Status

Recent Statuses

8 days ago
Why go for Lola Bunny when you can go for Jessica Rabbit who, bonus, isn't actually a fucking rabbit.
4 likes
8 days ago
One time I got kicked from an MMO guild because I was vehement in my belief that Space Jam is a pile of shit and sometimes I think that's why I never get invited to parties.
7 likes
9 days ago
I know that wasn't the point. I thought it would be better to be purposely obtuse and funny instead of rude and mean.
6 likes
9 days ago
You want your hypothetical future wife to dress as a character from Highschool of the Dead? I'm pretty sure that's a crime against nature. It's definitely a crime against taste.
7 likes
9 days ago
American Vandal was a brilliant satire. I came for the true crime parody about dick graffiti and I stayed for the humor and actually compelling teen drama. Good job, Netflix. You did good.
2 likes

Bio

Look, I got lost on the way to getting some jajangmyeon and it'd be foolish to leave now.

Most Recent Posts

Please RNGsus let my treasure plunders be sick as hell.
And while you went into Skyrim with rose colored glasses, I don't see how you can go from that to this unless you yourself changed as a person on how you look at games fundamentally.


I went into Skyrim with the same attitude I go into any game I play. I don't want games to be bad. I want them to be good. It's really easy to see how someone can change their opinion in light of new experiences or evidence. In 2011 I was almost out of college and I spent like all of Thanksgiving break and winter holiday playing it. But it didn't really stick with me then apart from "Yeah I guess it's good?" I can play a game like Chrono Trigger today and still have the same exuberance as I did in 1995. I can play Final Fantasy 8 and still enjoy every minute of it even with its super specific issues and flaws. I can't say the same for Skyrim. It's not that I changed. It's that Skyrim refused to change enough.

You can't go home again, kinsman.
Most games from my experience have far more of a linear story line to the gameplay, particularly in the beginning, and Helgen is very very short compared to breaking out of Oblivion's prison for instance (which you did acknowledge) so I suppose it's a much shorter learning curve, you're correct on that. Though it only explores the basics and doesn't go into smithing or riding horses or shouts or soul gems or what is effective against different beasts unless you happen to find the right people/trainer for that later on, which a lot of games just hand feed you. (Though if you decide to go straight for the Civil War quests, it does help. Like the Blacksmith ready to help teach you once you reach Riverwood).


Shouts get explained to you as part of the main quest; you won't even be able to use them until you advance enough along the main quest and the game also naturally draws the player's attention to smithing even if you don't talk to Alvor - when you first enter Whiterun there's people hassling Adrienne which catches the player's attention. Skyrim doesn't hand feed you anything because it's not complicated and soul gems and beast effectiveness stuff is distilled to the player on loading screen tooltips which is far more likely to be where players learn about them. So is the main quest just an extended tutorial then?

Skyrim is not a deep game so there isn't exactly a lot to teach the player fundamentally. Helgen teaches you how to open shit, equip shit, swing a weapon, fling a spell, pick locks, sneak, fight things, that oil can be set on fire, and how doing these things increases the experience bar. It even gives you a bow rather than letting the player find one in order to have a stealth tutorial at the end. And this is maybe five minutes. Ten tops. By the time you leave Helgen you're pretty much primed for everything the game will throw at you with only the crafting left to discover; and considering crafting is just literally clicking on things it's not difficult.

Oblivion doesn't teach you about its spellcrafting systems in the tutorial and Morrowind barely teaches you how to walk before you're tasked with finding Caius Cosades without so much as a clue as to what the fuck a Balmora is.

Skyrim is a much shallower experience because everything has been streamlined down to the basics of the basic. Where before you could fuck yourself over by creating a class focused on the shittiest weapon types or skill, now you can't because there's no specific class and instead it's a game built around being able to do everything with absolutely no draw back or consequence. Granted the average player won't get everything unlocked but the system in place is just the definition of simplicity.

Simple doesn't necessarily mean bad, of course, but Skyrim makes leveling up feel boring and encourages things like smith spamming iron daggers just to break the game as soon as possible.

Yes it does. You can assassinate him with a well placed bowshot. You can sneak in and shout him off the walls to fall to his death. You can be open about it in combat. You can cast a spell to summon something that wreaks havoc in the base to distract him or the guards. It takes multiple playthroughs to get tired of it for many. Particularly if you've explored everything and the newly randomized encounters or even set enemies seem new the 2nd or 3rd time because...well you've explored everything and can't remember half of it. (Saw the rest of your section of the post, I just replied and didn't quote the rest because it might confuse me/you).


No it doesn't. You're still going through the same motions with the same dungeon layouts. Going to Embershard Mine won't be a different experience the second time around just like going through Deepwood Redoubt won't be different because it'll still have Forsworn. That's because places like that are locations that can be pegged for the radiant quests which we've gone into. If all it takes is a different weapon for you to not think the same exact layout with the same exact enemy type (with higher gear depending on level) is repetitive and dull then more power to you. But going through the same motions only this time the weapon is a Bound Sword instead of an Elven Sword or stealth archery instead of destruction magic is just re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

Not true. There isn't 'any game' that has those kinds of numbers or statistics. And even taking away mods, it would still be more played than most games out there.


I'm not so sure about that. If your only metric is Steam but there are far more popular and more played games out there. MOBAs, for instance. You can't make this claim because there's no way of tracking this information. And I guarantee that most people playing the game are doing so modded.

And re-releasing it on other platforms let's people play it...because they want to. Because they like it. There are only a handful of games in the world that could claim to be as well sold or as frequently played as Skyrim.


There are ten games that can claim to be as well sold as Skyrim. Well, eleven technically. Seven of them are Nintendo games. The others are multiplatform. Most top selling games are. But amount sold doesn't mean every single copy is still being played nor does it automatically mean quality. Again, some people haven't played it and the re-release of it was largely for Bethesda showing off mods on console. Even Bethesda knows that mods are keeping the game alive. Get back to me in November or at the end of the year if Skyrim Switch rates at the top of the sales charts.

But Halo is constricted by levels (that have no different biomes or random enemies and encounters) and actual static dialogue, with no open ended anything, with even more limited game mechanics that in turn limits the scenarios in which you beat it, and without a myriad of different things an RPG has.


Halo isn't an RPG. But here are just some of the effects you can do to make the campaign different:

-AI become more observant, noticing even active camouflage, shadows, the sound of reloading or drawing a weapon, footsteps, etc. They also have better accuracy and are much less likely to kill themselves or their teammates with explosive weapons.

-Your HUD becomes invisible; you cannot see your weapon, body, shields, ammunition, motion tracker, or use your flashlight.

-All enemies are permanently camouflaged.

-Your shield does not recharge automatically. Your shield only recharges when you kill something with a melee attack with anything but the Energy Sword.

-All enemies are promoted to the highest available ranks.

-Enemies always go berserk, always dive out of the way, and never flee.

All of which are more interesting and game changing than anything Skyrim brings to the table.

However you're saying it's a bad game through reasoning I think you can use for a lot of different things to make them sound bad.


Every game isn't judged on the same merits.

From your entire set of posts, I can tell that you don't find Skyrim immersive, which is what is needed in order to enjoy a game. A lot of people find it very immersive.


Every time I was starting to get immersed, something in the game would take me right back out, be it the repeated inconsequential dialog, the technical issues, or how little anything changed as I progressed. Even Todd Howard agrees there.

I think if you look at our worlds and our environments, they're really rewarding. I think on the character side, how the NPCs react to you is still not quite where we want it to be.

Source
Todd Howard


You have approached Skyrim with an "A+B=C" kind of outlook, when every game can be reduced to that and seem dull. You might be serious and if you don't find it immersive, then that's your right. But a lot of internet trolls use that kind of logic to just shit on a game to be alternative.


I approached Skyrim with optimism and excitement even after being upset with Fallout 3 in a lot of ways. I don't even hate the game. I bought two copies of it, one on Xbox 360 and the other on PC which I have about 330 hours in. Believe me when I say that I'm not just shitting on the game to be some trolling contrarian. I can understand why people like it. I can understand why I enjoyed it back in 2011 and increasingly less so as I played it again over time. I can even understand why I can't bring myself to delete it from my Steam library even though I have no desire to play it ever again.

Skyrim is a fundamentally flawed and broken game that I don't like. It's not all bad. There's good in it and for some people the flaws are either not as readily apparent or are easily overlooked. I'm not those people.

I wouldn't get this fucking deep about a game I hated. But I would get this deep about a game I so, so, so wished was better. Bad games and great games are boring to talk about like this.

I still don't completely understand exactly why we're talking about Bethesda as a whole, but I will say yes. Bethesda brags about things in the same way Fable famously bragged all those years about it's 'freedom/realstic world' gameplay, they leave bugs, and use some gimmicks to distract players. Totally. I really enjoy Bethesda games but I'm not a blind follower of them.


We're talking about Bethesda because I want it all to burn and I just want them to publish DOOM sequels until my eyes bleed and because they're a developer that I feel like gets a free pass on a lot of things i.e. Fallout 4.

Also I've not played No Man's Sky. (Googles). Damn it got a 5/10 on steam, and at best 7/10 everywhere else.


No Man's Sky was an overambitious game from an indie dev that got killed by its own hype. It promised everything and delivered anything but and yet it still has its small bunch of supporters. Like Skyrim, No Man's Sky is all about exploration; unlike Skyrim the exploration is basically all No Man's Sky has and it takes even less to realize how shallow NMS is.

If Skyrim came out today as it did in 2011 I don't think it would get the same praise, especially not in the wake of things like The Witcher 3 or even Dragon Age: Inquisition (which I think is a better game than Skyrim but is still like...not so good).

@YourHeart Any specific pairings or is it like a collective group sort of thing?

Either way I'm kinda interested in stuff maybe I should just PM instead
Which Persona 5 teens tho.
Did someone say woman controlling her husband wink wink nudge
<Snipped quote>
You're literally voicing an opinion to make a discussion or argument. That is what we are doing.


It wasn't an argument until you started disagreeing with my opinions, which I'm now backing up. I wasn't making an opinion to start an argument, I was answering the topic at hand. Snipily, sure, but still. I wasn't giving a straw man because there wasn't an argument or debate going on when I posted initially.

The core fundamental design of the game is the and usually in a game there is a learning curve and a few levels you need to grind through before you're more or less free, but as soon as you leave Helgen you have all of skyrim to explore.


Ah, but that IS the learning curve. It introduces you to all three basic trees of Red, Blue, and Green, you probably get a level up or at the very least close to one which imparts how the level up mechanic works, you get your combat tutorial, and even a lesson in stealth with the bear at the end. It's the same thing with Oblivion's intro except Skyrim is mercifully shorter at the expense of having a far longer scripted section with the cart ride and the dragon shit.

Skyrim is not a deep game mechanically which is why Helgen is all a player needs before they understand literally how everything in the game works except maybe speechcraft. But who the fuck needs that, right?

Sidebar: Really want to break your immersion from the start? When you climb the tower right after you get control and Alduin breaks the tower, just don't move and let him burn you.

Skyrim is open ended on how you can complete those quests. It's not open ended because it gives you quests that no one has ever seen (hence why no one has ever seen them), it's how you do it. Dual wielding spells, using different shouts to your tactical advantage, and random encounters in a huge ass world to find them in.


But again, that doesn't forgive the problem that is the quest design as a whole. Being able to kill a bandit leader in a different way doesn't make the experience any more worthwhile the second or third time around. At some point, killing something with a hammer is no different than killing something with double fireballs if the end result is still the same exact three door spinning puzzle with a claw-like thing. It becomes a game of "Bandit, Vampire, or Mage" when you go into a cave and then "Okay how many draugr will there be here? Probably a dragon shout at the end of this then". When you stumble upon some falmer or dwemer shit it's a welcome change because it's something different - which is why the exploration aspect is the most enjoyable bit, especially for a first time through.

But when you've gone through it multiple times, which I'm sure people have, the more glaring shortcuts appear and the exploration no longer has that same appeal. Which is probably when people start doing roleplay runs or specific builds which, admittedly, does add to the game but should I reward the game for making me want to only engage with a specific or minimal amount of its content?

The fundamental Skyrim experience won't change because you decided to be a mage instead of a sword person. Mods do but this is strictly the game as it exists without enhancements.

However, so as not to get off point, yes. Many of the quests are fetch or kill quests, but as I said earlier that's not in any way, shape, or form calling Skyrim bad. That's like saying "well in Halo all you do is pull the trigger." As I said, that's exaggerating the flaws to make the game seem like it's worse than it truly is, and you could do it with anything.


The quests themselves are not the sole factor in why I think Skyrim is a bad game. They are a contributing factor. And you could say that in Halo all you do is pull the trigger but Halo isn't an RPG nor does it have side quests and thus, in the first trilogy anyway, the moment to moment gameplay is different. And it's a fundamentally different argument anyway since this is about flaws (of which Halo has its share as well). But for the sake of argument, you could say the same about Halo that you defend about Skyrim. It's open ended on how you complete a level. You can choose which weapon(s) to use or turn on modifiers for a different experience or even play it with other people but the fundamental experience won't change on repeat runs through the campaign because you'll still have to play through the god damn Library in Halo 1 and you'll still have to fucking play the fucking Cortana level with the fucking Flood in Halo 3.

Skyrim is a sandbox that doesn't have the decency to fill up the box all the way but still tells you to have fun building your whatevers. Some people get a lot of mileage out of that sand but it's still lacking.

While I can't say you're wrong because it's simply your opinion on it being uninteresting, I can say the numbers disagree with you. The number of players, the fact that it's been on the top 20 most played games of steam every day for the past 6 years, and all of the rewards it has, and the fact its still selling show it is interesting. If you don't find it interesting, just say that and don't call it inherently bad. I think the lore is Bamf and so do many.


It's still selling because Bethesda keeps putting it out on consoles and because it's practically free whenever there's a sale going on on Steam. Number of players isn't an argument for quality the same way that a movie being the top grossing movie of a year doesn't mean it's a good movie. There are people that adore Skyrim. There are people that haven't played it. There are people that think Skyrim is the greatest game ever made and they are allowed to think that just the same as I'm allowed to never really go to them for an opinion on something. There are people for whom Skyrim is a meaningful game for a variety of reasons.

Now substitute Skyrim in the above paragraph for Halo or ANY game and it can likely apply.

How many of those people on Steam are playing Skyrim in its vanilla state? How many of them are playing it with the Requiem overhaul which fundamentally changes the entire game down to the combat mechanics? Skyrim with mods vastly improves the experience. Some people play Skyrim to fuck around with weird ass anime porn mods. How many people are still playing Skyrim on the Xbox 360 or Playstation 3? Just because Skyrim is still getting played doesn't mean it's the same Skyrim from 2011.

I do think Skyrim is uninteresting and that's because Bethesda is better at lore (unless it's Fallout which wasn't even theirs to begin with) than they are at storytelling. I'm allowed to think Skyrim is a bad game and I have my reasons for thinking that. My thinking Skyrim is a bad game because the story is uninteresting, though part of it is because of how little is done with its more interesting parts like the Civil War.

I was simply saying that hit at Bethesda wasn't bringing any merit to the argument when we're talking about the game and not the developer, and if we were, then well, it's good to note that a lot of developers are like that.


It does bring merit because Bethesda style games are basically in their own genre within the larger WRPG genre the same way that 'Ubisoft open world' is basically its own thing that constantly gets derided because it's climbing towers. Bethesda has proven with just its last two releases alone (Fallout 4, Skyrim) that they're less about compelling gameplay experiences and more about giving the idea that there's a lot to do when there actually isn't. Fallout 4's settlement shit is just Skyrim's radiant quests. Skyrim got rid of a lot of the more systems and crafting mechanics of Oblivion which already gutted spell crafting and such compared to Morrowind; Fallout 4 got rid of entire systems to make everything homogeneous and remove player agency. Bethesda pulls the wool over the eyes of the consumer with the promise of open world freedom and then they forget to craft a reason to care about or invest yourself in the world.

They make their games to appeal to as wide an audience as possible and in so doing sacrifice a lot of actual, genuine, true player choice and freedom.

Skyrim is the Bethesda version of No Man's Sky.
There are mods for pretty much all of those. Mods sort of make these games greater than the sum of its parts.
By exaggeration, you're over-blowing the inevitable flaws of the game to make them seem far more crippling than they are, when you could break down any game like that to suit your world view. That's not critical, that's just shit talking, not to mention a straw man fallacy.


It's not shit talking at all. Nor is it a straw man fallacy. You're the one using straw man on my examples here. Straw man occurs in arguments, not from simply voicing an opinion.

You're complaining about things you don't need to do, or things most games are guilty of. You don't need to break the game and ignore everything else and go to the College of Winterhold. You can defeat enemies in a myriad of ways, find random encounters, do quests I enjoy instead of slaying quests, I can go on all day.


I'm complaining about things that are literally core to the fundamental design of the game. Your whole counter point here is "Yeah but you don't HAVE to do that" where my point is that the entire game is built around activities that are not enjoyable to interact with. When the majority of the quests are the fetch quests or the kill X quests, that doesn't refute my claim, it reinforces it since that's what I have issue with in the first place. When the game is advertised as an open world do whatever game and then the do whatever part is shallow, it's an issue with the game.

Almost all games have
<Snipped quote> but then again, no one is making you do those kinds of quests.


Almost all games don't have that but then again the crux here is "Yeah but you don't HAVE to". You should WANT to and Skyrim shines when you don't have it be a guided experience. Except then the shallowness of the game and its design and systems becomes obvious much sooner. The average quest in Skyrim is not memorable because they are shiny distractions that activate the carrot on a stick mentality that is core to Bethesda's design.

If you're not into it, get into the story, explore the cities, there's so much more content and there's so many ways to play the game you don't need to do fetch quests, and honestly all of your points can be boiled down to the above. You don't need to do what you don't want to do, if you want to skip over the gameplay by fast traveling or skip the story part by saying 'lol all I gotta do is this' and you honestly don't care about the world or what is happening, you're going to think it's dull just like in anything.


At some point you have to do SOMETHING, that's the point of a game. What if you're not into the story? Because how could you be when it's badly written and uninteresting? The interesting bits of Skyrim are in its lore which is scattered in books. There isn't that much content that's worth doing. Skyrim deals in quantity but it doesn't have enough quantity to make it a balanced, enjoyable experience. If you're not into the quest, do the story quests which still contain a majority of the type of quest that turns one away from the side content. If you're not into THAT what's left? The combat? Hands down the worst part about the game?

Skipping over the gameplay by fast traveling suggests that the gameplay is the exploration - which is what I said in my first post.

The strong part of Skyrim, which is the strong part of any given Bethesda game, is the big dumb world. Bethesda knows how to make a world that rewards exploration
Me


There is fun to be found in Skyrim, it's just not in the majority of the quests or the guilds which are microcosms of Skyrim's quest issues.

And a lot of your word fluff is about 'the dialogue is static.' You could have just said that, but instead just created a blog on that being your point for much of your initial post. And while it's not tehcnically untrue somewhat, it's also not really a good point, as its such a large game (and dare I say province) that people seeing you as a blacksmith and giving a preprogrammed reaction to it is still immersive if you've traveled across 30 in game miles to another settlement you've visited once in the past, and them not knowing you're Dovahkiin isn't that bad of a thing.


But when you're the Thane of their region and all they do is "Don't cast any spells, magic user" or "Fuck off, elf" it's less immersive. And how immersive is it if you've never been to a place and yet a guard is like "HANDS OFF, THIEF" because your pickpocket skill is high? So they know you're a thief but not the Dragonborn? The world feels incredibly hollow and part of that is how unresponsive it is to the player's actions.

Also many game developers are like that, and it doesn't inherently make Skyrim poorer which is what you're speaking on.


Now who's strawmanning? I didn't say other developers aren't like that. But that doesn't make the claims against Bethesda here any less valid. Skyrim is a functioning dumpster fire of a video game but it's still a dumpster fire. It is a stripped down experience in order to make it more immediately rewarding and less obtuse. Which is fine, it's a good financial decision and makes for a game that is easy to review, but it's like building a house on solid foundation and then using cheap lumber. Or, in the meme sense of the word, it's wide as an ocean but deep as a puddle.

I'm down
© 2007-2017
BBCode Cheatsheet