How come no one but the people of the Codex

[Sigourn]

Like others have said, Morrowind's quests aren't necessarily amazing. But I prefer the way its journal promotes exploring the world, rather than zipping from point A to B.

This, too. In Skyrim, once you have your quest marker it's basically "run straight for it". Meaning you can potentially miss a lot of places unless you decide to use the actual roads. Worst of all is the addition of "fast travel", which encourages players to skip exploration altogether, and an unintended side effect of fast travel is that it can totally break the narrative of quests.

I noticed that after doing the Dark Brotherhood's quest where you have to return to the base and save them from the Penitus Oculatus. With fast travel, you are *poof* right in the base. By using a horse and actually travelling, it feelsl ike you a racing against time, which is much more dramatic than "select destination".

 

[Alkarl]

Like others have said, Morrowind's quests aren't necessarily amazing. But I prefer the way its journal promotes exploring the world, rather than zipping from point A to B.

This, too. In Skyrim, once you have your quest marker it's basically "run straight for it". Meaning you can potentially miss a lot of places unless you decide to use the actual roads. Worst of all is the addition of "fast travel", which encourages players to skip exploration altogether, and an unintended side effect of fast travel is that it can totally break the narrative of quests.

I noticed that after doing the Dark Brotherhood's quest where you have to return to the base and save them from the Penitus Oculatus. With fast travel, you are *poof* right in the base. By using a horse and actually travelling, it feelsl ike you a racing against time, which is much more dramatic than "select destination".

You could even try to argue that playing Skyrim without compass fast travel makes it slightly mo' betta, but I tried that. Skyrims quest journal on its own is all but worthless.

I'll be real though, there were two scenarios in Skyrim, that, imo, were fantastic. One was the fight with the twin dragons on that frozen lake/waterfall thing where they would smash the ice and drag you under.
The second was the dragon in the underground area (TES Underdark?) who only appears if you shout at the big glowy (dragon?)ball in the ceiling.

If Skyrim had focused on more situations like that, it might have been decent. Maybe not good, but at least worth more as a game than it currently is. Unfortunately, these were two COMPLETELY optional engagements, not to mention one of them was intended to be hidden. FFS, Bethesda, always burying the gold and presenting the turd.

 

[Maxwell's Demon]

You would be making sense if this discussion had any goal. But it didn't. It was just some people upset at me liking Skyrim, and the goal of the conversation was always them trying to somehow prove Skyrim is not a fun game.

Why would you even suggest that you possess no intentions of your own, when, as a conscious being, that cannot be true?

 

[Sigourn]

You would be making sense if this discussion had any goal. But it didn't. It was just some people upset at me liking Skyrim, and the goal of the conversation was always them trying to somehow prove Skyrim is not a fun game.

Why would you even suggest that you possess no intentions of your own, when, as a conscious being, that cannot be true?

I didn't start a discussion with a goal. I made one post meant to be taken "as is", nothing else.

 

[buru5]

The intention was clearly "people can have fun with games that you don't have fun with" and I think that's been proven sufficiently enough that this conversation has become completely redundant.

 

[HeatEXTEND]

You would be making sense if this discussion had any goal. But it didn't. It was just some people upset at me liking Skyrim, and the goal of the conversation was always them trying to somehow prove Skyrim is not a fun game.

Dear Lord. The human brain never ceases to amaze me.

 

[Maxwell's Demon]

I didn't start a discussion with a goal. I made one post meant to be taken "as is", nothing else.

So you post compulsively without a conscious understanding of why you do so?

 

[Sigourn]

I didn't start a discussion with a goal. I made one post meant to be taken "as is", nothing else.

So you post compulsively without a conscious understanding of why you do so?

You are not good at reading, it seems. I didn't start a discussion, I posted something to end it. The equivalent of two retards saying "the sky is red!", "no, it's green!" and me arriving and saying "it's blue, end of story".

What happened later was a bunch of retards saying "if you think the sky is blue you must be a moron who can't enjoy red skies".

 

[Maxwell's Demon]

Do you understand that discussions are not living beings and thus cannot have goals by definition?

 

[Sigourn]

Do you understand that discussions are not living beings and thus cannot have goals by definition?

What the fuck are you talking about? When my brother and I start a discussion about which film to see next, we both have a goal: to know which film to see next. The discussion is started with that goal: to decide what to watch.

I feel like I'm surrounded by retards, it's like watching Christians desperately trying to defend their faith.

 

[boot]

why do gaytheist turn every discussion to God? What is wrong with them?

interesting

 

[Sigourn]

interesting

Though I'm agnostic, my example still stands. There's no logic involved in the reasoning of some Codexers, and it's as hurtful as Christianity.

 

[Sykar]

interesting

Though I'm agnostic, my example still stands. There's no logic involved in the reasoning of some Codexers, and it's as hurtful as Christianity.

How?

 

[Sigourn]

How?

I'm being bullied.

 

[Sykar]

Cool.

 

[ColonelTeacup]

Im curious as to the opinions of everyone here, what do you think of the compass feature for quests that was implemented in Elder Scolls: Oblivion? Was the original method in Morrowind of using directions given by npcs and landmarks better to find your quest objective, or is the newer compass mechanic which points you to the location of your current quest superior?

I personally don't like it. In my opinion it detracts from the exploration aspect that the elder scrolls games are supposed to be famous for. Sure, sometimes the directions in Morrowind weren't the best, but you could stumble on other caves/items/etc. along the way, just as a natural side effect of searching.

Worse, Bethesda's journal system has become so sparse that it's now basically, "Kill dragon, check your map to find it dipshit," with very little context for the quest provided. Someone I know, who started with Skyrim, was having trouble completing a quest in Oblivion because the quest marker disappeared for a portion of it. I had to tell him to read the blasted journal entry; since Skyrim doesn't have much of one, he just never looked at it.

The pinnacle of the radiant quest design. "Saev settlemtn!" follow your compass blindly. Finish job, return to base. New random quest, repeat. Like others have said, Morrowind's quests aren't necessarily amazing. But I prefer the way its journal promotes exploring the world, rather than zipping from point A to B.

Indeed. In current iterations of Bethesdas games, the sense of exploration and travelling another world is diminishing. It doesn't help that they are making the maps smaller, while they make the compass the central mechanic to aid quest completion and ignoring journals. I wonder if it's just laziness leading to these shortcuts and simplifications, the hope to appeal to a broader audience or other factors that have caused Bethesda to make such terrible decisions.

 

[Maxwell's Demon]

What the fuck are you talking about? When my brother and I start a discussion about which film to see next, we both have a goal: to know which film to see next. The discussion is started with that goal: to decide what to watch.

This may be a little pedantic, but is it your discussion that is thinking to itself, "I want to know which film we'll watch," or is it you and your brother that are doing the thinking in that example? I know people have a tendency to impute human motives into inanimate objects, but an agnostic should view such language as a sign of unclear thinking or confusion, no?

 

[Sigourn]

This may be a little pedantic, but is it your discussion that is thinking to itself, "I want to know which film we'll watch," or is it you and your brother that are doing the thinking in that example? I know people have a tendency to impute human motives into inanimate objects, but an agnostic should view such language as a sign of unclear thinking or confusion, no?

Clearly it is me and my brother who are doing the thinking. It's just much more faster for me to say "the goal of the discussion" than "the goal of the people having the discussion".

 

[Maxwell's Demon]

Clearly it is me and my brother who are doing the thinking. It's just much more faster for me to say "the goal of the discussion" than "the goal of the people having the discussion".

So now, going back to my original statement:

Emotional platitudes are no more a basis for discussion with other people than are logical tautologies. If we do not rationalize about our experiences and articulate them in a manner that others can understand, we can never relate those experiences to others, and that begs the question, "Why talk of our experiences at all?"

Do you see how your objection,

You would be making sense if this discussion had any goal. But it didn't. It was just some people upset at me liking Skyrim, and the goal of the conversation was always them trying to somehow prove Skyrim is not a fun game.

might be seen as an example of an emotional platitude, or thought-ending cliché, to which I first objected?

 

[Sigourn]

So now, going back to my original statement:

Emotional platitudes are no more a basis for discussion with other people than are logical tautologies. If we do not rationalize about our experiences and articulate them in a manner that others can understand, we can never relate those experiences to others, and that begs the question, "Why talk of our experiences at all?"

Do you see how your objection,

You would be making sense if this discussion had any goal. But it didn't. It was just some people upset at me liking Skyrim, and the goal of the conversation was always them trying to somehow prove Skyrim is not a fun game.

might be seen as an example of an emotional platitude, or thought-ending cliché, to which I first objected?

Care to put it in a simple sentence so I know exactly what the hell am I supposed to answer?

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

I won't lie, those neon lines hurt my eyes. Fortunately there's always the dos version.

Ah, that's better.

And if plain wireframe graphics aren't good enough, the NES port of Wizardry can be emulated with graphics comparable to the DOS Gold Box games:

Wizardry was further ported to the Japanese Super Famicom (though not the SNES):

 

[Maxwell's Demon]

Care to put it in a simple sentence so I know exactly what the hell am I supposed to answer?

Claiming that a discussion is unwarranted because it lacks a goal is an emotional platitude. It is a thought-terminating cliché. It is no more than a pretentious, "I don't like what you're saying, so stop it."

This is a forum that values free discussion. Why should we pay heed your censorial sentiments when you have not articulated them in some generally relatable way (e.g. through reasoned arguments)?

 

[Sigourn]

Claiming that a discussion is unwarranted because it lacks a goal is an emotional platitude. It is a thought-terminating cliché. It is no more than a pretentious, "I don't like what you're saying, so stop it."

This is a forum that values free discussion. Why should we pay heed your censorial sentiments when you have not articulated them in some generally relatable way (e.g. through reasoned arguments)?

If you do not agree that fun is subjective and in no way related to how smart you are, then there's no point in arguing, because I will be unable to convince you you are wrong. It is as obvious as the sky being blue.

Critical thought is only useful when we are having a discussion that demands critical thought. Asking something as stupid as "why do people like games we don't like? are we the retards?" demands a simple answer: people have different opinions, and the casual gamer (no surprise) wants to have fun. That's why he is a casual gamer.

When you ask a question and receive a satisfactory answer, the question is closed, period. It's not "thought-terminating cliché", it's Q&A 101. If my answer doesn't satisfy the Codex, then I'm sorry, but I can't explain in any simpler terms what should be something obvious. Are we about to say scientists are fucking morons because they don't play cRPGs, probably because they don't have fun with videogames, period?

I'm guessing Bill Gates is a fairly retarded person as well, considering he has billions of dollars and instead of funding cRPGs, like any Codexer in his position, he gives the money away to charity. What a casual faggot.

 

[Maxwell's Demon]

Do you believe mental illness exists? If so, on what basis can we criticize the schizophrenic who subjectively experiences persecution from CIA niggers?

 

[buru5]

Do you believe mental illness exists? If so, on what basis can we criticize the schizophrenic who subjectively experiences persecution from CIA niggers?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man