Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Skyrim - Bethesda, you should be very, very proud.

Joined
May 6, 2009
Messages
1,875,975
Location
Glass Fields, Ruins of Old Iran
Vault Dweller said:
Clockwork Knight said:
The game obviously intends you to gradually level your skills, but Bethesda has the sloppiest playtesting ever and most likely no one noticed you could sit on your ass and mass produce iron daggers until you are motherfucking Hephaestus
You don't need playtesting to figure it out, do you?

Well, allow me to illustrate my point

6PtQE.jpg
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,024
halflingbarbarian said:
1) Puzzles with answer right in front of you on walls: It's not just you, I've seen another post mention it. If you have went to more than 1 dungeon with the murals on the walls before the door with the keyhole for a claw, you will notice that the order of the murals are the same, it's just a design of that cell. If you managed to solve the puzzle using the murals on the wall, it means that the solution for that particular puzzle happened to coincide with the order of the default murals. The real and only method of finding the answer for the keyhole animal symbol puzzle consistently, for all those types of doors, is to rotate the claw key in your inventory and look at its 'palm'. The repetition of the same model for a puzzle etc. is another discussion.
I was talking about the "you have 3 rotating stones with 3 different pictures on them, and you need to set the right combination to unlock the door, and you have the right pictures up on the wall in this very chamber, so all you have to look up and reproduce them" design.

As for the claws, the idea (to require a key with a solution on it) is ok, but the implementation is shit, since the key is either already there and you just need to kill the guy who has it, or it will be given to you shortly.

Some tavern owner asked me to look into the restless dead problem in a crypt nearby. I "fixed" the problem, found the door that needs a claw, without the claw in sight. I thanked Bethesda for being thoughtful enough not to give me the key right away. Then I talked to the tavern owner and he thanked me for my trouble by giving me the claw.

:rage:

Highest level-scaled casters on Master difficulty can bring down a two-hander easily (assuming the lack of other outstanding abilities, which should be the case since you are talking about two-handed damage in particular).
They are the only ones that are hard to kill. The undead priests guarding the dragons are much, much tougher than dragons. Unfortunately, hard to kill means having to drink potions. I daresay that as long as you have enough potions you can kill just about anything at any level.

Since money isn't an issue, and potions are easy to find (and you don't need them most of the time), it's not an issue at all. Cooking food works just as well, btw, but takes more space.

And your math on two-handed damage disproportionately outstripping one-handed MAY be right...
I don't think I gave you any math on two handed vs one handed. You're probably confusing me with someone else.

Therefore, again, I am asking what your level is, and what difficulty you play on, for you to feel that two-handers are OP. Because my suggestion is that if you really feel it is OP, but want to play a 2-hand wielder without that feeling of cheating, get on Master, because that OPness fades away real quick as HP bloat piles on.
Level 31, on Expert, crafted elven 2-hander (84 damage) with 15 health points drain enchantment, 80 points in two-handed.

Get on Master? Why? Expert (i.e. Hard) isn't good enough? I don't think that HP bloat and damage reduction can make combat harder. They can only make it tedious. It simply takes longer to kill things, which means that you have to carry more potions or cooked food. Simple as that.

True challenge requires design depth and options. Moar! HP isn't a substitute for depth.

Good combat design always revolved around having to hit things and gaining temporary to hit advantage and/ore lowering your opponent's to hit chance via spells and abilities. This - not the extra damage and more HP - made these systems successful.

Without the to-hit chance the Oblivion/Skyrim combat system is nothing but cheap popamole. The only thing that could have made it work is the Die by the Sword combat system:

"Another innovation that added significant complexity and possibility to the game was the ability to target, and eliminate specific body parts. A well-placed swing to the head can in some cases decapitate an opponent. Strong blows to the arms and legs can sever limbs, leaving the opponent with reduced mobility, or in the case of the sword arm, no way to inflict damage.

This system adds an element of tactics to melee combat. It encourages multiple hits to a specific region on the body, thereby slowly dismembering the opponent, and reducing his effectiveness. Delicate locations such as the head and neck, while difficult to strike, offer a quick conclusion to those with the appropriate finesse."

For the record, I didn't say that I feel like cheating playing with a two-hander. At first, the difficulty felt right, but as my weapon skill and perks bumped up the damage (crafting didn't help either), the game became very easy. Maybe I'll have no choice but to follow your advice and play on Master simply because killing things in 1-2 hits isn't much fun. Still, good game design it's not and that's my point.
 

Gord

Arcane
Joined
Feb 16, 2011
Messages
7,049
Serious (as in, I'm not attempting to troll you) question VD, how would you prevent this from happening:

Game has constant difficulty level:
Everything is scaled to your level! It's shit!

Game gets easier as hero grows stronger:
Game is too easy, it's shit!
 

Elwro

Arcane
Joined
Dec 29, 2002
Messages
11,746
Location
Krakow, Poland
Divinity: Original Sin Wasteland 2
Risen somehow managed not to have this problem. Having a pretty stable difficulty level does NOT entail level scaling.
 

abija

Prophet
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
2,893
Get on Master? Why? Expert (i.e. Hard) isn't good enough? I don't think that HP bloat and damage reduction can make combat harder. They can only make it tedious. It simply takes longer to kill things, which means that you have to carry more potions or cooked food. Simple as that.
On master hp bloat is the least of your problems as a melee character. Just go ahead, make a 2h war (or 1h + shield) on master and play it from start without a broken companion tank and see how "popamole" it is and what's the real issue, their hp being too high or you getting blown up.
Getting to a random level, switching to master and hitting a couple of monsters doesn't give you a real idea of the difficulty. Start a new char and play without trying to exploit, at least with warrior variations is not popamole at all and the way stats interact with the real time combat is pretty well done.
 

Xi

Arcane
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
6,101
Location
Twilight Zone
abija said:
On master hp bloat is the least of your problems as a melee character. Just go ahead, make a 2h war (or 1h + shield) on master and play it from start without a broken companion tank and see how "popamole" it is and what's the real issue, their hp being too high or you getting blown up.
Getting to a random level, switching to master and hitting a couple of monsters doesn't give you a real idea of the difficulty. Start a new char and play without trying to exploit, at least with warrior variations is not popamole at all and the way stats interact with the real time combat is pretty well done.

I believe the entire point of the difficulty settings is to balance out the game when using the exploits. It requires you to exploit the gaming systems to win. Not doing so will result in lots of headache and frustration for sure. Are you that masochistic? I sure am not.
 
Joined
Aug 24, 2009
Messages
489
Location
Singapore
@VD

I agree that many of the underlying mechanics in Skyrim is primitive, and I was just worked up by that other Skyway thing in that other Skyrim thread about level-scaled damage, and when I saw your post I was reading -

VD: Two-handed is OUTRIGHT OP AND BROKEN.
VD: Puzzles are not puzzles lul.

So I was only trying to disprove those parts in an objective manner, devoid of the larger context of Skyrim's weaknesses. My bad on picking on the details in your post. When you read the trolling on the Codex it's funny, but when you are actually participating in a thread and trolls appear in close proximity it's really hard not to fall for their tricks.
 
Joined
May 6, 2009
Messages
1,875,975
Location
Glass Fields, Ruins of Old Iran
Gord said:
Serious (as in, I'm not attempting to troll you) question VD, how would you prevent this from happening:

Game has constant difficulty level:
Everything is scaled to your level! It's shit!

Game gets easier as hero grows stronger:
Game is too easy, it's shit!

I think people aren't opposed to constant difficulty level as long as it consists of new challenges showing up as you level, instead of just making everything stronger along with you. As in, by the endgame you'll be fighting endgame enemies, not goblins that can now kill an elephant in one hit and thugs that have better equipment that the Emperor but still rob people on the road for $100.
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,024
Gord said:
Serious (as in, I'm not attempting to troll you) question VD, how would you prevent this from happening:

Game has constant difficulty level:
Everything is scaled to your level! It's shit!

Game gets easier as hero grows stronger:
Game is too easy, it's shit!
Personally, I hate level scaling. It's a dumb gimmick designed to make games easy (compare the start of the game to Gothic 2 where they give you a soap, put you in a prison's shower, and say "no matter what happens, don't drop that soap! you hear me, boy? hold it tight!")

As for game getting easier as you go, it's all about how you design it.

To put it simply, if your combat worthiness is X when you start the game and you're expected to reach X+10 level, then you populate the gameworld with X+12 levels of enemies and design the game in a way that X is normal, X+2 is challenging, X+5 is "you better run, boy". Then the game's progression isn't random but has a point - to get you to the level where you can take on more dangerous prey.

Again, take a look at Gothic 2. Some areas get safer, but they are plenty of areas that remain hard. So, the goal is to spread the challenge around and to keep some challenge in reserve. For example, letting you kill a dragon in the beginning was dumb because a) it cheapens the whole dealio, and b) sets up the precedent. Now, the dragons are nothing. Instead of making you watch the skies and running like a bitch and hiding under a rock, you start the game as a dragon pnwer. Instead of making some areas and places highly dangerous, they let you go everywhere instantly, courtesy of level scaling.
 

abija

Prophet
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
2,893
I believe the entire point of the difficulty settings is to balance out the game when using the exploits. It requires you to exploit the gaming systems to win. Not doing so will result in lots of headache and frustration for sure. Are you that masochistic? I sure am not.
You mean instead of actually trying to figure out the combat system just dismiss it then exploit because it's not worth it.
And yeah, to my surprise the melee combat in Skyrim actually makes sense and the "stats" fit decently well with the real time combat. But probably standard reflex is to turn it into some kiting bullshit or spam click and lower difficulty until it works.
 

Gerrard

Arcane
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
11,928
There's nothing to figure out in Skyrim's combat "system".

It's just shit.
 

Lgrayman

Novice
Joined
Feb 27, 2009
Messages
29
You're level 31, VD? I played quite a bit of it and only got to level 26 before I stopped. I'm very surprised that you have played that much of it if you dislike the game so much. Why? Not that I disagree... I too am playing using a two-handed build and have crafted the best armour and weapons (daedric) and pretty much everything dies in one or two hits, and dragons are nothing but a nuisance.

You seem to be saying that it's stupid for Bethesda to assume you'd build your character in a certain way and try to balance the game for that (such as expecting you to put points into Barbarian and as a result balance the game for you having double damage)... isn't this similar to how in AoD you have expected people to build their characters in a very certain way and if they don't, their character will be bad and fail horribly? Playing the combat demo, it was very easy indeed to fuck up - putting my newly-acquired 10 skill points erroneously into critical strike instead of dodge before a battle could mean the difference between victory and utter failure. Now Bethesda may have not done a good job balancing it for this, but you seem to take issue with the very concept of them assuming you'd build your character in a particular way.
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,024
Lgrayman said:
You're level 31, VD? I played quite a bit of it and only got to level 26 before I stopped.
I admit that I crafted a lot of iron daggers and paid to raise other skills. I wanted to try the game with one handed and block at some point, and paid the trainers to increase them.

I'm very surprised that you have played that much of it if you dislike the game so much. Why?
I don't dislike the game "so much", whatever that means. Like most games, it has some good qualities and some bad qualities, although the bad qualities are starting to be more and more annoying.

Besides, I'm curious to see what Bethesda did there. Playing games is always a good way to see what worked and what didn't, to see the connection between various elements, and how one thing affects (or breaks) the other. Basically, you play and build up a "this is how I would have done it" sandbox mockup in your mind.

You seem to be saying that it's stupid for Bethesda to assume you'd build your character in a certain way and try to balance the game for that (such as expecting you to put points into Barbarian and as a result balance the game for you having double damage)... isn't this similar to how in AoD you have expected people to build their characters in a very certain way and if they don't, their character will be bad and fail horribly?

Playing the combat demo, it was very easy indeed to fuck up - putting my newly-acquired 10 skill points erroneously into critical strike instead of dodge before a battle could mean the difference between win and utter failure. Now Bethesda may have not done a good job balancing it for this, but you seem to take issue with the very concept of them assuming you'd build your character in a particular way.
There is a difference.

First and foremost, you can beat the demo with different skills (including CS) and weapons, so it is more or less balanced. It requires different strategies, but that's to be expected. Quite often we were sent save files from people who were stuck. Changing weapons, armor, and tactics was usually enough to win.

When you decide to raise CS in the demo, you trade some of your to-hit or dodge/block for a chance to cause extra damage. You take a risk by lowering your defense, hoping that you'd kill your opponents faster and won't need to rely on blocking/dodging that much.

In Skyrim, the choice not to increase the damage isn't really balanced by anything. Thus, I agree that it's an illusion of choice, like many Skyrim's perks (like "Picking up Novice locks is easier with this perk!" which is a useless perk you simply must waste a point on to unlock more useless perks to get to 1-2 that can be useful.

While a lot of people seem to like the Skyrim perks and think that they are creating unique characters like never before, I don't think this concept works very well in a TES game. Most perks are simply not necessary, especially since they go on top of crafting, alchemy, enchanting, and in-game mechanics like higher skills - higher damage.

Removing the stat tweak perks (extra damage, less casting cost, easier locks, more armor, etc) would have made the game more stable (balance-wise). Anything worth having like hammers ignoring armor and critical chance should have been handled via crafting and enchanting, making them less plain. So far crafting lets you make an item and then improve its main stat. Why not let you do more like increasing critical chance, reducing weight, etc? Anyway...

Second, yes, it's easy to fuck up while you're trying to come up with different strategies, but that too is to be expected. At least, I think that figuring out how the system works and failing a lot at first is fun. It's what makes winning battles meaningful.

Third, the effect of 10 points is relatively minor. You can afford to experiment. Casually increasing damage by up to 100% (a lot more if you consider crafting) is anything but minor.
 
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
4,338
Location
Bureaukratistan
Smithing is broken? And it seemed like worthless to me, why not spend perks on being able to make stuff I'll find anyway. Creating hundreds of daggers to boost it just sounds like a boring waste of time. If I wanted to grind I would play a Wizardry game.

The HP attrition combat is the main broken thing here, or rather, really not though out that well. In any given game I usually think - what are my options? If my best option is to chip away at the HP pool using cheap tactics, well that's just been done a million times already and it's tired and boring. Some combat strategy, take a few shots and retreat, then do it again, and again...

Though you're not actually required to kill that many opponents, you could as well avoid them and increase your swordery by hitting chickens and stupid villagers. But that's not fun, I don't play RPG's to hold w.
 

Lgrayman

Novice
Joined
Feb 27, 2009
Messages
29
I don't dislike the game "so much", whatever that means. Like most games, it has some good qualities and some bad qualities, although the bad qualities are starting to be more and more annoying.

Didn't you create a thread where you literally said 'Skyrim is shit'? Maybe you were joking, but it seems to pretty much reflect what you've said about it.

There is a difference.

First and foremost, you can beat the demo with different skills (including CS) and weapons, so it is more or less balanced. It requires different strategies, but that's to be expected. Quite often we were sent save files from people who were stuck. Changing weapons, armor, and tactics was usually enough to win.

Well I'm sure it's possible to beat Skyrim by choosing various different perks. The most effective method by far in the combat demo to me seemed to be picking a weapon skill and either dodge or block. Mixing it up and also putting some points in critical hit etc seemed to be much, much less effective. I'm sure it's possible to defeat it like that but it definitely seemed less than optimal. You've said before that you want people be able to fail, you want people to be punished for making a bad character, and I agree - you shouldn't be able to just randomly select what you put points into and still expect to do well at all times. In the full version of AoD I imagine it'll be much easier to screw up. Been focusing a little too much on speech or lore and haven't specialised quite enough as you've spread your points too thin between dodge, a weapon skill and critical strike? Too bad, you won't be getting through this combat encounter. I just don't really see how it's that much different from Bethesda expecting you to put points into things like Barbarian.

When you decide to raise CS in the demo, you trade some of your to-hit or dodge/block for a chance to cause extra damage. You take a risk by lowering your defense, hoping that you'd kill your opponents faster and won't need to rely on blocking/dodging that much.

In Skyrim, the choice not to increase the damage isn't really balanced by anything.

Well it is sort of balanced in the same way. If you put a point into Barbarian for extra damage, you can't yet put it into heavy armour for extra damage resistance or less stagger, etc.

Third, the effect of 10 points is relatively minor. You can afford to experiment. Casually increasing damage by up to 100% (a lot more if you consider crafting) is anything but minor.

1 point isn't that major either though in Skyrim. To get 100% increased damage takes quite some time, 5 perks placed in Barbarian which you won't get access to until, well, I still didn't have access to rank 5 of it at level 26, so quite some time.
 

DraQ

Arcane
Joined
Oct 24, 2007
Messages
32,828
Location
Chrząszczyżewoszyce, powiat Łękołody
Vault Dweller said:
For example, they fixed Destruction magic exploit by requiring a target.
The only way to fix a use based system is to tie XP gain to difficulty of the task. The only way to make difficulty of the task a meaningful concept is to introduce failure.

So no, not really.

Twinfalls said:
a vast improvement in game mechanics on Morrowind.
You've got to be fucking trolling me.
:what:
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,024
Lgrayman said:
I don't dislike the game "so much", whatever that means. Like most games, it has some good qualities and some bad qualities, although the bad qualities are starting to be more and more annoying.

Didn't you create a thread where you literally said 'Skyrim is shit'?
It did it for the lulz, which is why the thread was promptly moved to a more appropriate forum.

Well I'm sure it's possible to beat Skyrim by choosing various different perks. The most effective method by far in the combat demo to me seemed to be picking a weapon skill and either dodge or block. Mixing it up and also putting some points in critical hit etc seemed to be much, much less effective.
I disagree. It's a matter of opinion, obviously, but a recent conversation on our forums suggests that your understanding of some mechanics, especially related to CS, is somewhat limited:

A week ago: "I just tried what you suggested and did it on my first try. Nice one. I don't know why, but I neglected aimed attacks and just assumed normal/power/fast/whirlwind attacks would be the only ones worth using. Definitely not the case, as I have had to learn the hard way.. thanks."

You've said before that you want people be able to fail, you want people to be punished for making a bad character...
... which isn't the case with Skyrim. With 3 stats, strong focus on combat, and a handful of skills it's impossible to fail.

In the full version of AoD I imagine it'll be much easier to screw up. Been focusing a little too much on speech or lore and haven't specialised quite enough as you've spread your points too thin between dodge, a weapon skill and critical strike? Too bad, you won't be getting through this combat encounter. I just don't really see how it's that much different from Bethesda expecting you to put points into things like Barbarian.
You're talking about two different things here. Failing due to making a poorly thought through character vs balance issues resulting from being to double and triple the damage without any real cost.

Well it is sort of balanced in the same way. If you put a point into Barbarian for extra damage, you can't yet put it into heavy armour for extra damage resistance or less stagger, etc.
Not how it works.

damage = weapon stat * armor_modifier where armor_modifier is 1/(1+armor/100)

So, if your enemy is wacking you with 50 points of damage per hit and you're wearing armor adding up to 80, then you get 50*1/(1+0.8) =27.78. Fuck this shit, you say, and take the armor perk increasing your armor by 20% to 96. Whoa, that's some serious armor increase, aint it? Let's take a look:

50*1/(1+0.96) = 25.51. If your health is 100 points, you're dead in 4 hits no matter how you look at it. The 20% damage increase is a much better investment.

1 point isn't that major either though in Skyrim. To get 100% increased damage takes quite some time, 5 perks placed in Barbarian which you won't get access to until, well, I still didn't have access to rank 5 of it at level 26, so quite some time.
You don't have all 5, but surely you have enough to put 4 points there?
 

Twinfalls

Erudite
Joined
Jan 4, 2005
Messages
3,903
VD, there's a misunderstanding of why I'm praising this game, and there's a double-standard in the lens through which you're viewing Skyrim. I'll try to explain:

Vault Dweller said:
Fluff? Crafting and enchanting? There is nothing LARPy about crafting your own gear (Arcanum? Gothic? ToEE?), but much like any other feature it has to done right - balanced, thought through, fit the sandbox gameplay model.

For that very reason in Skyrim it amounts to fluff. It's a game-breaker, so treat it as such. I agree it's done badly, exactly as you've described.

Suggesting not to use two fairly large gameplay elements is a sure sign that the game is broken. What's next? A guide how to enjoy Skyrim? Don't use these skills, don't use these gear, don't do these quests, don't use shouts?

No. Just smithing/crafting. I haven't found any other skills/gear to be game-breaking. I'm level 21 using a mace/shield, and a summon Fire Atronarch spell handy. This combination made me invincible in Oblivion well before L 21. In Skyrim it most certainly does not. After I left the Elven party night, a frost troll made short work of my summon and I could only escape after taking all the potions I had (and dying a couple of times). Which left a dragon to deal with shortly after, from which I eventually fled. Without ranged attacks I was near powerless, and so decided I'd better learn some archery.

Perhaps I'm just a casual gamer now. Or I've got lucky and chosen the only skills which don't make me uber. But I certainly didn't craft a hundred daggers.

[dungeons] "lack Daggerfall's complexity, interactivity, and non-linearity."

Here's the nub of it. You're taking the best aspects of Daggerfall, and the worst aspects of Skyrim. You're then comparing both and saying 'major fail'. Daggerfall's dungeon "complexity, interactivity, and non-linearity" came along with massive repetition and nowhere near the variety of Skyrim's. Daggerfall's quests, dialogue and cities were randomised rinse-repeats. Great in its day. Different to Skyrim at the very least.

You're ignoring the other major aspect I've tried to explain:

Daggerfall had a tremendous number of variables which gave a great set of permutations in a 3D rogue-like. They were well-calibrated, by and large (but in no way perfect). This is what you like about it.

There's a whole bunch of other people like myself that liked what Daggerfall brought around that gameplay. The TES world, its lore, its design, its backstories and politics. The fantasy aspect. Morrowind brought this to life superbly, but failed as a game for its chucking out Daggerfall's variables and for its general plain clunkiness. Oblivion had neither - absolutely nothing going for it.
Skyrim has brought back the fine mileu of Daggerfall and Morrowind. As you said:

the world is well developed and mature, the quests are mostly silly.

Let's go back to Daggerfall's dungeons. Enormous, sinuous. And procedurally generated, endlessly repetitive. What purpose did they originally serve? How can we believe they fit into a fantasy world that's more than just decoration? Yes, you've outlined the shortcomings of Skyrim's dungeon believability (poor loot in final chests, easy solutions to puzzles). But make an absolute comparison with Daggerfall if you're going to be fair. Again:

the world is well developed and mature, the quests are mostly silly.

Are you still comparing apples with apples and being consistent here? Are the quests in Skyrim really more 'silly' than Daggerfall? Both served mainly to get you out into combat and come back. The quests I've played so far in the MQ, Imperial Legion, and sundries are better than Daggerfalls, apples to apples.

Maybe it's the extra details that create the disconnect and make the comparison with less detailed, more generic Oblivion dungeons unfavorable, because in the end the have the same dumb purpose - they house monsters to kill and loot to plunder.

And Daggerfall's didn't?

...and a vast improvement in game mechanics on Morrowind.
For instance?

Quests. I'm not asked to fetch mushrooms for the Mages any more. I'm told to get out and do stuff. And it's OK if that's going to a dungeon and finding something. That's what it always was in Daggerfall, remember?

Combat. Combat in Morrowind is clunky and awful. It was backwards even on a physical action level from Daggerfall's mouse strokes. Skyrim's is leagues better. To-hit rolls are more than made up for in the variety of actions (staggers, active blocking, perk shots), and the improvement in scaling (yes, it seems to me Skyrim has less scaling than Morrowind. Someone with the numbers prove me wrong please). I was attacked by bandits on a stone bridge high above a river. My shout knocked the chief (the toughest one) back and with a follow-up sword blow he staggered further and fell off the bridge. I then managed (just) to kill the other two behind him (it's a narrow bridge - entirely believable as it's superbly designed and rendered), and was ready to move further on - only to find myself struck from behind and killed. The bandit chief had fallen into the river, swum out, climbed back up and two-handed me from behind.

That shit never happened in Morrowind.
 

Teepo

Scholar
Joined
Jun 24, 2011
Messages
892
You gain exp from enchanting weapons? I thought you were supposed to sacrifice exp for enchanting... Is Bethesdea not thinking when they design these things?

I find it funny that people are saying "Just don't exploit the mechanic, gosh why do you have to exploit everything."

How is the player supposed to know he's even being exploitative of the mechanics or doing exactly what Beth intended?

Clearly they made a mistake somewhere, it might've been not making the system finite, or maybe it was rewarding players with experience after they create something that should not give them exp.
 

Twinfalls

Erudite
Joined
Jan 4, 2005
Messages
3,903
Just one more comment on why I think this game deserves high praise, despite all the flaws (and flaws have always been in Bethesda games, right from the start):

It's the context.

Stand out at the top of Dragonsreach in Whiterun. Look out at the gorgeous town below you, the vast and beautiful world all around. There's exploration, treasure, danger, ancient secrets, gods, men and women, their struggles, battles, honour, love. TES has been kept alive in 2011.

Who else managed this with a Golden Age game-world? (I don't like the word 'franchise' in gaming). Might and Magic? Wizardry? Ultima?

It's a fucking hard business climate in games out there, and it's no surprise there's easy stuff in Skyrim given there's real people's money invested in this thing. Yet Todd Howard managed to do what Garriott could not. Who else did it? Skyrim's in many respects a better game than Dragon Age 1. And what of that series, where's it gone? Where's Bioware gone since Baldur's gate?
 

Jasede

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Jan 4, 2005
Messages
24,793
Insert Title Here RPG Wokedex Codex Year of the Donut I'm very into cock and ball torture
It probably doesn't help Twinfall's case to have someone like me agree with one of my favorite posters, but for what's it worth I really enjoy Skyrim and get strong, very strong Daggerfall vibes from it.

Cheers.
 
Joined
May 6, 2009
Messages
1,875,975
Location
Glass Fields, Ruins of Old Iran
Teepo said:
You gain exp from enchanting weapons? I thought you were supposed to sacrifice exp for enchanting... Is Bethesdea not thinking when they design these things?

:retarded: : Why is the game punishing me? I thought enchanting was a good thing!

4641070557_a938670b70_o.jpg
: But enchantment is good thing!

:retarded: : Bioware does what Bethesdon't!
 

Twinfalls

Erudite
Joined
Jan 4, 2005
Messages
3,903
Jasede said:
It probably doesn't help Twinfall's case to have someone like me agree

Why would you say that? You're one of the most knowledgeable posters on RPGs this board's ever seen.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom