Went back and played Oblivion for Skyrim insight

Post » Tue Jun 19, 2012 1:36 pm

I really can't stand Oblivion, it stands as once of the worst gaming experiences I ever had, the broken leveling system, the recycled environments, the scaled enemies, weapons that degraded so quickly I went unarmed, etc. It was bad enough that I almost didn't buy Skyrim and wouldn't have if the leveling system and level scaling hadn't been reworked.

I like Skyrim (though I have to say, I think the Witcher 2 and Arkham City were better games this year), the graphics are about as good as you'll see from a console port, the land has been well fleshed out and the writting is better than previous entries (though there is still room for improvement). There are still some things I don't like (combat still feels clunky, I prefer the leveling system in Fallout to the Elder Scrolls model, crafting is more powerful than it should be to the point of making found items useless and destruction magic doesn't scale well with difficulty level), but the game is such an improvement over Oblivion it's hard to consider the games part of the same series.
User avatar
Kara Payne
 
Posts: 3415
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 12:47 am

Post » Wed Jun 20, 2012 12:36 am

The writing is no where better than in previous games. In fact, its taken a huge leap back in maturity, and sophistication. Go read in game books from Daggerfall and Morrowind, now Skyrim exclusive books. Its like night and day.

As for the 'appetizer sampler' that you talk about, I agree. Its like they made the game for the newbs, casuals, unreceptive, and dabblers. Not a fan of that.
User avatar
Etta Hargrave
 
Posts: 3452
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 1:27 am

Post » Tue Jun 19, 2012 2:10 pm

Depth & breadth are worlds apart, and that is exactly what (I'm betting) the OP was about. Skyrim is a smorgasboard of delicacies that you can taste but never indulge in. It's all surface luster.

agreed but I don't see this depth in Oblivion either to be honest, and of the Two, Skyrim wins out everytime, I'm talking Vanilla versions now, since my Skyrim apart from some tweaks and self edits is still "vanilla" so in my eyes Vanilla Skyrim > Vanilla Oblivion.
User avatar
Star Dunkels Macmillan
 
Posts: 3421
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 4:00 pm

Post » Tue Jun 19, 2012 9:05 pm

Depth & breadth are worlds apart, and that is exactly what (I'm betting) the OP was about. Skyrim is a smorgasboard of delicacies that you can taste but never indulge in. It's all surface luster.

Now to be fair I don't feel like that is true as a whole. There is a lot of depth with how the game is presented artistically and lore wise for example. However a lot of how they implemented some of the cool new gameplay features and RPG mechanics does hold true to that statement - there's a ton of things thrown at you that look cool and are cool to use at first, but theres no real depth to it beyond that.
User avatar
Kayla Oatney
 
Posts: 3472
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 9:02 pm

Post » Tue Jun 19, 2012 6:21 pm

The writing is no where better than in previous games. In fact, its taken a huge leap back in maturity, and sophistication. Go read in game books from Daggerfall and Morrowind, now Skyrim exclusive books. Its like night and day.

As for the 'appetizer sampler' that you talk about, I agree. Its like they made the game for the newbs, casuals, unreceptive, and dabblers. Not a fan of that.

I'm not a huge in-game book reader, but one that did stand out to me was "Immortal Blood" - a very very well written and cool in-game novel. I'm pretty sure Skyrim had it first.
User avatar
Lily
 
Posts: 3357
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 10:32 am

Post » Tue Jun 19, 2012 2:08 pm

I'm not a huge in-game book reader, but one that did stand out to me was "Immortal Blood" - a very very well written and cool in-game novel. I'm pretty sure Skyrim had it first.

I love Immortal Blood, but that one goes back at least to Oblivion. It's the first book you find, if you run to Vilverin (the dungeon across the water from the sewer exit).
User avatar
Skrapp Stephens
 
Posts: 3350
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 5:04 am

Post » Tue Jun 19, 2012 1:05 pm

That's just silly pc-elitism.

First of all, without consoles and the sales they counted on getting for Skyrim from them, they wouldn't have been able to justify the amount of time and money spent on developing this game. If this game was for PC only it would quite likely have better graphics (in a technical sense, not necessarily in an artistic sense) but far less actual content.

Just look at the sales chart for this game:
http://gamrreview.vgchartz.com/sales-data/49112/the-elder-scrolls-v-skyrim/

360 sales for Skyrim outpace the PC by almost 3 to 1. Even PS3 version sold more. Without consoles you'd be lucky to even be looking forward to TESVI.

I don't think thats what he meant by it, he probably meant more so technology wise since if the consoles were up to pc standards in the amount of content they can handle skyrim could have been 100000000000x better.
User avatar
BethanyRhain
 
Posts: 3434
Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2006 9:50 am

Previous

Return to V - Skyrim