POOHEAD189

How Would You Have Made Skyrim Better?

@Fabricant451

How Would You Have Made Skyrim Better?

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.

Right, but now we are discussing it, and the points made after we started are being used.

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.

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).

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.

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).

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.

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. 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. And even if it has some free to play sometimes, an everyday statistic is far more than can be accounted for that as reasoning.

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.

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.

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.

You're definitely allowed to say it's a bad game. And I definitely agree that Bethesda's lore is better than it's storytelling. I think the same on Game of Thrones/ASOIAF stuff too. Some series are better at lore than getting you through their own adventure. 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.

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

Not saying you are, like I underlined. But that was why I initially said "might have watched too many angry game reviewers" which also didn't inherently mean I completely disagreed with your initial post.

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.

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.

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.

Dragon Age: Oathbreaker

Garlenn Fellblade

Garlenn Fellblade

Male | 38 | Dwarf

Basic Info

^{[ hr]}

Birthplace

Orzammar Merchant District

Appearance

Garlenn is fairly large for a Dwarf, with broad shoulders that frame his trim body. He might still be short by human standards, his eyes level just above their belly button. However, he is nearly a head taller than most Dwarves, with the rugged and muscled body proportions to match. His skin is leathery and scarred in various places, particularly along his apeish arms (Not to mention the ritualistic tattoos of the Legion). If his body didn't tip you off how nasty of a piece of work he his, Garlenn's constant shit eating grin will be the nail in the coffin. His thick head is covered in a truly massive amount of blonde hair, both atop and on his chin, both similarly braided as well.

Background

Born as a casteless Dwarf who grew up in poverty, Garlenn's parents had shamed themselves and had lost their positions as merchants, leaving him in squalor. When he was eight, they decided to flee to the surface to garner a better life for themselves, but traveling through the Deep Roads, Garlenn wandered off and became lost due to an inherent curiosity. Unfortunately, this led to his losing his parents and only finding Orzammar again through sheer luck, essentially leaving him stranded and thought dead by his mother and father.

With no one to take care of him, the Casteless youngster had to fight for every scrap of food or shelter he could get his hands on from an early age, even going so far as to committing murder by the age of sixteen over a lost cache of food. He'd never forget the wet blood on his hands, and the feeling of disgust that it brought him. Worst come to worst...he was a Dwarf. To kill one of his fellow stone dwellers shook him. He needed an out, but he did not know how to get to the surface world.

At first he left the Casteless sections, stealing, exploring the deep roads for abandoned valuable, and trying his hand at dealing under the table with merchants. It was profitable for a time, but after a few years, he felt he was digging himself into a debt hole. Stone curse it, he couldn't maintain such a lifestyle, and on a whim one drunken night, he knew what he was to do.

Garlenn joined the Legion of the Dead, and he and his fellows fought for every inch of ground to regain useage of the Deep Roads. Garlenn was among the most feircesome of fighters in the Legion. For despite his underhanded nature, he found he did value his race and homeland. What's more, Garlenn felt he had a real knack with handling weapons and throwing his weight around in a fight, being far quicker than most would expect as well.

He fought and bled for his people within the Deep Roads, almost seeing it as a way to atone for his criminal acts. Large Darkspawn incursions and pockets of nameless beasts of the deep died by his axe, and the axes of his fellows. He spent nearly a decade in the Deep, and kept it up until there was nary any Dwarves left in his particular group save he and three others after a particularly large and bloody campaign. The Darkspawn in that attack was truly overwhelming, and as he saw an Ogre tear apart one of his dearest friends, he had an epiphany.

When he found out that his luck had him survive, he realized that no one but he would drink to his friend's death. No one would care if he was slain. Yes, that was apart of the responsibility of the Legion, but it was not individual glory he sought. He sought for he and his fellows to be acknowledged at all. Instead they were treated as already deceased. He had felt looked down upon his entire life, and after having served his nation, and seeing what he had seen...now that his pent up energy and anger had been expended in blood lust, he saw it clearly.

Well fuck that. The stone take them all! He'd rather the surface world instead, and since he knew how to traverse the Deep Roads now, so he went, becoming a deserter. He made his way to the surface, and decided to make his living as a mercenary and informant, traveling across Ferelden and Orlais, killing bandits, beasts, and all manner of enemies, finding the Oathbreakers and becoming the resident Darkspawn expert.

Personality

Those not used to the dark aspects of the world might consider Garlenn reprehensible. But to those who've seen the horrors of war and poverty, he's a fine companion and even amusing in his own way. Garlenn is boisterous and quick witted, always ready for a physical or verbal scrap. Killing and stealing is a profitable business for this savvy minded son-of-the-stone, and he does sometimes take pleasure in it, admittedly. However he isn't malevolent, per say. There aren't many cruel acts he commits out of sheer hatred. 'Nothing personal' he'll say. Indeed, the foes he most enjoys slaying are Darkspawn.

Curriculum Vitae

^{[ hr]}

Years served

4 Bloody Years

Profession

Warrior

Modius Operandi

Garlenn will either be on the front lines reaping havoc with his Axe, or behind enemy lines to slit a few throats and break a few necks...before reaping havoc with his Axe.

Skills

• Veteran Blade: Garlenn is good in a fight, using any means necessary to win. Terrain, his bulk, a low blow...
• Skullduggery: Rumors, contact information, underhanded deals, threats, whatever it takes to win.
• Cunning: Garlenn knows how to hold the high ground in a conversation, and can see an opportunity to exploit at every turn.
• Tough Hide: Garlenn should have been killed thrice over, but he's a bit too stubborn to die. He can take a cut and a punch, and fight through a stab if need be.

Important Relations:

• Ragni Gildenhands: An opportunistic Dwarven dignitary that Garlenn holds contact with in the underground of Orlais, helping each other with information on good business opportunities between the surface and the stone without the greater population of Dwarves being burdened with such knowledge of where they get some of their precious goods.
• Marlienne: An Orlesian courtesan making her living in Denirim to wealthy merchants and nobles. Garlenn will sometimes help give her 'work' with contacts from Ragni, and in turn she provides Garlenn with the secrets they spill in bed.
• Galehar Swiftblade: Dalish Elf and former slave, and a known raider of merchant caravans. As long as Garlenn gets a profit and Galehar doesn't get too bloodthrirsty and kill innocents, Garlenn will sometimes provide him with new info on trade routes.

Thoughts:

Feelings on the other members of the group. To be filled in later.

Tools of the Trade

^{[ hr]}

Weapons & Ammunition

• Large BattleAxe
• Long Knife
• 3 throwing daggers.

Clothing & Armor

• Breastplate & Pauldrons
• Belted Tunic and trousers
• Gauntlets
• Combat Boots

Tools & Things

• 6 Lockpicks
• 12 Caultrops
• Grappling hook and 35 ft of rope.
• utility belt

.

Potions & Poultices

• 3 health potions
• 2 fire bombs
• 2 smoke bombs

Ingredients & Rations

• 5 pounds of jerky
• Water jug
• Large 10 OZ. Flask

Bags & Pouches

• Satchel
• 5 interwoven pouches on belt.

Odds and Ends

...

How Would You Have Made Skyrim Better?

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 literally voicing an opinion to make a discussion or argument. That is what we are doing.

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.

The core fundamental design of the game is the

big dumb world

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. 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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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 wasn't straw manning.

an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.

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.

Hider

P.S. I do apologize if I'm seeming like an ass. Sleeping bad lately. Let me know if I'm being too curt.

How Would You Have Made Skyrim Better?

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.

Same with literally all of your points. 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. Almost all games have

side quests boiled down to talk to person A, go to place, kill x or find y or kill x AND find y then report back to person A for a leveled reward

but then again, no one is making you do those kinds of quests. 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.

P.S.
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.

I could go into what makes Skyrim a bad game and why Bethesda are snake oil salesmen but how much time do you have and do you really care.

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

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

How dare

How Would You Have Made Skyrim Better?

I get where you're both coming from, I think the issue is comparing it to older games. Skyrim, in itself, was great. But compared to Morrowind and Oblivion, it kind of lacked. I know they're different stories but it's very much lacking in comparison. The quests are very samey but still fun. Just very similar.

@TheDookieNut

Yeah, Skyrim is like a huge expansion pack. It has a certain theme and isn't as open as the other two games (even if it's still a huge ass world). Oblivion was made to be the pinnacle open world because it was set in the very center province with the most diversity. I've not played Morrowind much, but I've heard it's the best from a few people.

How Would You Have Made Skyrim Better?

Perhaps if these so-called 'angry reviewers' and I have similar points then clearly it's not just pissing in the wind.

@Fabricant451

Well if about 90% of the population disagrees, and your main experience is

I can't speak to the main quests because every time I play Skyrim I wind up installing mods for like five hours then I start a game and get bored right around the time you fight the first dragon and I'm done after like an hour and a half.

then it's probably not gospel.

Look, I've played Skyrim multiple times over long ass hours and points on your post was an exaggeration to say the least, and you used your exaggerated points to prove an overarching exaggerated point.

The various guild quests are poor because you do like five things and suddenly you're the hotshit leader after an hour.

This

In a game that takes pride in letting you "do what you want" the things you wind up doing are remarkably similar.

This, because it depends on your play style.

But side quests boiled down to talk to person A, go to place, kill x or find y or kill x AND find y then report back to person A for a leveled reward

And this for instance.

Though I did explain in my initial post that the 3rd one had some merit, and I agreed, even if it was understandable the game did it that way.

I wasn't trying to call your post shit in general. I was saying that calling it a bad game because you found a lot of it dull yourself when a lot of people didn't, and you provide little in the amount of reasoning that wasn't somewhat exaggerated, had to say it sounded like someone who posts vids on youtube so they can shit on a game.

How Would You Have Made Skyrim Better?

No, because I can form an opinion without yelling and swearing and never making a point in a thirty minute video.

@Fabricant451

I didn't say you were quoting them verbatim. ;)

How Would You Have Made Skyrim Better?

While I think Fabs been listening to too many angry game reviewers, I think they could have done better by keeping a lot of the side quests as diverse as the ones in Oblivion. However, I kind of don't blame them that they didn't because while it has a massive open world with a lot of opportunities, the game is meant to be played like you're an epic Nordic hero. You don't see Beowulf running around and collecting chickens that escaped from a pen or else the Khajiit maid will get fired from her job. You slay shit, which is why there are many dungeon diving, draugr slaying quests.