief, is not all "player" skill based. It is still very character skill based. Your skills with weapons (or magic) certainly have a huge impact on the outcome of battles, just as it should. It's just not tedious like Morrowind's combat.

In Morrowind, your character could fail regardless of how accurate or skillful the player was. Skyrim feels more (though not entirely) player skill based, and there aren't many opportunities where the character can really fail.

Jagar - The idea that it's a great game but a crappy RPG makes absolutely no sense. If it's a great game, and it is an RPG, that would mean that it is a great RPG.

Skyrim isn't just an RPG. It's an open-world action-RPG to be specific.

For me, the game is great largely because of the open-world aspect. Once you turn off most of the hand-holding crap, the game has a fantastic open world which is fun to explore. The action aspect is better than Oblivion or Morrowind but still nowhere near on par with other games... and the RPG aspect is just piss-poor.

Skyrim is an RPG because it is about taking control of a character, and experiencing the story as that character, and making choices that develop the character according to the player, not a pre-determined story.

Skyrim is an RPG because it has character development and some choices. The problem is that the character development system is so poor, and meaningful choices are so lacking, that it can't really be considered a good RPG.

[ImmaTakeYour]

How about the fact that almost all dungeons are tied to a quest?

It doesn't encourage much exploration.

[QuinDINGDONGcey]

I don't feel like getting just too detailed right now because it's 1:30 AM. But I think that you made my point for me anyways. Morrowind is more open because it lacks those training wheels - nobody idiot-proofed it. I see a lot in Skyrim that 'forces' me to play the game a certain way, whether this is being unable to walk up to Ulfric and kill him on his throne before doing the quest-chain, or the fact that I basically HAVE to go through the early part of the game like Bethesda wants me too. Each game they won't let me into Whiterun unless I tell them about the dragons. And I can't walk within a hundred yards of Jarl Balgruuf without Irileth jumping me to demand why I exist, and then I need to tell her that I'm here to see Balgruuf about the dragons. And then by that time there's so much "OH MY FREAKING GOD DRAGONS EVERYWHERE PLEEEEASE HELP US WE CAN'T STOP THE WORLD FROM BEING EATEN BECAUSE YOU ARE THE ANAKIN SKYWALKER OF SKYRIM!" that it's hard to roleplay most characters just walking away to do their own thing.

But considering the state of the world, it actually makes sense that you aren't allowed into Whiterun without a good reason.

People talk about wanting real world consequence, but that is a consequence. A real, living breathing world isn't just about the choices and objectives of one person, but the choices and objectives of everyone. The Jarl does not want unknown people entering the city at this time, due to current events, so he has put Whiterun on lockdown unless you have a good reason to enter. So you need a good reason to enter Whiterun.

And for the same reasons, it makes sense why Irelek (apologies if I misspelled that, which I probably did) would want to interrogate you first before allowing a stranger into the presence of the Jarl.

What you just said is no different than the fact that everytime I turn off Morrowind, I am on a prison boat where Jiub wakes me up, I am let off the boat, talk to a census agent, and then another guard to receive a package to go to Balmora to visit Caius Cosades.

You say that by the time you go through the motions in Skyrim, all the talk of dragons makes it so you can't just walk off - but sure you can, it is not a stretch of any kind to roleplay someone who doesn't believe in the prophecy and goes off and does his own thing. But it's the same thing with Morrowind - you are given a package from the Emperor himself stating to go to Balmora and see Caius Cosades, and if you don't you will be treated as a traitor, and that you owe your life to the Emperor for setting you free. That's a pretty hard order to walk away from as well, but people don't have a problem doing it if they want to play a character that doesn't do the main quest. I know that my Morrowind character easily ignored that for awhile, because he didn't believe in prophecy. He only got involved because as he eventually did more and more work for Caius, and the 6th House started targeting my character, he decided to seek out this prophecy to get close to Dagoth Ur and take him out.

It's all in how you roleplay - and for everyone [censored]ing about having to use your imagination when roleplaying, using your imagination is exactly what roleplaying is...

Morrowind had more choice in the quests than you give it credit for, and a greater variety/more interesting assortment of quests in my mind. The thing with Paarthunax is one example of like three where some brave soul at Bethesda broke free and must have snuck something meaningful in when everyone else had their backs turned, working on getting rivers to flow so nicely. Saadia and the Al'ikr would be another example. Of course I have to wonder why I can't just cut Delphine's head off as my way of saying 'no'...but everyone in Skyrim is essential so bleh.

That may only be 3 examples (but honestly, I can think of more than 3) for all my time in Morrowind I can't think of one choice in the main quest, or a major side quest, that allowed you to take different paths to complete with different outcomes.

More interesting is entirely subjective. In all honesty, I don't think the storylines in any Elder Scrolls game is really all that great. Morrowind is a tad more unique in so far as Oblivion and Skyrim have real, true, tangible "I'm going to destroy the world!" villains, whereas Morrowind had a more subtle, intangible villain in the plague, and a Dagoth Ur who is off in hiding somewhere, along with the element of do these people even really exist? But more interesting is entirely subjective, and totally not what makes a game an RPG or not.

And honestly, I didn't find many Morrowind quests to be all that memorable, or so much more interesting than Skyrim's. It was a lot of the same, run of the mill type stuff - Ashlanders sending you into caverns to find magical items, Caius Cosades sending you into Dwemer ruins to find puzzle boxes, guild members sending you to different regions to pick specific flowers for alchemy, go kill this guy, go retrieve that item, go deliver this letter. A couple of the more memorable quests that stand out to me come from the Dark Brotherhood portion of the Tribunal expansion, when you go to Mournhold, take part in a play, and a Dark Brotherhood assassin tries to take you out while you're on the stage, and later on you go and infiltrate their base and take them all out. But even then, that's still a pretty basic "find this group's hideout and kill their leader" quest.

I don't see how Skyrim quests are so much worse, and so much more poorly written when you have quests like Forsworn Conspiracy, A Night To Remember, In My Time of Need, Paarthurnax, the entire element of learning about the dragon language (I don't see why that is so much more lower quality than learning about the Nerevarine prophecies)...

If you look closely at my previous post, it was in direct response to a quotation from you saying that you couldn't 'possibly' see how people argue that Skyrim is a different type of game than Morrowind. So naturally the portion of my post replying directly to your quote would mention Morrowind often, and draw distinctions between the two games to justify the point that, in fact, Skyrim is a very different game than Morrowind. I'm not saying and as far as I can tell no one has ever tried to say that because Skyrim 'isn't Morrowind' somehow that automatically means it's not an RPG.

But it's really not a different type of game from Morrowind. It really isn't.

It is an open world game where you can go through the world by any means you desire, whether it be embarking on the main quest, or shacking up in a city and becoming a citizen, or doing favors for the citizens of the world, or joining a guild and raising through the ranks, or even just going off and doing your own thing. The open world is heavily built around exploration, finding new places, dungeon crawling, and often times treasure hunting. Character development is built around leveling up skills through using them, which ultimately level up your character. Usable skills are broken down into 3 categories - Melee, Magic, Stealth, and you are allowed to use any combination of skills you desire without any in game restrictions or penalties telling you otherwise. All races are equally viable to play as any possible class or build, with only minor bonuses in the very early game that are easily overcome and balanced out within a few hours of gameplay.

You can take "The Elder Scrolls" out of the title, and Morrowind and Skyrim still are very, very much the same games at their foundation and their core, and the proof of that is the fact that Fallout 3 is very Elder Scrolls like, with people even going so far as to call it "Oblivion With Guns". The changes between Morrowind and Skyrim are in the details, not in the core of the game design.

[Leonie Connor]

Skyrim has FAR too many essential NPCs. It completely kills the believability of the world at times. Also, it does sometimes feel like you're hitting an invisible wall when you deviate from the path when climbing mountains. Aside from that, i'd agree - Skyrim is fairly open, like Morrowind.

So that's all that makes it less open, the fact that there are essential NPC's - NPC's that are essential because people were constantly breaking their game by accidentally killing someone that was tied to the main quest...

Are essential NPC's annoying? Meh, sometimes. Hardly some kind of huge knock against the "openness" of the game however.

How many times do people need to be told? Perks are NOT a substitute for Attributes! They're completely unrelated as far as i'm concerned. Attributes define who your character is physically and mentally. Perks are connected to skills for extra specialisation.

Attributes - Is your character physically strong or weak? Are they intelligent? Are they naturally agile or slow? etc.
Skills - Combat or non-combat skills that your character learns and improves gradually over time, like skill with a certain weapon.
Perks - More specialist, 'one-off' skills your character learns once with limited or no improvement after.

That is how it should work.

"As far as I'm concerned" = subjective.

"That is how it should work" in your opinion. That is not a statement of fact.

Yes, actually, in my book Perks are a substitute for Attributes, and an upgrade at that. The same effects that Attributes covered are still covered with Perks, as well as even more stuff.

Instead of putting points into Strength to increase your melee damage, you put points into Perks to increase your melee damage.

Why is this so hard for you to understand??

You don't prefer the current method - that is fine. But it is not a factual statement that Attributes are superior to Perks, it is a subjective opinion.

Don't be ridiculous. The "choices" in Skyrim are completely shallow and meaningless with no real consequences. Morrowind at least had some meaningful choices when it came to factions, and which race you chose.

They are only shallow and meaningless because you are trying to dismiss them for your argument.

How is siding with one faction (Greybeards or The Blades) at the cost of banishing yourself from the other any less meaningful than joining the Thieves Guild and not being able to join the Morag Tong?

And quite fooling yourself, race selection has never been meaningful.

In Morrowind, selecting a Breton got you a bit of extra Intelligence (which was easily overcome with any race in just a couple level ups if you wanted to invest in Intelligence with another race), a racial ability and a shot at an extra spell. In Skyrim, selection a Breton gets you a racial ability and an extra spell.

If you wanted to make a Wood Elf Tank Mage, that was totally possible to do, and in no way would you be gimped by doing so. Just as you can do in Skyrim if you so choose. Racial choice has never been as meaningful as you are wanting it to be in a failed attempt to discredit Skyrim.

Superior? LOL. Skyrim's character development system is abysmal. You start out with a blank, generic avatar, pick a few perks which make them feel slightly unique for a short period of time, then after around 30-40 hours you start feeling all-powerful and generic again.

The character development system is so lacking that I have absolutely no incentive to make any new characters because they all feel pretty much the same, and cannot really offer any new experiences that the previous character couldn't.

As opposed to all characters essentially becoming master of all traits in Morrowind and Oblivion?

Yes, character development is superior. Morrowind is nothing more than leveling skills from 1-100. Skyrim is leveling your skills from 1-100, as well as further specializing your character via perks to become truly specialized and customized, and further differentiating your characters as you go along. The higher the level of any 2 characters, the more different and specialized they will be, as opposed to Morrowind or Oblivion where the higher the level of any 2 characters, the more same they will be.

In Morrowind, your character could fail regardless of how accurate or skillful the player was. Skyrim feels more (though not entirely) player skill based, and there aren't many opportunities where the character can really fail.

It might "feel" that way, but it's not. Want proof? Level yourself up with Two Handed Weapons, and then take on high level mobs with your unleveled up One Handed Weapons skill, and tell me how effective in combat you are. Probably not very. I just did that tonight, actually, watched how much more effective my character was with a 2 handed claymore than I was with dual wield swords, because my Two Handed skill was higher than my One Handed skill. I didn't start magically svcking as a player when I switched weapons - my character wasn't as good in one form of combat than another, thus my character failed.

Want more proof? Try to cast a low level Illusion spell on a high level enemy. It won't work - because of the character skill.

Not many times where the player can fail? Tell that to all the times a player dies and has to reload...

Skyrim is an RPG because it has character development and some choices. The problem is that the character development system is so poor, and meaningful choices are so lacking, that it can't really be considered a good RPG.

Except, that it can be considered a good RPG. You again make the mistake of confusing your subjective opinion with objective fact, when that is not the case. I find a very rich and deep character development system, and more meaningful choice than I have seen in an Elder Scrolls game before. I see good RPG mechanics, better, not worse.

[Brian Newman]

Thread #3. Nice to see this kind of thread baking on easy in the oven so that Todd can see it. Will Beth push the envelope and make TES6 more streamlined? Will they follow the Apple minimalism design philosophy? One or two button or, one or two perk/attribute to do just about everything?

[Chris Jones]

@ Azrael - Skyrim is as stat heavy as Call of Duty is, perhaps less so. All of the stats you mentioned are either existent in virtually any game now adays (weapon damage? come on...) or have been watered down from previous games so much (skills) that they have progressively less meaning. Other than that your post is pretty poorly organized and hard to understand, you should use [.quote] tags when you want to quote someone specifically.

How many times do people need to be told? Perks are NOT a substitute for Attributes! They're completely unrelated as far as i'm concerned. Attributes define who your character is physically and mentally. Perks are connected to skills for extra specialisation.

Perks are so silly anyways. There are a few (+20% damage with 1h weapons) which might be construed as 'representing' the strength attribute in the abstract, but why are we playing these games, I just want strength back. The reason why is to be gimicky of course. But you can't argue that perks are replacements for attributes because a lot of perks are 'Your character can now behead your enemy as a kill cam'... or 'Now heavy armor weighs nothing and doesn't slow you down to move in it at all'. Which are silly, and by no means a way to 'define' your character.

Now @ Nell

Ugh why do you need to post so much right before I go to bed? I'll pick out the parts that I feel are most worthy of being contested.

But considering the state of the world, it actually makes sense that you aren't allowed into Whiterun without a good reason. People talk about wanting real world consequence, but that is a consequence. A real, living breathing world isn't just about the choices and objectives of one person, but the choices and objectives of everyone. The Jarl does not want unknown people entering the city at this time, due to current events, so he has put Whiterun on lockdown unless you have a good reason to enter. So you need a good reason to enter Whiterun. And for the same reasons, it makes sense why Irelek (apologies if I misspelled that, which I probably did) would want to interrogate you first before allowing a stranger into the presence of the Jarl.

I'm not saying that these events are non-sensical. It's just the fact that Bethesda throws them at you right away, almost ensuring that there's a linear path at the beginning of the story is what's at issue.

What you just said is no different than the fact that everytime I turn off Morrowind, I am on a prison boat where Jiub wakes me up, I am let off the boat, talk to a census agent, and then another guard to receive a package to go to Balmora to visit Caius Cosades.

Did you even think this argument through? The extent that Morrowind is linear is all of about 120 seconds, most of that devoted to trying to pick my face and make my class. I don't care that the starting position is always the same, as soon as I hand over my papers to Sellus Gravius (again, after about two minutes of playtime) it's like I walk through the front gate of an amusemant park and everything is up to me at that point. I can throw Caius' package in the nearest hollow stump (I can't drop the 25 lb Dragonstone that I might pick up while retrieving the Golden Claw though...) and even if I do decide that I need to go see Caius, he actually forces me to do something up to me. This total, shirtless, drug-addicted badass tells me that I'm such a scrub he doesn't have orders for me, he'll hand over some gold, give me a slap on the butt, and tell me to go make my way in the world. It's easy for any character to say 'well screw that old guy, I went to him like they said and he didn't even have anything for me to do. Stupid drug addict'. So it's so incredibly different from Skyrim I don't see how you can say the above quote with a straight face.

I don't see how Skyrim quests are so much worse, and so much more poorly written when you have quests like Forsworn Conspiracy, A Night To Remember, In My Time of Need, Paarthurnax, the entire element of learning about the dragon language (I don't see why that is so much more lower quality than learning about the Nerevarine prophecies)...

Your original quote was "Quests actually have choices now, something that didn't exist in Morrowind" but you've pretty much admitted that in fact Skyrim's quests are more or less similar to Morrowind's. I'd argue that Morrowind has more variety - I mean the play thing you mentioned is pretty cool. At least in the Morrowind Imperial Legion I go off and solve murder mysteries, rescue hostages, defend the honor of the legion, hunt bandits, and everything else they have me do. Skyrim's Imperial Legion is 'Take the Stormtrooper- I mean Stormcloak Fort 1, so that next quest you can take the Stormcloak Fort 2'. I don't know why it's okay that at best Skyrim does quests only just as good as Morrowind did, but with less quests/less quality/less volume of writing, as if we didn't expect any improvement over the past decade.

The changes between Morrowind and Skyrim are in the details, not in the core of the game design.

If you say so. Admittedly Skyrim reminds me more of Morrowind then Call of Duty: Black Ops reminds me of Morrowind. Just like how Battlefield 3 reminds me of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 more than Morrowind would. There are similarities, and I guess in the most barebones sense they are similar games because you can walk just about anywhere you want, pick up just about anything you see, right click swings you sword, you equip weapons/armor, and all that other stuff that they share. But the design philosophy, the developmental focus, the gameplay, everything has a very clear distinction between the two games - and apparently enough of one to ruffle the feathers of those with discerning tastes.

[Sammi Jones]

Tsk, Tsk, Tsk, Blinded by Nostalgia again...

[Paul Rice]

Tsk, Tsk, Tsk, Blinded by Nostalgia again...

Tsk. Tsk. Tsk. Blinded by lack of any thought again. Do you know what I have minimized right now, while I'm making a reply? Morrowind. I've made an informed and personal decision that I prefer Morrowind as a game for a wide variety of reasons listed here and elsewhere, and so I play that more often than I play Skyrim. My opinions are not gleaned from some foggy, half-remembered impressions of a game that I played years ago and loved but never touched again. Here I am, getting up to date reminders on why I prefer Morrowind, because I'm re-experiencing it and have re-experienced it every day for the past two weeks.

To chalk this up to Nostalgia is a lazy argument, and also demeans my choices and opinions.

[luke trodden]

Now @ Nell

Ugh why do you need to post so much right before I go to bed? I'll pick out the parts that I feel are most worthy of being contested.



I'm not saying that these events are non-sensical. It's just the fact that Bethesda throws them at you right away, almost ensuring that there's a linear path at the beginning of the story is what's at issue.

A path that is totally avoidable the moment you step out of the cavern, and on the other side of the mountain. Whoever you side with, the Stormcloak or the Imperial, even suggest splitting up, and possibly meeting again with them later. You wanna go your own way and avoid the "linear" path of the main story? You are so much as encouraged to do so!

Did you even think this argument through? The extent that Morrowind is linear is all of about 120 seconds, most of that devoted to trying to pick my face and make my class. I don't care that the starting position is always the same, as soon as I hand over my papers to Sellus Gravius (again, after about two minutes of playtime) it's like I walk through the front gate of an amusemant park and everything is up to me at that point. I can throw Caius' package in the nearest hollow stump (I can't drop the 25 lb Dragonstone that I might pick up while retrieving the Golden Claw though...) and even if I do decide that I need to go see Caius, he actually forces me to do something up to me. This total, shirtless, drug-addicted badass tells me that I'm such a scrub he doesn't have orders for me, he'll hand over some gold, give me a slap on the butt, and tell me to go make my way in the world. It's easy for any character to say 'well screw that old guy, I went to him like they said and he didn't even have anything for me to do. Stupid drug addict'. So it's so incredibly different from Skyrim I don't see how you can say the above quote with a straight face.

Again, read above. You are free to do as you please as soon as you leave the tutorial dungeon, and the NPC with you even encourages you to do as much.

Your original quote was "Quests actually have choices now, something that didn't exist in Morrowind" but you've pretty much admitted that in fact Skyrim's quests are more or less similar to Morrowind's. I'd argue that Morrowind has more variety - I mean the play thing you mentioned is pretty cool. At least in the Morrowind Imperial Legion I go off and solve murder mysteries, rescue hostages, defend the honor of the legion, hunt bandits, and everything else they have me do. Skyrim's Imperial Legion is 'Take the Stormtrooper- I mean Stormcloak Fort 1, so that next quest you can take the Stormcloak Fort 2'. I don't know why it's okay that at best Skyrim does quests only just as good as Morrowind did, but with less quests/less quality/less volume of writing, as if we didn't expect any improvement over the past decade.

Quests do have choice that didn't exist in Morrowind.

The Paarthurnax decision in the main quest, which will completely isolate you from one faction or another. The choice to side with Saadia and assist her, or the choice to side with the Alik'r and turn her in. In "A Night To Remember", do you investigate on your own to find out what happened, or do you intimidate your way through everyone to get what you want? In "Escape From Chidna Mine", do you side with the Forsworn leader, or do you kill him? During the main quest, you control ceasefire negotiations between the Imperial Legion and the Stormcloaks, your choices in the negotiations are up to you and based upon previous actions in the game, as well as having consequences with your civil war faction.

That kind of choice did not exist in Morrowind.

As for your over simplification of the civil war quests - I'd say it was a rather interesting take on a quest to ambush a Stormcloak supply cart, and when rendevousing with your fellow Legion troops, you have the option of assaulting the Stormcloaks via coordinated teamwork, or by going all Rambo style on them and taking them all on yourself.

[Britney Lopez]

Personally I am glad that the RPG Genre is evolving from a tedious, mind numbing level grind. I've been playing RPGs since Ultima on my C64 and always wished there were more game features that allowed you to skip over tedious parts. Just as an example, I remember people going ape sh!t over fast travel in Oblivion, even though it was optional

I come home from a long day at work and want to put in an hour of Skyrim. Do I really want to spend that hour walking back to Markarth while dismounting every 2 minutes to one shot wolves. Boooring.

Bethesda has done a good job of making games that give the player the choice to play as he/she wants. Yes they rely on modders to expand and
refine gameplay according to personal preference but I don't think that's a sign of laziness. They just realize that you can't make everyone happy, so they try to appease the majority and know that
the hardcoe guys will buy it anyway despite their whining and mod the crap out of it.

[Kate Norris]

Skyrim is as good a rpg as Alpha Protocol is a good cover-based shooter (that is, not a lot).

I like that Skyrim tries to evolve the rpg mechanics, but parts of it falls short (many uninteresting and/or uninspired perk trees, for one).
However, the lack of choice (the Balmora mage guild questline in Morrowind alone had more multiple-choice quests than in all of Skyrim), railroaded questlines and lack of response to player actions/story progression is really unbecoming of a rpg in this day and age.

[leigh stewart]

Personally I am glad that the RPG Genre is evolving from a tedious, mind numbing level grind. I've been playing RPGs since Ultima on my C64 and always wished there were more game features that allowed you to skip over tedious parts. Just as an example, I remember people going ape sh!t over fast travel in Oblivion, even though it was optional

Erm...where...and what world do you live in?

Cause Skyrim is more of a tedious slog of level grinding, all it has is action. Not even these great in depth RPG elements to it. It's an action adventure swamp. And not enough of the elements of RPG in it.

Morrowind had consequences. You couldn't join this guild because you joind this guild or that guild because the guilds were sort in competition wtih each other. Once you picked your class that was mostly it, you were set. No restarting. No halfway at lvl 30 you decide that your mainly wholeosme warrior is suddenly going to become a Wizard. It made the world ten times more believable when it came to your choices.

I explain this before. That Skyrim lacks any weight in the choices and decisions made of the player. Skyrim lacks any actual weight story wise and RPG wise. I do not know how anyone can find Go Kill This, actually fun.

I remember in Oblivion having more options than that. A little quest I like to use is Paranoia. I liked that quest because you had a few options of handling the quest:

-Lie to him and he still pays you

-Tell him the truth and he still pays you

-Tell the guards on him

-Provoke him to attack you

-Turn him in with evidence

And then even in Oblivion there was the Aeylid statue quest. I liked that one because I remember a part where I come out one of the Aeylid ruins and the fellow treasure hunter has ambushed me. He's like give me the statue and then you have multiple options

-Kill him

-Give him the statue

-Bribe him or persuade him

RPGs are about the multiple ways of play through a character. Literally most of Skyrim's quest end in someone dead. You cannot even talk the guy you're suppose to kill into not killing you. One of the greatest examples of this is The College of Winterhold quest. You're suppose to recover these lost books and you meet up with the final boss. You try the multiple options, "Let's work something out" "I won't leave without the books" But in the end she still attacks you and you still have to kill her.

It's gets annoying and tedious and there is no replay value in a game like that. RPGs are known for the replay value. A game that has been mentioned is Dragon Age Origins. It had some replay value. With the class and the different origin stories. How one choice would affect the game and you could make different choices than your previse play throughs. That's what makes a good RPG. One with weight to a player's choices and one with actual meat to the story.

[Steve Bates]

Time to jump into the fray again

I agree that its not a good RPG in some terms. It can be called an RPG as it has elements but based on what peoples understanding of a full on RPG is... then its not a good RPG, cant argue with that.

But Skyrim being a bad elder scrolls game.... that is debatable considering it has stuck with what makes this series so great. The ability to go and do what ever you want in a fantasy open world! And I have to fully disagree with those who think this game is shallow, maybe in sidequests but not the world itself.

[Roanne Bardsley]

@ Azrael - Skyrim is as stat heavy as Call of Duty is, perhaps less so. All of the stats you mentioned are either existent in virtually any game now adays (weapon damage? come on...) or have been watered down from previous games so much (skills) that they have progressively less meaning. Other than that your post is pretty poorly organized and hard to understand, you should use [.quote] tags when you want to quote someone specifically.

You can't quote as simply from a closed thread as you can from an active one.

Thank you for backing up my point that "Skyrim" is a stat heavy game and therefore the suggestion that "it's lack of stats makes it a poor RPG" has no legs to stand on.

The fact that stats exist in other games is both true and irrelevant to whether or not "Skyrim" is a great RPG.

My point is both straightforwards and easy to understand.

I expect you simply find it hard to accept.

I on the otherhand have no trouble accepting that you don't enjoy "Skyrim" as much as other game's you've played.

Az

[matt oneil]

Time to jump into the fray again

I agree that its not a good RPG in some terms. It can be called an RPG as it has elements but based on what peoples understanding of a full on RPG is... then its not a good RPG, cant argue with that.

But Skyrim being a bad elder scrolls game.... that is debatable considering it has stuck with what makes this series so great. The ability to go and do what ever you want in a fantasy open world! And I have to fully disagree with those who think this game is shallow, maybe in sidequests but not the world itself.

It's an open world, yes, but with linear themeparks spread around in it. You have the Companions themepark, the Dark Brotherhood themepark, the College etc, and no, they don't blend. At most you unlock a chest you can store crap in and more obnoxious guard comments.
Without going into spoilers, someone from the Thieves Guild is hinted to have a past with the DB. Why not recognize that if your thief joins DB?
Similarly, a certain grumpy mage in DB has a past in the College, but he won't even go "HMPF!" if you have completed the College questline (and probably be an obvious target for his scorn). And let's just forget about the Civil War questline all together.

There's lots of such examples and it just screams "wasted potential" at me.

[Latino HeaT]

Tsk. Tsk. Tsk. Blinded by lack of any thought again. Do you know what I have minimized right now, while I'm making a reply? Morrowind. I've made an informed and personal decision that I prefer Morrowind as a game for a wide variety of reasons listed here and elsewhere, and so I play that more often than I play Skyrim. My opinions are not gleaned from some foggy, half-remembered impressions of a game that I played years ago and loved but never touched again. Here I am, getting up to date reminders on why I prefer Morrowind, because I'm re-experiencing it and have re-experienced it every day for the past two weeks.

To chalk this up to Nostalgia is a lazy argument, and also demeans my choices and opinions.

ooh, looks like I hit somebody hard

Ha, buddy, my assessment (opinion) was obviously not directed at you but, to those who where in fact "yearning to the past". Although the extent of your retort would lead me to assume otherwise... But besides that, even if I my comment(s) supposedly did "demean" (or refute) your choice and or opinions I (and you) have all the right to do so... It's a simple "trivial" opinion
( so long as we stay within the boundaries of the rules of course... )

Now, the nostalgia claim is far from a lazy or outlandish argument. It is completely valid. As even I get nostalgic at some points in time and wish that "old" features were implemented into "new" games. But the difference is that I know full and well why the devs don't "re-use" old "parts". All It achieves is a new "coating" for an old car that will eventually go bland after just a few months, figuratively speaking.

I mean, look at games like COD. People are constantly raging about it it being the S.S.D.Y (S.S.D.D). That franchise has become very Bland and boring and I hear many people refer to it as [censored]. However, Bethesda was intelligent enough to see that old rusty engine parts did not belong in the new car that they spent so long crafting and therefore they desposed of them accordingly... Figuratively speaking, of course.. The "If it ain't broke don't fix it" mentality simply cannot apply to every single game series...

[Tyler F]

Tsk, Tsk, Tsk, Blinded by Nostalgia again...

Actually i've been playing Oblivion lately and enjoy much more than Skyrim. So no, not Nostalgia.

[Anna Beattie]

Actually i've been playing Oblivion lately and enjoy much more than Skyrim. So no, not Nostalgia.

Not referring to you...

[JLG]

No, I don't "see it" the way you do, and I never will. I don't lend much credibility to the argument that Skyrim isn't an RPG just because certain things that were done in past RPG's aren't the focus anymore.

Who has their fingers in their ears now
So what your saying is that it is changing the RPG genre? Fair enough. But it isn't a "classic" style RPG and isn't a spiritual succesor to Oblivion or Morrowind.

Tsk, Tsk, Tsk, Blinded by Nostalgia again...

Barring Arena, I still play all previous TES games and get some enjoyment out of them. They are all to different to make a judgement on which is better but I do find Morrowinds production values and atmosphere the most likeable.

It isn't so much "yearning for the past" as it is yearning for a game with the goals of Daggerfall or Morrowind with the execution of Skyrim.

[Soph]

A path that is totally avoidable the moment you step out of the cavern, and on the other side of the mountain. Whoever you side with, the Stormcloak or the Imperial, even suggest splitting up, and possibly meeting again with them later. You wanna go your own way and avoid the "linear" path of the main story? You are so much as encouraged to do so!



Again, read above. You are free to do as you please as soon as you leave the tutorial dungeon, and the NPC with you even encourages you to do as much.



Quests do have choice that didn't exist in Morrowind.

The Paarthurnax decision in the main quest, which will completely isolate you from one faction or another. The choice to side with Saadia and assist her, or the choice to side with the Alik'r and turn her in. In "A Night To Remember", do you investigate on your own to find out what happened, or do you intimidate your way through everyone to get what you want? In "Escape From Chidna Mine", do you side with the Forsworn leader, or do you kill him? During the main quest, you control ceasefire negotiations between the Imperial Legion and the Stormcloaks, your choices in the negotiations are up to you and based upon previous actions in the game, as well as having consequences with your civil war faction.

That kind of choice did not exist in Morrowind.

As for your over simplification of the civil war quests - I'd say it was a rather interesting take on a quest to ambush a Stormcloak supply cart, and when rendevousing with your fellow Legion troops, you have the option of assaulting the Stormcloaks via coordinated teamwork, or by going all Rambo style on them and taking them all on yourself.

This from someone who kust started playing morrowimd forthe first time last month and I will give examplea of choices that I have found in the game.

Spoilers!

Paar and the blades, the fighters guild wants u to kill the three to leaders of the thieves guild so u have to pick netween the thieves guild and the fighters.
Stormcloaks, legion, neutral morrowind u have three different houses u can join, each with their own unigue quests, none of that do the same thing which ever side u pick, plus u have three different vampire clans u can join as well that have their own unique quests and caan only join one. Also unlike skyrim I have the freedom to go on a cleansing crusade and wipe them all out whenever I chose, I do not jave to join one side to be to remove the essential tag.
The lady and the redguards, in morrowind u have to pick between a mage and a nakid nord on who is right lr trustworthy.
Unlike skyrim where there is only one way to complete a quest or only a certain tandom common item will do at a csrtain place will be able to complete quest in skyrim.
In morrowind, as long as I ahve item dosent matter where they wanted it from it will do, people for quests can be dealt with in so many ways as in intimidation, admired, pickpocketed, killed, or hell just deny the whole thong and or kill the quest giver themselves.
Main quest in skyrim, u have to follow the path, there is no skipping or stopping it.
Morrowind, u can skip a bit if ir well known, hell deny the prophesy and kill the almight vivec and end the main quest thede,, so many different outtakes on what u can do.

Like I said just started playing last month for first time, but obviously people either really forgotten how the game is or just followed what the quests said to do and didnt try using their imagination for differeny outcomes.

[Emma Parkinson]

^ are you writing like that on purpose? And no I didn't just start playing last month. Dont assume things. I shouldn't have to be using my mind to fill in the flaws of a weak game. Its like imagining that your driving that sweet 10,000 $ Porsche down the highway when in reality your really pushing it along due to it's weak rusty engine and faulty wiring...