Skyrim is worse than Oblivion in every way

[DeepOcean]

But Dark Souls plot is too weird and intangible for my taste, the world is weirdly claustrophobic, the exploration is not very satisfying and most locations are samey and rather boring. Itemization and character development is bad in both games methinks. Also Dark Souls are way more combat focused, not much of a NPC interaction or world reactivity or c&c or magic variety, in fact it's more of an ARPG than anything else. Skyrim, however badly designed and dumbed down and ridden with consolitis, is still much more epic (in the literal sense), expansive and closer to the traditional CRPGs of old.

Skyrim: 1)Talk with NPC,2)choose between the 2-3 lines of dialogue disponible(no C&C, no meaningful use of dialogue skills for the most part) 3)Survive horrible/bland dialogue, 4) go kill shit, 5)after killing thousands of Draugr in the same linear dungeon, making the left button on the mouse to suffer in the process, you get a rusty iron helmet at the end 6)Sell rusty iron helmet, 7) Repeat. The only mod Dark Souls needs is the one that unlock the resolution, Skyrim needs mods to change everything in the game to be playable in the long run.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Well I'm glad that we're establishing that lore doesn't matter but to be honest what lore is there to begin with?

If we are talking about the "Elder Scrolls" lore, I'm sorry but for 20 years of games they have shit all to show for it (magical prophesy saves the day over and over again, nothing is explained ever).

DraQ

 

[DeepOcean]

No. But that still does not explain why Call of Duty is a supposedly a better game.

I'm not defending Skyrim. What I meant is that Skyrim, at the very least, has the lore going for it, while I do not know what Call of Duty or Assassin's Creed (Modern Warfare 3 and Revelations respectively, no less) do. That is all.

But it's better to go about ranting about 2011 shitposting for the sake of being edgy, if that's "your" forum.

Well I'm glad that we're establishing that lore doesn't matter but to be honest what lore is there to begin with?

If we are talking about the "Elder Scrolls" lore, I'm sorry but for 20 years of games they have shit all to show for it (magical prophesy saves the day over and over again, nothing is explained ever). If we talking specifically about skyrim then what? There is dragons who magically come back and instead of breathing fire they speak the "word" fire. Sorry but if you read even one fantasy book a year you are going to see that idea used often. There is nothing interesting about skyrim or it's people, some place at the end of the world where all the flatmates and wildlife are trying to kill each other 24/7.

The interesting lore was created during Daggerfall/Morrowind, the provinces weren't to be this bland and the dragons a side thing. This shit about dragons became the main focus after Oblivion, stay away from any book mentioning dragons and read Dance with Fire , The Real Berenziah, The Wolf Queen, Mystery over Telara they are standard fantasy but well written fantasy. Nowdays, bethesda don't have a writer worth of shit.

 

[Dreaad]

Never did play daggerfall so can't comment. Morrowind had some interesting stuff going for it sure, at least the atmosphere of that game was intriguing. Maybe if bethesda kept their stories located in exotic environments I could be bothered playing their games, maybe that cat place...

 

[Turjan]

I wonder whether there's any fantasy series that comes even close to the background of the TES universe. But that was best handled in Morrowind, made awfully bland in Oblivion, and then finally raped in Skyrim. The nice thing about Morrowind was that it worked on so many levels. You could see it as a bland fantasy story if you didn't pay attention, and as something very fascinating if you bothered to look more closely.

... maybe that cat place...

But yeah, not everything is gold. The proper name for "that cat place" wins one of the top positions in a competition for "most groanworthy place name in a fantasy game".

 

[Wyrmlord]

This thread is still going on?

Skyrim is about to turn two years old. It's almost ancient history.

By still talking about this game, you guys are excessively lionizing it to levels of some grand classic or something. And I say this as someone who liked the game.

 

[Broseph]

Well, to the outside world it pretty much is a classic. It sold like 12 million copies and I still hear people talking about it from time to time.

To be fair though, this is pretty much a general Elder Scrolls/Bethesda discussion thread at this point.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Skyrim is about to turn two years old. It's almost ancient history.

An expansion / DLC was released on February, and there's the inevitable GOTY ALL YEARS version still coming.

 

[cvv]

So you're saying that Skyrim is overall worse and more consolized but it's closer to old CRPGs because it's bigger and lets you talk to more people, and DS is good "for a console game" even though it's not as "consolized" as Skyrim.

Basically? Yeah.

For a game that was originally a console exclusive, DS is strangely PC-like. And for a game that was once a major PC title, Skyrim is twisted with consolitis now.
But DS in its core is still an ARPG experience, with no lore, no real plot, limited NPC interaction, no world reactivity, no C&C, no quest structure and limited magic system.
For a traditional old-fashioned RPG lover like me, Skyrim is a better choice, although a traditional old-fashioned RPG lover wouldn't probably spend much time with either of those games and go play Gothic or Risen for the nth time.

 

[Xavin]

Sorry but if you read even one fantasy book a year you are going to see that idea used often.

Nope. Bilbo Baggins was a total sceptic IIRC and, even at the end, never really believed in the prophecy. Also, Tolkien did not describe the dwarves as heroic, and the Battle of Five Armies did not have a traditional "glorious" end, which IIRC is supposed to be a reflection of society's changing views of the nature of war beginning with WWI; something that Tolkien has had firsthand experience with.

On top of that, there are plenty of fantasy novels who either avoid that completely, subvert it, deconstruct it, lampshade it, etc.; all of which makes their stories more interesting. Hell, there's no prophecy in fucking Dark Elf Trilogy, and no saving of the world. But then again, it is also a personal story, just like DA2.

The point of all this is that I've got options when it comes to fantasy novels, and you are underestimating the level to which Morrowind played with the prophecy trope.

Andyman, I'm never going to finish either Baldur's Gate game because of the FR setting. The FR lore is not even a Tolkien clone. It clones the fantastical elements of Tolkien's work, injects them with magical steroids, and strips them of any sort of "depth" or "meaning." That might not be a big issue for video games, except that I simply have no interest in playing an FR game. Super Mario Bros. and Pokemon are not games to be played for their deep stories, but Mushroom Kingdom and all five Pokemon islands appeal to me far more than FR. A game has to be interesting for me to like it, and Baldur's Gate is not as interesting to me as console games for kids, nor is it as interesting to me as any other storyfag WRPG from 1996 to 2004. And yes, even Dragon Age is better from my perspective. On some level, the "lore" of a game must mean something. Oh, and I'm a casual gamer if no one could tell by now.

 

[Turjan]

This thread is still going on?

Skyrim is about to turn two years old. It's almost ancient history.

You seem to have missed that "Skyrim Legendary Edition" has just been announced for June 4 a few days ago, I guess. Which means it's in the news just now.

 

[Andyman Messiah]

Andyman, I'm never going to finish either Baldur's Gate game because of the FR setting. The FR lore is not even a Tolkien clone. It clones the fantastical elements of Tolkien's work, injects them with magical steroids, and strips them of any sort of "depth" or "meaning." That might not be a big issue for video games, except that I simply have no interest in playing an FR game. Super Mario Bros. and Pokemon are not games to be played for their deep stories, but Mushroom Kingdom and all five Pokemon islands appeal to me far more than FR. A game has to be interesting for me to like it, and Baldur's Gate is not as interesting to me as console games for kids, nor is it as interesting to me as any other storyfag WRPG from 1996 to 2004. And yes, even Dragon Age is better from my perspective. On some level, the "lore" of a game must mean something. Oh, and I'm a casual gamer if no one could tell by now.

Yes, you can dislike a game because of its setting. But hopefully you can still see that it's a finely crafted *game*. Because it is a good game and neither its lore nor its setting can take that away from it. It doesn't matter. Its lore and setting is entirely inconsequential and nothing you ever need to think about while playing the game. You don't *need* to think about the lore to play the game and enjoy it and if you're held back by it then that is on you entirely. Btw, I'm a casual gamer too. Although this has more to do with how rarely it is for a "non-casual" game to not suck balls these days. Mario is always fun to play and it has (I should probably say) minimal amounts of lore.

I'm curious as to why you enjoy Dragon Age's lore more than Forgotten Realms. I don't actually know much about FR but to me it has always looked like a mix-up of different influences, with everything from Tolkien obviously being the dominant ingredient to things like eastern mythology. Meanwhile Dragon Age is basically just the Sword Coast as seen through an (extremely light) Game of Thrones filter. So I don't know.

 

[IDtenT]

You don't *need* to think about the lore to play the game and enjoy it and if you're held back by it then that is on you entirely.

I can say the same for sound, graphics, design or gameplay.

 

[Andyman Messiah]

You don't *need* to think about the lore to play the game and enjoy it and if you're held back by it then that is on you entirely.

I can say the same for sound, graphics, design or gameplay.

You really can't. Graphics and sound plays a huge part, where some graphics appeal to a certain crowd and alienates another. And sound design - not just music and voice acting, but atmospheric sounds too can really make the game something extra special. System Shock 2 I think, just to name one example, wouldn't have been even nearly as good a game and a definite classic if it hadn't been for its excellent sound design.

And gameplay? Well, that is a *requirement*! Without good gameplay, you have nothing! You're out of your goddamn mind. Ten points from South Africa!

 

[IDtenT]

You don't *need* to think about the lore to play the game and enjoy it and if you're held back by it then that is on you entirely.

I can say the same for sound, graphics, design or gameplay.

You really can't. Graphics and sound plays a huge part, where some graphics appeal to a certain crowd and alienates another. And sound design - not just music and voice acting, but atmospheric sounds too can really make the game something extra special. System Shock 2 I think, just to name one example, wouldn't have been even nearly as good a game and a definite classic if it hadn't been for its excellent sound design.

And gameplay? Well, that is a *requirement*! Without good gameplay, you have nothing! You're out of your goddamn mind. Ten points from South Africa!

You still choose to be held back by graphics, sound, design or gameplay (just like lore). I never said gameplay is non-existent. I'm saying it's trivial (not needing to be thought about). Lots of people out there who enjoy shitty games, with no graphics, with no sound, limited design and gameplay. Just look at the 80s.

 

[Andyman Messiah]

You don't *need* to think about the lore to play the game and enjoy it and if you're held back by it then that is on you entirely.

I can say the same for sound, graphics, design or gameplay.

You really can't. Graphics and sound plays a huge part, where some graphics appeal to a certain crowd and alienates another. And sound design - not just music and voice acting, but atmospheric sounds too can really make the game something extra special. System Shock 2 I think, just to name one example, wouldn't have been even nearly as good a game and a definite classic if it hadn't been for its excellent sound design.

And gameplay? Well, that is a *requirement*! Without good gameplay, you have nothing! You're out of your goddamn mind. Ten points from South Africa!

You still choose to be held back by graphics, sound, design or gameplay (just like lore).

Well, you can be held back by anything, really, and that's fine, but to be held back by lore is just silly.

I never said gameplay is non-existent. I'm saying it's trivial (not needing to be thought about). Lots of people out there who enjoy shitty games, with no graphics, with no sound, limited design and gameplay. Just look at the 80s.

You don't need to think about it but it's not trivial. Matter of fact, I think the less you think about it the better the game is. Good gameplay should feel like putting on a glove. An invisible glove.

Btw I'm always looking at the 80s. I live in Sweden and we're still getting 1980s entertainment from the US over here.

 

[IDtenT]

You don't *need* to think about the lore to play the game and enjoy it and if you're held back by it then that is on you entirely.

I can say the same for sound, graphics, design or gameplay.

You really can't. Graphics and sound plays a huge part, where some graphics appeal to a certain crowd and alienates another. And sound design - not just music and voice acting, but atmospheric sounds too can really make the game something extra special. System Shock 2 I think, just to name one example, wouldn't have been even nearly as good a game and a definite classic if it hadn't been for its excellent sound design.

And gameplay? Well, that is a *requirement*! Without good gameplay, you have nothing! You're out of your goddamn mind. Ten points from South Africa!

You still choose to be held back by graphics, sound, design or gameplay (just like lore).

Well, you can be held back by anything, really, and that's fine, but to be held back by lore is just silly.

Which is just your opinion, which is why I said I could (I wouldn't, but I could) say the same about the rest.

I never said gameplay is non-existent. I'm saying it's trivial (not needing to be thought about). Lots of people out there who enjoy shitty games, with no graphics, with no sound, limited design and gameplay. Just look at the 80s.

You don't need to think about it but it's not trivial. Matter of fact, I think the less you think about it the better the game is. Good gameplay should feel like putting on a glove. An invisible glove.

Btw I'm always looking at the 80s. I live in Sweden and we're still getting 1980s entertainment from the US over here.

I remember enjoying a maze game in my younger days. No gameplay apart from movement. No graphics apart from walls. Minimal if any sound. No interesting design other than a random maze algorithm. The most involved part would be drawing your movements on some graph paper, if you were so inclined. More importantly than all of that, I liked it.

 

[Andyman Messiah]

You don't *need* to think about the lore to play the game and enjoy it and if you're held back by it then that is on you entirely.

I can say the same for sound, graphics, design or gameplay.

You really can't. Graphics and sound plays a huge part, where some graphics appeal to a certain crowd and alienates another. And sound design - not just music and voice acting, but atmospheric sounds too can really make the game something extra special. System Shock 2 I think, just to name one example, wouldn't have been even nearly as good a game and a definite classic if it hadn't been for its excellent sound design.

And gameplay? Well, that is a *requirement*! Without good gameplay, you have nothing! You're out of your goddamn mind. Ten points from South Africa!

You still choose to be held back by graphics, sound, design or gameplay (just like lore).

Well, you can be held back by anything, really, and that's fine, but to be held back by lore is just silly.

Which is just your opinion, which is why I said I could (I wouldn't, but I could) say the same about the rest.

Everything I write is my opinion. It's up to you if you want to agree with it or not. If you ask me it'd be stupid not to but it's a free world, so hey.

I never said gameplay is non-existent. I'm saying it's trivial (not needing to be thought about). Lots of people out there who enjoy shitty games, with no graphics, with no sound, limited design and gameplay. Just look at the 80s.

You don't need to think about it but it's not trivial. Matter of fact, I think the less you think about it the better the game is. Good gameplay should feel like putting on a glove. An invisible glove.

I remember enjoying a maze game in my younger days. No gameplay apart from movement. No graphics apart from walls. Minimal if any sound. No interesting design other than a random maze algorithm. The most involved part would be drawing your movements on some graph paper, if you were so inclined. More importantly than all of that, I liked it.

See, I consider that to be part of gameplay. I too loved drawing maps on papers. I remember I had this sketch book my mom gave to me so I could pursue my artistic dreams or some horseshit like that and I just drew maps in the whole damn thing. It really sucked me into the game, made me feel present, IMMERSED I suppose we'd call it. Yeah, to me that's a part of the gameplay. It felt like a natural part of how you were supposed to play those games.

 

[Mangoose]

If a game challenges you to perform an action, that's gameplay.

 

[DragoFireheart]

If a game challenges you to perform an action, that's gameplay.

So if a game challenges me to snap the disc in half and throw it out because it's a shit Bioware game, that's gameplay?

 

[Declinator]

You don't *need* to think about the lore to play the game and enjoy it and if you're held back by it then that is on you entirely.

I can say the same for sound, graphics, design or gameplay.

But you can completely avoid lore but the same certainly cannot be said of graphics, sound, or gameplay. You could theoretically play a game with your eyes closed and speakers turned off...but let's face it that would be almost impossible and gameplay would still be totally unavoidable. Whereas with lore one can simply avoid reading what doesn't need to be read although some of it would still seep through in-game dialogue etc.

 

[DraQ]

Snip

Again, why the fuck would you ever think of buying a version of TES game that doesn't support mods?
With modern TES it's like fucking buying a car that doesn't support fucking brakes.
You don't fucking buy a car that cannot into braking because you can't afford a proper one.

Ok, it's a bit harsh for Skyrim as it at least can be actually played in vanilla form, but you couldn't have known this after oblivious.

While none of the games I listed are actually games I like, but Skyrim is just such a shoddy game in absolutely every department that it's easy to make it the lowest point on the "video game quality" chart. Skyrim's graphics, sound and general design are all so horribly broken or executed so poorly that you can basically put any horrible fucking game next to it and still see that Skyrim is a much worse product. Oblivion was a far better product. I fucking hated Oblivion. The state of Skyrim does not make sense considering its budget of 85 million dollar, not even if two thirds of it went to pay for reviews, billboards and Max von Sydow. Skyrim is a shit game.

So you would say that:

In terms of visual design this

(giant green dildo) looks better than this

For reference - MW counterpart:

Spoiler

Those

look superior to those:

Some MW characters for reference:

Spoiler

Hmm, so maybe environments?

VS

(CBA to seek MW references anymore)

In terms of less visual aspects, Skyrim has less aggressive level scaling and doesn't equip every single enemy with daedric and glass at high levels. I guess it's bad. Skyrim has actual hidden stuff (randomized in vanilla, but since not everything becomes daedric at high level extra opportunities ot pick up loot are welcome). Skyrim has actual reactivity - you can have thugs sent after you if you wrong someone, you can be challenged to a magic duel if your magic skills are high, etc. Skyrim has unified wielding system and lats you do stuff like blowing people off high places in combat.
Skyrim has follower system that allows you to recruit help and for example have an NPC tanking while you cast.
Despite dumbing down skyrim at least has some addtions to magic system - runes, concentration spells, necromancy requiring corpses, etc.
Skyrim has some mariginal C&C - civil war, many daedric quests, some side quests, flavour dialogue if you belong to two different factions, some stuff playing out differently depending on quest order - it's not much, but still massive improvement over OB.
Skyrim has descriptive direction available in a handful of quests.
Skyrim has lycanthropy.
As of now, Skyrim might have extremely derpy horses, but at least they are useful AND you can fight from them.
Skyrim tries to stick to the lore or at least address discrepancies, Oblivion had books in it describing Cyrodiil as jungle yet ignored this information in its world design - that's an entire new level of shitting over your own lore.

The only things that are worse in Skyrim are:
-UI (seriously, it's on par with fucking Holocaust in terms of general badness)
-Lack of attributes
-No mysticism skill
-No item wear

Every single thing other than those is about infinity times better in Skyrim than in Oblivious (though more often than not inferior to what was present in older parts of the series).

I'm not counting spellmaker here for a reason, because it already served limited purpose in Oblivious since the effects didn't apply sequentially. Counting attributes was already a bit of stretch because it's Oblivion that made them redundant in the first place.

So, tl;dr:
You're defective, report to the nearest glue factory for recycling.

It would be like saying that Morrowind is utterly unplayable and unworthy of attention because of clunky controls and animations and outdated graphics, or something like that.

Except Morrowind has fully rebindable controls and forces no GFWL on you.

I was genuinely interested in DS port, but when I learned that it's so shoddily done that you can't even change the resolution and have to install some malware shit in order to play it I just Jay Wilson'd it.

If we are talking about the "Elder Scrolls" lore, I'm sorry but for 20 years of games they have shit all to show for it (magical prophesy saves the day over and over again, nothing is explained ever).

Can you even fucking read?

Anyway, in case you can, unlikely at it might seem:
http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?threads/morrowind-as-above-so-below.41296/
http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?threads/morrowind-is-just-a-plain-bad-game.68072/page-4
http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/inde...do-people-like-morrowind-so-much.76548/page-7

Read those and play the fucking earlier parts of the series (no, Oblivion doesn't count, neither does Arena because there was barely any lore established at the time and everything was a shitty D&D knockoff).
No wiki, guides or any form of online help, obviously.

Then we *may* talk.

Also, I kind of have no patience for long-winded tirades right now, so:
Sceptic
JarlFrank
Skittles
Unorus Janco

 

[DragoFireheart]

Did DraQ just defend Skyrim?

 

[DraQ]

Did DraQ just defend Skyrim?

Yes, I defend Skyrim.

It's the very definition of "good for what it is" and "mods have fixed it".
It's inexcusably dumbed down when compared to Morrowind and vastly inferior to it, but still infinitely superior to Oblivion.
It's also enjoyable enough on its own to justify fixing it with the right mods, becoming much more enjoyable after you do, and I'm just not hypocritical enough to shit on stuff I do enjoy.

I expected it to be utter shit like Oblivion, some time after release I non-removed it from an inventory for sake of sheer bile fascination. I found out that while it is dumbed down in many aspects, it's also a clear upwards trend from Oblivion in all the others and I consider trends I want to continue worth me paying the price of a game so I made an informed purchase.

 

[Manjuice Nutella]

It would be like saying that Morrowind is utterly unplayable and unworthy of attention because of clunky controls and animations and outdated graphics, or something like that.

Except Morrowind has fully rebindable controls and forces no GFWL on you.

Neither did my version of Dark Souls.



(I'm speaking theoretically, of course. But if I had the money, I would buy it seven times.)

EDIT: Controls are freely rebindable in Dark Souls as well. I rebinded almost every action with no problem.

I was genuinely interested in DS port, but when I learned that it's so shoddily done that you can't even change the resolution and have to install some malware shit in order to play it I just Jay Wilson'd it.

It is, but not to a degree that would justify crossing out the game as a whole. There's a DSFix mod that apparently fixes a lot of technical issues that could be of potential trouble (I don't use it myself, though)

Of course it's up to you, and something that is not an issue for me may be for you, but since you're all for improving the game with mods (and you can easily walk around the DRM unless you're against cracked anything anywhere) give it a try. You're missing out on an excellent game.