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.

Elder Scrolls Will the Elder Scrolls 6 have more depth than Morrowind

Can it get worse

  • No

    Votes: 32 12.9%
  • Yes

    Votes: 199 80.2%
  • No but it wont get much better

    Votes: 17 6.9%

  • Total voters
    248

Gerrard

Arcane
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
11,925
You claim Todd made the games dumb on purpose and not because he actually thinks his dumb ideas are cool. You're an idiot, and you would figure that out if you ever watched/read any interview with him and listened to the things he says.
End of discussion.

Do you think appealing to a larger audience on purpose is malicious?
If it dumbs the game down? Yes, it is malicious to me as a player who doesn't go around LARPing a town guard.
 
Last edited:

sys0nar

Educated
Joined
Oct 19, 2020
Messages
72
Location
Australia
If you could choose between:

Millions of dollars to make a mainstream appealing RPG
or
Make a true RPG and go out of buisness

We all know what you'd pick.
 

Avarize

Magister
Joined
Nov 17, 2019
Messages
1,504
Location
Handmaid's Tale
You claim Todd made the games dumb on purpose and not because he actually thinks his dumb ideas are cool. You're an idiot, and you would figure that out if you ever watched/read any interview with him and listened to the things he says.
End of discussion.


If it dumbs the game down? Yes, it is malicious to me as a player who doesn't go around LARPing a town guard.
I think Todd makes games to make money and as such makes games with the broadest possible appeal and he has succeeded in that. And you honestly think he makes dumb games cause he's dumb? Sounds like projection.
 
Joined
Nov 23, 2017
Messages
4,010
Todd could probably produce a great RPG of he wanted to. But he's out to make money, not RPGs.
Hanlon's razor.
Making money for your shareholders is neither malicious nor stupid.
Dumbing a game down on purpose for broader appeal vs dumbing it down because you're dumb.
So when Skyrim made a gazillion dollars more than its predecessors, it happened because Todd was stupid? How does Hanlon's razor apply to Broad appeal vs stupidity anyway? Do you think appealing to a larger audience on purpose is malicious?

Skyrim sold like Skyrim did because they were coming off Fallout 3, (which itself was a massively bigger success than what they previously did) and they actually put some money into marketing...Skyrim was one of the few video games to actually get primetime network tv spots. They could have made that game a RPG, had combat that wasn't shit, (or at least as shit, I'm not sure they're capable of making entirely non-shitty combat) made locations like Morrowind, and generally not have everything so dumbed down and it would've sold just as well.

Most of what seems like Bethesda's broad appeal moves in Skyrim, Fallout 4, and then later in Fallout 76 seem to be things their audience also don't really like, even if they do still more or less like what a Bethesda game allows them to do.
 

MWaser

Arbiter
Joined
Nov 22, 2015
Messages
607
Location
Where you won't find me
Dumbing your game down does have diminishing returns and Bethesda has probably passed that point.
Skyrim does hit that sweetspot for autistic grindy sandbox, that's for sure. It's got that basic gameplay loop of explore->level up->loot->craft->sell to level up all skills and gain direct xp levels from (in a simplified mechanic even compared to the previous TES games), while developing a stable exponential power progression if you make use of smithing+enchanting, and offering all those radiant quests to not let you run short of dungeons. For people who don't look past the greater picture of it, it will be successful attention catcher, working off the same basic psychology as the majority of the most famous mobile games.

"simplifying it for broad appeal" is cutting it short - Skyrim is in many ways deliberately planned to be the way it is, with changes that differ significantly from simple dumbing down. The end results do end up mostly showing off the simplification, sure, but it's not fair to only lay it down to the generic argument of "it's simpler, therefore it's more popular". It's a fallacious interpretation of the Lowest Common Denominator appeal. If Skyrim was already sufficiently simple to broadly hit the target audience of people who like "games where you fight things with swords and magic", dumbing it down further will just reduce the amount of possible things for people to spend time in, therefore be less interesting and shorter-lived.
 

Funposter

Arcane
Joined
Oct 19, 2018
Messages
1,773
Location
Australia
Dumbing your game down does have diminishing returns and Bethesda has probably passed that point.
Skyrim does hit that sweetspot for autistic grindy sandbox, that's for sure. It's got that basic gameplay loop of explore->level up->loot->craft->sell to level up all skills and gain direct xp levels from (in a simplified mechanic even compared to the previous TES games), while developing a stable exponential power progression if you make use of smithing+enchanting, and offering all those radiant quests to not let you run short of dungeons. For people who don't look past the greater picture of it, it will be successful attention catcher, working off the same basic psychology as the majority of the most famous mobile games.

"simplifying it for broad appeal" is cutting it short - Skyrim is in many ways deliberately planned to be the way it is, with changes that differ significantly from simple dumbing down. The end results do end up mostly showing off the simplification, sure, but it's not fair to only lay it down to the generic argument of "it's simpler, therefore it's more popular". It's a fallacious interpretation of the Lowest Common Denominator appeal. If Skyrim was already sufficiently simple to broadly hit the target audience of people who like "games where you fight things with swords and magic", dumbing it down further will just reduce the amount of possible things for people to spend time in, therefore be less interesting and shorter-lived.
Which is what happened with Fallout 4, which sold around 1/3-1/2 of walk Skyrim did.
 

deama

Prophet
Joined
May 13, 2013
Messages
4,352
Location
UK
I heard that elder scrolls 6 is gonna be todd's magnum opus, and he's planning on retiring after making it.
 

Darkwind

Liturgist
Patron
Joined
Aug 1, 2019
Messages
513
Strap Yourselves In Codex Year of the Donut Codex+ Now Streaming! Enjoy the Revolution! Another revolution around the sun that is.
If you could choose between:

Millions of dollars to make a mainstream appealing RPG
or
Make a true RPG and go out of buisness

We all know what you'd pick.

"Forget it Jake, it's the Codex..."

:shitandpiss:
 
Joined
May 19, 2018
Messages
415
Todd could probably produce a great RPG of he wanted to. But he's out to make money, not RPGs.
Hanlon's razor.
Making money for your shareholders is neither malicious nor stupid.
Dumbing a game down on purpose for broader appeal vs dumbing it down because you're dumb.
So when Skyrim made a gazillion dollars more than its predecessors, it happened because Todd was stupid? How does Hanlon's razor apply to Broad appeal vs stupidity anyway? Do you think appealing to a larger audience on purpose is malicious?

You’re getting shittier and shittier games, what do you think?
 

Avarize

Magister
Joined
Nov 17, 2019
Messages
1,504
Location
Handmaid's Tale
Todd could probably produce a great RPG of he wanted to. But he's out to make money, not RPGs.
Hanlon's razor.
Making money for your shareholders is neither malicious nor stupid.
Dumbing a game down on purpose for broader appeal vs dumbing it down because you're dumb.
So when Skyrim made a gazillion dollars more than its predecessors, it happened because Todd was stupid? How does Hanlon's razor apply to Broad appeal vs stupidity anyway? Do you think appealing to a larger audience on purpose is malicious?

You’re getting shittier and shittier games, what do you think?
Ignoring your original audience is not malice, indifference at most.
 

MWaser

Arbiter
Joined
Nov 22, 2015
Messages
607
Location
Where you won't find me
Todd could probably produce a great RPG of he wanted to. But he's out to make money, not RPGs.
Hanlon's razor.
Making money for your shareholders is neither malicious nor stupid.
Dumbing a game down on purpose for broader appeal vs dumbing it down because you're dumb.
So when Skyrim made a gazillion dollars more than its predecessors, it happened because Todd was stupid? How does Hanlon's razor apply to Broad appeal vs stupidity anyway? Do you think appealing to a larger audience on purpose is malicious?
You’re getting shittier and shittier games, what do you think?
I suggest you look up the definition of "malice".
 

ADL

Prophet
Joined
Oct 23, 2017
Messages
3,678
Location
Nantucket
If you could choose between:

Millions of dollars to make a mainstream appealing RPG
or
Make a true RPG and go out of buisness

We all know what you'd pick.
I hear this argument all the time but I genuinely do not believe that an Elder Scrolls game with a reactive world filled with meaningful choices would ultimately be any less successful than Skyrim. What does a mechanic like spellcrafting and an optional journal so I'm not forced to follow the quest arrow take away from casuals?

Every time this sort of thing is discussed, I think about dreamboy and how much better these games would be with elements that take absolutely fucking nothing away from the casuals they're supposedly dumbing down these games for. It'd still be dumbed down shit but at least you'd have a decent foundation to build upon for modding purposes.
 

Krivol

Magister
Joined
Apr 21, 2012
Messages
1,951
Location
Potatoland aka Prussia
I genuinely do not believe that an Elder Scrolls game with a reactive world filled with meaningful choices would ultimately be any less successful than Skyrim.

Less successful - maybe not. More expensive - yes!

AAA developers usually are sticking with templates. Why risk and spend a lot of money and effort on something deep, if what people want is runnig hills with naked sword.
 

Avarize

Magister
Joined
Nov 17, 2019
Messages
1,504
Location
Handmaid's Tale
Retards will still be buying TES 6 cosmetics made by modders ten years after release. Endless user generated DLC and microtransactions.
 

Verylittlefishes

Sacro Bosco
Patron
Joined
Sep 14, 2019
Messages
4,731
Location
Oneoropolis
I’m 100% confident someone in a Bethesda board meeting has already suggested they drop the Elder Scrolls name entirely and just call the next game Skyrim 2.

Well, yes, nobody remember Morrowind anyway, their target audience was born the year it was released.
 

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