10 things I dislike about Skyrim : V - Skyrim

» Wed Jun 13, 2012 12:34 pm

The only thing that really bothers me is how absolutely weak Destruction magic is as a player. Enemies seem to get by with it just fine (to the extent fire mages can torch a guy in Daedric with one hit, for example) but as a player you've got to take one of two very specific routes in order to stay viable. Melee is a blast this time around (compared to Morrowind's miss, miss, hit, miss and Obliivion's "chop a guy for five minutes at level twenty to kill him") but Destruction's so much less fun and it's got nothing to do with spell-making being absent, and everything about damage not scaling, unlike melee or ranged.

I'm actually fine with them scrapping Attributes, as the only real improvement I can see them doing is just copying Fallout - while not a bad idea, would wind up with just as many people crying about it on the forums how it "isn't TES any more".

» Wed Jun 13, 2012 3:42 am

Well you have at least expressed an opinion and had the common sense to acknowledge it is ONLY YOUR opinion, rather than behaving like a blinkered asshat who believes they are speaking for EVERYONE.
BUT.
I have to agree with Solitudian on this point, I think the perk system is a very flexible and refreshing change from before and I've found it to be eminently useful for allowing for a much more freeform approach to development. I really can't see what the problem is.
Also.
You haven't really explained why in your opinion the perk system doesn't make up for traditional attributes. Why, exactly, don't you like it?

The *Skyrim* perk system simply doesn't work for me on any level.

It lacks the style, flair, and personality of Fallout perks. In Fallout, I *religiously* took stuff like Bloody Mess, Black Widow, and Child at Heart because it offered me more options and a bit of humor in the game. Skyrim? Dull "do X better" perks. Useful, perhaps, but it doesn't make it fun. (There's a reason I haven't put a single perk in archery: I do enough damage to 1-3 shot most enemies with the unperked sneak multiplier)

Perks are granted far too easily to be rewarding. In my case, I think skills improve at least 50% too fast, and you should gain a level granting 2 or 3 perks for every 3 levels you currently get. As it stands, Skyrim reached a point where I gained a level and thought to myself "seriously? ALREADY??" because I'd gotten one at the start of the dungeon. At level 5, I could sort of suspend my disbelief, but this was mid-30s or higher.

I stopped playing with 11 unused perk points in 48 levels. I had nothing I wanted. Nothing I needed. No attachment to my character, because I hadn't ever been asked to invest in him. My level-up strategy had devolved to "Eh. Let's put this one in magic, because in a few more levels, all my stats will match. Perk? why bother?" Of course, that's a subjective outcome, and isn't reflective of everyone's experience. On the other hand, I'd say I also represent an objective failure case for the system, in that I think all reasonable people could agree that I wound up someplace that you don't want a player to wind up.

It's hard to give specifics, since I literally haven't played since 11/29/11, and can't find a reason to go back.

» Wed Jun 13, 2012 1:15 am

Only ten ? :biggrin:

in another thread i remember that they were 100 :biggrin:

» Wed Jun 13, 2012 6:13 am

No Open Lock spell was a massive oversight.

» Wed Jun 13, 2012 4:13 am

in that I think all reasonable people could agree that I wound up someplace that you don't want a player to wind up.

Dammit, then you had to go and say this.
because: I'm a reasonable person BUT I don't agree with you.
According to what you say I don't agree with you therefore I am not being reasonable.

I invest plenty of time in using perks, and they work extremely well subjectively, and I disagree completely that there is any failure of the system, Skyrim, or anything else with regards to them. If it doesn't work for you then it doesn't work for you. It doesn't mean it's broken for everyone - or even just broken - and it doesn't mean that I am unreasonable because I hold an opposing view - which is what you imply.

» Wed Jun 13, 2012 2:21 pm

No Open Lock spell was a massive oversight.

Why?
There are other options available to make lockpicking easier - surely that's more of a challenge?

» Wed Jun 13, 2012 1:18 am

I have no issue with people bringing attention to things they don't like in the game, or even arguing that some things are contrary to the spirit of the Elder Scrolls.

What irritates me is when some points are raised without any apparent sense of the history of massive debates that have gone on regarding a particular aspect.

Consider the lack of in-depth dialogue. Well, I don't like that. I'm not sure there are many folks who would say "yeah, I want more repetitive conversations!"

But then consider the claim that the game is "too easy". This has been a constant and huge discussion which I've seen time and time again since I joined the board to discuss Morrowind back int he day. Likewise the quest compass - these are all things brought in as responses to fan feedback. So it's not a case of saying "I don't like it so the game is broken". It's a case of saying "did the response address the issue that was being discussed." And with something like level-scaling/game difficulty, I don't think there's anywhere near the fan consensus for that to happen.

So while there's no problem raising those kind of issues, it's a bit tiresome when people raise them without any acknowledgement of the history of the discussion.

» Wed Jun 13, 2012 12:35 pm

I feel like the only person in the world that hated attributes..
I much prefer the leveling system in Skyrim.
The only real beef I have with the game is the short quests and no real reason for food/sleep.
Other than that, i pretty much love it. You people need to take things with a pinch of salt.
Games will never be perfect. Get over yourselfs.

When I first fired up Skyrim, I was instantly disappointed with the new levelling system. My first reaction when speaking to a friend was that they had "dumbed it down". But after levelling up a few times, I began to appreciate it and realize that it wasn't dumbed down, just changed. As I continued to level up, I began to realize that I liked the new system more than the old as it became quite clear to me that I had to decide who/what my character was going to be early on and that I wouldn't be able to make the super heros that were masters of everything in the predecessors. If anything, it made the levelling system smarter while at the same time more efficient... in my opinion.

» Wed Jun 13, 2012 1:36 pm

I have no issue with people bringing attention to things they don't like in the game, or even arguing that some things are contrary to the spirit of the Elder Scrolls.

What irritates me is when some points are raised without any apparent sense of the history of massive debates that have gone on regarding a particular aspect.

Consider the lack of in-depth dialogue. Well, I don't like that. I'm not sure there are many folks who would say "yeah, I want more repetitive conversations!"

But then consider the claim that the game is "too easy". This has been a constant and huge discussion which I've seen time and time again since I joined the board to discuss Morrowind back int he day. Likewise the quest compass - these are all things brought in as responses to fan feedback. So it's not a case of saying "I don't like it so the game is broken". It's a case of saying "did the response address the issue that was being discussed." And with something like level-scaling/game difficulty, I don't think there's anywhere near the fan consensus for that to happen.

So while there's no problem raising those kind of issues, it's a bit tiresome when people raise them without any acknowledgement of the history of the discussion.

Right. Morrowind was easy! But I loved it. There is a serious case of memory loss (or nostalgia) running through most of these complaint threads.

» Wed Jun 13, 2012 6:55 am

i don't really dislike anything in skyrim. its just me feeling a lack of depth, the things i wish they had and potential i think they wasted

Honestly, I don't know why there is such stress on story. Traditional RPGs had loose, basic story telling, if they had story telling at all. I used to love Wizardry, which was pure RPG and had no story at all. I enjoyed playing D&D with friends in middle school. Always the premise was loot, barter, purchase equipment, dungeon dive, do small quests, increase level and skill of your character, loot, barter... etc.

Turning my character(s) from a weakling greenhorn to a rich and powerful [pick your class] was always the goal. Now everyone wants to watch a movie while they're playing a video game. Well, Red Dead had a fantastic story, one of the best, but it was not an RPG and I don't expect that in my RPGs. There is always Dragon Age for those who find the story lacking depth in Skyrim (I didn't like Dragon Age, by the way... too corny).

» Wed Jun 13, 2012 12:37 pm

Dammit, then you had to go and say this.
because: I'm a reasonable person BUT I don't agree with you.
According to what you say I don't agree with you therefore I am not being reasonable.

I invest plenty of time in using perks, and they work extremely well subjectively, and I disagree completely that there is any failure of the system, Skyrim, or anything else with regards to them. If it doesn't work for you then it doesn't work for you. It doesn't mean it's broken for everyone - or even just broken - and it doesn't mean that I am unreasonable because I hold an opposing view - which is what you imply.

Let's look at it this way:

you play, you have fun, the perks work for you. Objectively, this is a success of the system. Reasonably, we can agree that this is an expected, desirable outcome.

I play, I stop taking perks because I don't care. Do we reasonably consider this a success? Is this somewhere you, as a developer WANT some players to wind up?

Our experiences are subjective, but objectively I consider the system to have succeeded in your case. Likewise, I expect that a reasonable individual will say that the system most emphatically resulted in the opposite of success in my case. The objective failure comments, if you'd care to re-read what I wrote refer specifically to *my* case (notice, I said "I represent a failure", meaning I constitute ONE failure, as opposed to the failure, which would imply I'm important enough to make the system a global failure*), and not to the whole. It *is* quite possible to reasonably agree that a system that works for you has failed someone else, or that a system that has failed you has worked for someone else.

I ask simply: is my outcome something you would reasonably consider a success for the system, or something you would consider the antithesis of a success (ie, a failure)? Not of the system over the whole of the population. Just in my case.

Editted once to stress the difference between single vs. global failure, and editted twice because I screwed that up.

» Wed Jun 13, 2012 11:38 am

The Plebeian

Finally someone that admit "his errors" with some constructive comment :smile:

Simplified doesn't necessary means "dumbed down".

If we confront the "i like" thread" with the "i dislike" ones i'm sure they're 1: 20 (or worst)

But this doesn't means that the "bad things" are in majority in this game: it simply means that the "complainers" and the "nostalgic" have more urge to express their disappointment perhaps.

I'm nostalgic too of a lot of things of Oblivion and Morrowind,but i try at least to understand the reasons that have "urged" the developers to take some "debatable" decision and to appreciate their efforts to reach a much larger audience with a "so difficult" product; 'cause i don't pretend to know some aspects of this industry better than them frankly.

» Wed Jun 13, 2012 6:10 am

Why?
There are other options available to make lockpicking easier - surely that's more of a challenge?

Because a mage doesnt use a lockpick.
Same reason why its a shame there is no more waterwalk.

» Wed Jun 13, 2012 12:08 am

Honestly, I don't know why there is such stress on story. Traditional RPGs had loose, basic story telling, if they had story telling at all. I used to love Wizardry, which was pure RPG and had no story at all. I enjoyed playing D&D with friends in middle school. Always the premise was loot, barter, purchase equipment, dungeon dive, do small quests, increase level and skill of your character, loot, barter... etc.

Turning my character(s) from a weakling greenhorn to a rich and powerful [pick your class] was always the goal. Now everyone wants to watch a movie while they're playing a video game. Well, Red Dead had a fantastic story, one of the best, but it was not an RPG and I don't expect that in my RPGs. There is always Dragon Age for those who find the story lacking depth in Skyrim (I didn't like Dragon Age, by the way... too corny).

Hi The Plebeian! Sure is nice to see you're around.

I think your post exemplies just how trapping pigeonholing can be, pardon my french. The moment we encapsulate a game in its self-proclaimed RPGyness it becomes easy to rationalize and accomodate the fact it's lacking on this or that foreign department. And what's a RPG without a story? A fantasy simulator? So because Dragon Age has such a terrible plotline we should tolerate a slightly less messed up one? Appreciate Skyrim for all te good things it has to offer. But by all means admit to all its flagrant shortcomings.

» Wed Jun 13, 2012 1:37 pm

Because a mage doesnt use a lockpick.
Same reason why its a shame there is no more waterwalk.

Why does a mage not use a lockpick?
But equally:
Why is it the "same reason" it's a shame there's no more waterwalk? Because Mages don't swim??

» Wed Jun 13, 2012 1:53 am

1. Waterbreathing is useless in the game because over all there is 1 instance where going deep under water benefits you and i think it is a crashed boat.

2. Giant Spiders...nuff said

3. Lack of preferable marriage choices. There are like 3 people in the game that anybody would marry while there are like 20 people who you can marry but never would (like the old beggar in riften), plus lack of Khajiit, argonian, and orc wives (no cats, 1 argo, and like 2 orcs)

4. Removal of things that would have been better in skyrim than in previous games like Silver weaponry other than swords (plus you cannot smith it) and spell making

5. The state of the world. The dragon crisis and civil war are boring compared to the oblivion crisis and the return of umaril

6. Lack of unique NPCs. Every Nord is the same person, the beast folk are unique but are barely existent in skyrim, all high elves are pricks (not counting the one outside of windhelm)

7. Lack of Bard related activities when there is a BARD COLLEGE!

8. Astrid's Bully Squad. There is no decent Dark Brotherhood. They may be the last of the organization but they are pathetic and unoriginal, and are in no way the kind of servants Sithis deserves. They are just common psychos, not dark children of the night mother

9. No Gray Fox. After the oblivion crisis the cowl had to end up somewhere and since cyrodill is in turmoil it could have been moved to skyrim and may have even been put into the twilight sepulcher but we get like 3 mentions of the legend and no master thief

10. Removal of all the great creatures and enemies like the ogre, minotaur, land dreugh, unicorn, phantom, lich (dragon priests dont count), zombie (not draugr), plus all the daedra. Not to mention that Vamp NPCs are now considered a Race and class instead of Oblivion's (This race, this class, AND they are a vamp) unique enemies

» Wed Jun 13, 2012 9:59 am

Why does a mage not use a lockpick?
But equally:
Why is it the "same reason" it's a shame there's no more waterwalk? Because Mages don't swim??

Hi there PhonAntiPhon! Good to see you.

I think the premise goes like this: every single task can be perfomed within the boundaries of any given archtype. A mage will not bash a door open or pick the lock. He will use his inherent magical skills to, voilá!, open it. Likewise, he will not swin and risk getting his precious cloak soggy. He will waterwalk a la Michael Jackson. I think this makes perfect sense. It certainly makes the game richer. Ad absurdum, why have spells when you can wield a sword? Conversely, why have axes when destruction spells are at hand?

» Wed Jun 13, 2012 5:05 am

-snip-

I can see what you're trying to say, certainly, but I think we're in danger subjectively disappearing up our own objectives.
You didn't enjoy it, I do.
That's fair enough.

The game is a constant and we are variables, ergo I can't say that objectively the game has failed you because (assuming vanilla) we are both playing the same game. The only conclusion I can reasonably come to is that you - the variable - failed to get what you wanted. Which is not the same thing.
So I can't agree with you.

So we'll just have to agree to disagree, I think.

» Wed Jun 13, 2012 7:06 am

10(or more) things I dislike about Skyrim

1. Repetitive dialog and terrible writing (a lot of the books are ok)

2. Lack of magic options, here is a list of magic from other TES games that are no longer in.

Open Lock
Lock
Burden
Water Walking
Levitation
Slow Fall
Feather
Bound Armour's
a lot of Bound Weapons
Summon : Ghost,Scamp,Clannfear,Spider Daedra,Wraith,Lich,Xivila,Skeleton,Zombie,Bonelord,Golden Saint,Bonewalker,Hunger,Winged Twilight.
Jump
Weakness to Fire,Frost,Shock,Poison,Magicka
Silence
Sound
Chameleon
Blind
Reflect
Fortify : health,magicka, attribute,fatigue,skill
Mark
Recall
Sleep
Sanctuary
Elemental Poison
Swift Swim
Detect Enchantments
Detect Key
Divine and Almsivi Interventions

3. Lack of weapon options spear,melee staff,crossbow,throwing weapons,short swords and clubs all of which have been in TES games before.

4. Hand holding meaning the GPS compass, fast travel and floating quest arrows and the fact that even if you turn these things off or choose not to fast travel it does not change the fact that the game was designed for you to use them.

5. Worlds interaction with you seems non existant except for the occasional guard who will randomly mention something you have done or something you are good at, unfortunately these are souless reactions a couple of examples are a guard will ask you to enchant his sword you cant(I would love to enchant stuff for them) or if you are a werewolf and kajht they will still mention the fur in your ears.

6. Easy EASY game the only time I can die is if i crank the difficulty all the way up and I start getting careless.

7. Lack of attributes makes characters feel less unique and the perks are often usless.

8. No real inovation in the series, all they seem to do was make it prettiure, other then that they brought back randomised quests(daggerfall)

9. Not being able to walk through a town without starting conversations that lead to quests
(I just want to walk to the store) and if you don't sit there and listen to the converstion then and there it is gone forever.

10. The journal or should I say the lack thereof

Special mentions : Short guild quests and gender specific clothes

Feel free to make your own list of Dislike or Likes about TES Skyrim

Sounds like everything you disliked about skyrim is in Morrowind. XD. but i would say you got about all of 'em

» Wed Jun 13, 2012 10:41 am

Why does a mage not use a lockpick?
But equally:
Why is it the "same reason" it's a shame there's no more waterwalk? Because Mages don't swim??

Correct.
This is an RPG, taking away those options hurts the roleplay of a mage.

» Wed Jun 13, 2012 12:49 pm

Why does a mage not use a lockpick?
But equally:
Why is it the "same reason" it's a shame there's no more waterwalk? Because Mages don't swim??

There should have been 3 ways to open a locked chest
1) Lockpicking
2) Spells that open locks
3) Possibility to damage a lock enogh that it unlocks

It doesn't make sense that a barbarian or mage would use lockpick, the barbarian would use his great axe the mage his magic.

When it comes to waterwalk it should be in the game as people then could roleplay a mage that cannot swim or is afraid of water. These things might seem minor, but stuff like this does add a value to the game.

» Wed Jun 13, 2012 12:32 pm

Even in Oblivion somebody said something about it is easy to kill your enemy if yu have a bow...and can walk on water"

» Wed Jun 13, 2012 10:54 am

Hi there PhonAntiPhon! Good to see you.

I think the premise goes like this: every single task can be perfomed within the boundaries of any given archtype. A mage will not bash a door open or pick the lock. He will use his inherent magical skills to, voilá!, open it. Likewise, he will not swin and risk getting his precious clak soggy. He will waterwalk a la Michael Jackson. I think this makes perfect sense. It certainly makes the game richer. Ad absurdum, why have swords when you can wield a lade? Conversely, why have axes when destruction spells are at hand?

I can see you point BUT:
this presupposes that a mage would automatically know those particular spells. What does he/she do if he doesn't know them? Why would a mage necessarily know every spell?
Surely you're assuming here that X mage would know any given spell at any time and would never need an alternative.

An equally rich environment, surely, would be one wherein any given archetype did not know everything and therefore had to consider alternatives, which makes for a more indepth experience, if you ask me...

» Wed Jun 13, 2012 3:09 am

Hi The Plebeian! Sure is nice to see you're around.

I think your post exemplies just how trapping pigeonholing can be, pardon my french. The moment we encapsulate a game in its self-proclaimed RPGyness it becomes easy to rationalize and accomodate the fact it's lacking on this or that foreign department. And what's a RPG without a story? A fantasy simulator? So because Dragon Age has such a terrible plotline we should tolerate a slightly less messed up one? Appreciate Skyrim for all te good things it has to offer. But by all means admit to all its flagrant shortcomings.

No offense, but you missed my point. Many of the complainers are taking the high-ground of being the traditional RPG know-it-alls while at the same time railing against the lack of depth in Skyrim's story-telling. If you're going to assume the said position, then you shouldn't be complaining about the story-telling. Now, if they were offering opinions as humble folk who just are bothered by certain things rather than as the arch-masters of all things RPG and the sources of all knowledge when it comes to understanding how RPGs should actually work, then I wouldn't have to raise the point.

I'm all about evolving, trust me (one of the reasons I actually like Skyrim). But I also can admit that Skyrim is different than Oblivion in many ways, Oblivion was different than Morrowind, so on and so forth. I wouldn't stand on the Purist pedestal and shout that I hate Skyrim because it's impure while, in reality, wearing no clothes at all.

» Wed Jun 13, 2012 3:41 pm

I can see what you're trying to say, certainly, but I think we're in danger subjectively disappearing up our own objectives.
You didn't enjoy it, I do.
That's fair enough.

The game is a constant and we are variables, ergo I can't say that objectively the game has failed you because (assuming vanilla) we are both playing the same game. The only conclusion I can reasonably come to is that you - the variable - failed to get what you wanted. Which is not the same thing.
So I can't agree with you.

So we'll just have to agree to disagree, I think.

Objectively speaking, you and a large majority of gamers out there have and still do enjoy playing Skyrim. He and a small minority of gamers out there don't and didn't enjoy playing Skyrim. It's not agreeing to disagree. Not everyone likes chocolate ice cream.