Elder Scrolls The Elder Scrolls VI - officially announced but you'll have to wait

[ADL]

Don't care where it's set. Just remember, they turned Cyrodiil into generic Tolkien fantasy forest with Oblivion and turned Skyrim into something not interesting at all and if they subvert expectations, it will almost certainly be for the worse.

 

[a cut of domestic sheep prime]

I think the reason why TES has such a big appeal is because of the sandbox-esque nature, fully interactable world and a decent balance of scale and detail. It doesn't have much competition.

No, you've got it completely wrong.

ES has shitty detail, shitty interaction, horrible balance, terrible scale and completely fails in the detail department. Witcher 3 outclasses it in almost every way.

But it's tabula rasa. A blank slate.

ES games have a shit story, shit character development and (now that it's been in Emil and co's hands for years) a shit world.

This is perfect though because autists love being able to project their fantasies and it's difficult to do that if the world or is characters are too developed.

TES provide such a blank slate. And not just in gameplay, but with mod-ability as well.

There's very few companies who are designing games without much of a story or characters to go with it. Even fewer are making the game as modable as Bethesda does.

And the worst part is I think even Bethesa doesn't understand this. They just suck at their jobs and are lazy.

They keep the creation kit because it's part of their engine and workflow, not for mods only. It would mean an expensive new engine and retraining their staff to switch to something else. In fact, they've risked destroying their mod community repeatedly by trying to implement paid mods.

They are literally succeeding because they are lazy and have poor imaginations.

 

[Loostreaks]

TES has appeal because of escapism...it lets it's audience daydream of living inside a fantasy world and you being a center of it. With Sims, you play as "puppet master", with MMO's there is no immersion. RPG mechanics act as "flavor" to more immerse yourself into your character, even if they prove meaningless in the end ( as Howard abhores any player challenge/obstacles). Closest they will ever get when it comes to competition is Cyberpunk 2077 ( even with more ( defined) character driven narrative).
For this, it's silly to hope they will get it ( Redguards/Hammerfell) right. Their goal with Skyrim was to emulate "feel" of R.E Howard's world and they failed miserably at it. ( similar to Oblivion).

 

[Metro]

TES games are just fun shallow/mindless dungeon crawling. Nothing more.

 

[PorkyThePaladin]

Never understood why Bethesda games get called sandboxes. A sandbox must have interesting gameplay mechanics. Dwarf Fortress is a great sandbox. So is 7 Days to Die or Empyrion. What the hell is so interesting to play around with in Skyrim?

I feel like people use the term "sandbox" in the context of Bethesda games to mean a game where you can go anywhere and casually do whatever.

 

[Shadenuat]

TES is fun because you can climb that mountain

 

[theSavant]

The distance view sucked though. Everything looked artificial. Skyrim was no better than Oblivion in this case.
That's probably one thing they can fix with a new graphics engine. I'm actually pretty sure they'll fix that, because the TES6 teaser showed much more detailed and realistic distance view.

 

[ADL]

The distance view sucked though. Everything looked artificial. Skyrim was no better than Oblivion in this case.
That's probably one thing they can fix with a new graphics engine. I'm actually pretty sure they'll fix that, because the TES6 teaser showed much more detailed and realistic distance view.

Fallout 76 already did that and it's such an improvement it makes me angry that they didn't wait to do Cyrodiil.

 

[rolandz_Baton_PROD]

TES games are just fun shallow/mindless porn mods. Nothing more.

FTFY

 

[DalekFlay]

But now? It makes no sense. Open world games are doing better than ever. Since 2015, there have been legitimately amazing open world games released at a regular clip. Witcher 3 redefined open world storytelling and presentation, Breath of the Wild did the same for exploration and world interaction, Kingdom Come introduced a fresh historical take also presenting an impressive amount of in-depth systems, and ELEX was a return to form for old school legends Piranha Bytes. Each of these is getting either a sequel, or the open world game from the same studio. There is also Red Dead Redemption 2, which I haven't played yet, but seems to be at least better than a typical Bethesda game from reviews. And if you absolutely must have mindless open world carousing, the last two Assassin's Creed games are more fun than any Bethesda product. And you better believe they have the next one in works, possibly Viking themed.

Most of the games you listed are third-person and not terribly PC focused, which is one major difference. Witcher 3 is even more hand-holding than Skyrim, which is saying something. Skyrim is far from perfect with a lot of dumb shit in it and simplified stuff, but I don't think many of your examples are any better in those areas really. Breath of the Wild (a console exclusive, many Codexers are PC only) is less hand-holdy at least, but not exactly difficult or complicated. Piranha Bytes' games are probably the most old-school PC focused of your list and even those have taken a large dive compared to the classics.

If you "never liked Bethesda's games" including the good ones like Morrowind and New Vegas then of course you're not going to like the not as good ones. You just don't get along with their vibe, which is fine. I'm not a big Baldur's Gate guy, people are different.

 

[PorkyThePaladin]

I don't get these arguments. Console exclusives? I played BotW on the PC, there are these things called emulators.

Third person vs first person? What's the difference? Good games are good games, who cares if it's first person or third person?

Witcher 3 had more handholding when it came to exploration, but it was a lot more mature and interesting in the other areas. These excuses for Bethesda's shittiness are just mind-bending.

 

[DalekFlay]

Third person vs first person? What's the difference? Good games are good games, who cares if it's first person or third person?

There's a pretty big difference, especially when you play with keyboard and mouse. Not saying everyone prefers first-person with a mouse, but I bet most do. Witcher 2 and 3 controlled fine, but it's not the same.

Witcher 3 had more handholding when it came to exploration, but it was a lot more mature and interesting in the other areas. These excuses for Bethesda's shittiness are just mind-bending.

Guessing you're pretty story-focused as that's the only thing with a hint of what you're talking about in Witcher 3. That's fine, but people don't play Bethesda games for story. They play them for sandbox exploration and mucking around with mechanics. They're actually extremely different games and it's "mind-bending" to me that you're comparing them.

 

[PorkyThePaladin]

There are no mechanics to muck about with. We are talking about games where the combat involves left mouse button spamming or sniping stuff from miles away where it cannot respond (everyone's favorite stealth archer build which is THE ONLY way to even play these games, because melee combat is so bad). Games where there is no real AI other than that weird shit Oblivion NPCs would do when no one was watching. Games where there's barely any world reactivity.

By comparison, even Witcher 3, which admittedly was rather weak in the gameplay area, had more interesting mechanics, such as a deeper combat system, climbing, signs (setting stuff on fire, bursting through weak walls, mind controlling), the card game.

 

[theSavant]

Third person vs first person? What's the difference? Good games are good games, who cares if it's first person or third person?

I care. I find 3rd person awkward.

 

[Stokowski]

But with 1st person you can't watch your butt!

 

[DalekFlay]

There are no mechanics to muck about with. We are talking about games where the combat involves left mouse button spamming or sniping stuff from miles away where it cannot respond (everyone's favorite stealth archer build which is THE ONLY way to even play these games, because melee combat is so bad). Games where there is no real AI other than that weird shit Oblivion NPCs would do when no one was watching. Games where there's barely any world reactivity.

By comparison, even Witcher 3, which admittedly was rather weak in the gameplay area, had more interesting mechanics, such as a deeper combat system, climbing, signs (setting stuff on fire, bursting through weak walls, mind controlling), the card game.

All I did in TW2 and 3 was roll and hit mouse button to slash. I think I used the shield spell here and there in hard fights. That's about it. I'm not saying Skyrim has deep combat either, but the Witcher sequels aren't any better, and yes Skyrim has a pretty good stealth archer mechanic, which is how I played the game on my full playthrough. In any event I'm not saying Skyrim is amazing or anything, I'm saying it's not really any more shallow or whatever than your "BUT YOU COULD BE PLAYING THESE CLASSUCKS!" examples.

 

[Falksi]

There are no mechanics to muck about with. We are talking about games where the combat involves left mouse button spamming or sniping stuff from miles away where it cannot respond (everyone's favorite stealth archer build which is THE ONLY way to even play these games, because melee combat is so bad). Games where there is no real AI other than that weird shit Oblivion NPCs would do when no one was watching. Games where there's barely any world reactivity.

By comparison, even Witcher 3, which admittedly was rather weak in the gameplay area, had more interesting mechanics, such as a deeper combat system, climbing, signs (setting stuff on fire, bursting through weak walls, mind controlling), the card game.

All I did in TW2 and 3 was roll and hit mouse button to slash. I think I used the shield spell here and there in hard fights. That's about it. I'm not saying Skyrim has deep combat either, but the Witcher sequels aren't any better, and yes Skyrim has a pretty good stealth archer mechanic, which is how I played the game on my full playthrough. In any event I'm not saying Skyrim is amazing or anything, I'm saying it's not really any more shallow or whatever than your "BUT YOU COULD BE PLAYING THESE CLASSUCKS!" examples.

I actually played TW3 literally with my eyes shut on Deathmarch. It was so stupidly easy & repetitive, that the challenge I gave myself was to play each fight with closed eyes, and you could beat most none-boss enemies with the same dodge-attack-attack-attack-dodge combo (apart from those way better ones introduced in the expansion packs)

Combat in TW2 was better IMO.

 

[PorkyThePaladin]

All I did in TW2 and 3 was roll and hit mouse button to slash. I think I used the shield spell here and there in hard fights. That's about it. I'm not saying Skyrim has deep combat either, but the Witcher sequels aren't any better, and yes Skyrim has a pretty good stealth archer mechanic, which is how I played the game on my full playthrough. In any event I'm not saying Skyrim is amazing or anything, I'm saying it's not really any more shallow or whatever than your "BUT YOU COULD BE PLAYING THESE CLASSUCKS!" examples.

Not sure why you are bringing Witcher 2 into this, as we are discussing open world games, but the combat in Witcher 3 is waaaay deeper than in Skyrim. You actually have to time your best defensive moves (dodges, rolls or counters) unlike Skyrim, where you can hold up block indefinitely, and enemies will still hit into it and be staggered. There are also different kinds of defenses, for different situations, for example dodge is great against monsters, counter works against most humans, rolls is good against larger enemies. Enemies will sometimes defend, so at times you can't just spam attacks. There is also horseback combat. So please don't compare it to the clickfest that is Skyrim.

 

[DalekFlay]

If you say so. All I did was roll to evade and then roll back and spam mouse 1 and I beat everything just fine, no thought put into at all. Witcher 3 is a storybook with barely any real gameplay.

 

[Funposter]

All I did was roll to evade

Rolling doesn't have i-frames like dodging, so enemies like wolves will eat you apart on higher difficulties. The problem is that on higher difficulties, there's no stratagy involving Signs - you should just always have Quen active, and be ready to activate it again once it breaks. There's an alternate version of The Witcher 3 where the use of all its systems (different defensive options, signs creating more dynamic combat environments and interactions) is actually optimal, but the game never presents that to you. Instead it's either hilariously easy, or you're playing on Death March.

 

[HarveyBirdman]

All of your are wrong.

To those saying the Witcher 3 combat is terrible: welcome to the world of video games. The only games with good combat in the history of video games are fighting games, everything by From Software, Devil May Cry, and Battlefield Bad Company 2's multiplayer. So get off your high horses. And before you say "muh Jagged Alliance," RTS and turn-based combat aren't combat -- they're chess with different rules.

Death March is the only way to play TW3, and it comes close to working properly.

Geralt isn't a god. He's relatively weak. His mutations make him strong enough to block an attack without breaking his arm, fast enough to barely dodge a few drowners, and fast-metabolizing enough to heal injuries quickly and ingest potions. In other words, his mutations give him a fighting chance, while his knowledge of strengths and weaknesses give him the edge. Death March gets this right.
Conversely, Death March fails to get Geralt v. human combat right. Humans shouldn't be able to block Geralt's attacks so consistently, nor should they be able to stun him off their own blocks; they should've been like children to him in terms of speed and strength.

When monsters hit Geralt in Death March, they do significant damage. Most combat encounters are trash mobs. They attack variably. You're going to get hit (that is, unless you play a cheesy constant kiting gameplay style, but that trivializes the combat in pretty much every game ever made, so it's hardly a criticism). Frankly, I call bullshit on you Falksi. There's no way you survived similarly leveled average combat encounters on Death March with your eyes closed. I bet you were over-leveled, or only fighting 1-3 monsters at a time, OR just fighting humans, which are much more predictable despite their miraculous blocking/stunning abilities. Or perhaps you just rolled incredibly far away, attacked once, rinsed and repeated; i.e. you kited, which is, again, hardly a playstyle that validly detracts from combat mechanics.

I've played with different skill allotments and had very different experiences. Going melee-focused is straightforward and pretty easy. Going spellsword is a dynamic and fun mixture of charging straight ahead, and managing stamina/adrenaline resources to cast spells at the right times. Going magic-focused is pretty much impossibly difficult against harder bosses. Going alchemy-focused ends up feeling like a supercharged jack of all trades for a limited time, and then like a pussycat once your toxicity fucks you. Could the AI be better? Yes, but it's not utter trash. Otherwise, the combat is plenty acceptable.

I agree that Witcher 2 had slightly better combat, but would hardly say TW3 is bad. It's definitely better than all the Ubisoft shit (and its clones) that people hold up as the gold standard for hand-to-hand, story-driven video game combat.

***

Skyrim's combat is generally bottom tier in every respect... except for archery, which is probably the most satisfying archery-focused gameplay I've ever experienced. Granted, they still have a lot of room to improve on that front, but there really isn't any other show in town for first-person archery combat.
Daggerfall otherwise has the best TES combat (and it's still terrible).

 

[Quillon]

All of your are wrong.

Fuck you!

 

[DalekFlay]

Rolling doesn't have i-frames like dodging, so enemies like wolves will eat you apart on higher difficulties. The problem is that on higher difficulties, there's no stratagy involving Signs - you should just always have Quen active, and be ready to activate it again once it breaks. There's an alternate version of The Witcher 3 where the use of all its systems (different defensive options, signs creating more dynamic combat environments and interactions) is actually optimal, but the game never presents that to you. Instead it's either hilariously easy, or you're playing on Death March.

I don't remember what difficulty I played on, but it was higher than normal and I had no trouble just rolling and spamming attack. Also to be clear I'm not saying Witcher 3 has uniquely poor combat or anything, I'm just saying attacking Bethesda's games for having shit combat and then praising The Wither 3's makes no sense. They're both a whatever in a game about other things (exploration and faffing about in Bethesda's case, story in Witcher's).

 

[Funposter]

everything by From Software

oh yeah dude murakumo is great fun

 

[Kruno]

TES has the same appeal as Cenk from The Young Turks fondling your mum's vag. in front of the entire family during dinner.