Skyrim - The Remedy For An Overly-Connected Age

[DArtagnan]

You've touched on something that I've been hesitant to bring into the thread - the fact that, despite it's moniker, Skyrim plays a lot like a well-executed single player MMO (the trending variety that I despise). Except, a quality [traditional] MMO will be superior longterm for the social element and challenges only overcome with friends.

Certainly, if you prefer inferior player development, exploration, immersion, freeform open world gameplay, character flexibility, story presentation, quest variety and so on.

I'd say ESO is a very good game, but not because it does a lot of things better than Skyrim, but because it allows people to share such an experience in a somewhat lesser form - and because it introduces competitive gameplay in the same landscape.

Games like EverQuest barely had any content beyond a vast empty landscape with hollow dungeons and endless mobs to grind, and that's the kind of game you apparently prefer. I guess the social element was enough to sustain your interest, but the point is precisely to demonstrate that people are different - and sometimes it takes the experience and the right mindset to appreciate the qualities of any particular game.

As such, it becomes unnecessary to bash games and exaggerate their weaknesses, because you will understand that it's really all about the subjective ways we all enjoy these things called computer games.

 

[Morrandir]

While I can very much understand that Skyrim for some guys is a really great game (or game framework), for me it totally lost its charme at the latest when my character as the Arch-Mage of Winterhold went to the Companions and the Thieve's Guild and it wasn't even mentioned by those NPC at all. My character was treated like an unkown greenhorn. Of course I didn't expect them to fall on their knees - but e. g. in the case of the Thieves I would have expected them to immediatley cast my character out or try to make some deals.
These quest lines are in no way related, but very isolated. Same thing goes for dynamic events where your character defends a village from a dragon attack and after that noone reacts accordingly. This lack of reactivity totally kills immersion for me.

And if a game wants to be a great sandbox game (don't know if Skyrim wants to), not only the monsters and inanimate environment should react to the player's actions, but especially the NPC.

While I've completed the main quest and all other side quest I could find (and so sank 120h into it) I've had a lot more fun with other games.

 

[Drithius]

Dart, I was going to put more thought into my response but I stopped myself. I always regret replying to you. Your pompous, condescending twit attitude knows no bounds.

People like different things - amazing insight! And Skyrim is deeply flawed. Some people tolerate it for 200 hours and some for 2. And some , like Wolf, don't care for those flaws anyway, so they just see a gem. But it doesn't mean the flaws don't exist.

 

[Ripper]

As such, it becomes unnecessary to bash games and exaggerate their weaknesses, because you will understand that it's really all about the subjective ways we all enjoy these things called computer games.

What utter nonsense. The obvious truism that people like different things doesn't preclude us from making objective criticisms of a game (or anything else), and then debating those arguments. It would be rather tedious if we couldn't do that. Indeed, you make an objective argument yourself when you describe certain elements of other games as "inferior" to Skyrim.

It's a bit silly to assume that people making objective criticisms are laying claim to objective truth, in the philosophical sense, and need a lecture on the subjectivity of human experience.

 

[DArtagnan]

Dart, I was going to put more thought into my response but I stopped myself. I always regret replying to you. Your pompous, condescending twit attitude knows no bounds.

People like different things - amazing insight! And Skyrim is deeply flawed. Some people tolerate it for 200 hours and some for 2. And some , like Wolf, don't care for those flaws anyway, so they just see a gem. But it doesn't mean the flaws don't exist.

Actually, it means they're not necessarily flaws. So, you don't seem to understand what I'm saying at all.

All games are flawed, arguably - but flaws are rarely objective. Flaws are sometimes what people fall in love with, which turns the concept of a flaw on its head. That's what I'm trying to explain - but your emotional need to not have said something unfortunate is getting in the way.

I fully understand regretting your reply, though, as you never really muster the investment required to argue with a rational point of view for long.

This whole twit thing is boring and pointless. Either argue your case or please stop exchanging with me, as I have little interest in the insult game.

 

[zahratustra]

All games are flawed, arguably - but flaws are rarely objective. Flaws are sometimes what people fall in love with, which turns the concept of a flaw on its head. That's what I'm trying to explain...

But that's where you are wrong. As Drithius have said, people might like a game DESPITE its flaws not because of them. Name me a game which was loved for its flaws? And NO, your individual opinion will not prove the point.
The only people who like flaws are collectors because certain items are more valuable when flawed.

 

[DArtagnan]

But that's where you are wrong. As Drithius have said, people might like a game DESPITE its flaws not because of them. Name me a game which was loved for its flaws? And NO, your individual opinion will not prove the point.
The only people who like flaws are collectors because certain items are more valuable when flawed.

You don't seem to get my point.

For instance, some people consider imbalanced character mechanics in an RPG a boon, because it makes finding exploits and powerful combinations a ton of fun FOR THEM, while other people prefer a streamlined and balanced system where you can't dominate through that sort of thing.

By the same token, some people will find Skyrim painfully easy and boring - because they want a specific kind of old-school challenge - and other people will love and appreciate the freeform system where you don't have to finetune your character to succeed, but will always end up with something fun.

Some people consider the writing to be good or even engaging, while other people think it's terrible. Personally, I think the writing is good, especially when it comes to the Dark Brotherhood and Thieves Guild storylines. The main storyline, however, isn't very good - merely average for a game, I'd say.

Understand? Bad writing is a flaw - but it has to be bad in the eyes of the beholder.

While many of us here can agree the game has flaws, we're not likely to agree which parts of the game constitute actual flaws.

In that very same way, many of us will agree the game has good points - but we can't all agree what those are.

It's really not very complicated.

Just about the only part we can all agree is a flaw would be the bugs, and even there we seem to have VASTLY different experiences. Joxer, for instance, was personally raped multiple times by them - and I never really had a bad bug experience with the vanilla version.

It's all subjective.

What a shock

 

[wolfgrimdark]

That's like x10 my playtime with the game and I though it was a lot (note: I never finished any of the questlines, I suffer from terrible re-startitis with the game).

Lol well I should point out I do some modding (which requires testing and work in the game), I also do a lot of ENB stuff which requires hours, days, weeks and more to tweak and configure in -game. Lastly I write stories on Nexus Image Share. I am now on my 4th book. Each book has a couple dozen chapters. Going on a standard MS Word page size I have written about 700 pages total. Takes a lot of time to do the screenshots for these stories. Grim, whom I have been playing for almost two years, is only level 32 in his "real" game.

I think it comes down to liking the game as one thing and then longevity being another thing. I played the game because I like it. I keep playing because of mods, enbs, writing, and the Nexus community. I have made many friends there - a few who I now email, know on FB, Flickr, and otherwise have gotten to know outside of the game context.

Lastly Skyrim has many flaws and I would love to see a game that combined Skyrim with some of my other favorite games as far as story and characters. Yet for me, personally, it is the current best that there is out there when combined with mods and ENBs. So the flaws don't bother me as there is so much more I enjoy in the game. I also admit I am not an overly critical person when it comes to a game as long as it meets my core requirements to be fun - which Skyrim does.

 

[luj1]

It's all subjective.

There is an objective truth in everything.


Maybe I'm a casual console owner who, due to his/hers lack of gaming experience, think Skyrim is da bomb. That'd make me biased towards Skyrim and constitutes my subjective view towards Skyrim.

However it wont change the fact vanilla was a technical wreck.

 

[DArtagnan]

There is an objective truth in everything.


Maybe I'm a casual console owner who, due to his/hers lack of gaming experience, think Skyrim is da bomb. That'd make me biased towards Skyrim and constitutes my subjective view towards Skyrim.

However it wont change the fact vanilla was a technical wreck.

That's compelling evidence, clearly free of bias

 

[azarhal]

All this talk of vanilla Skyrim made me decide to re-install it (Legend Edition). Only mod installed: official HightRes textures, unofficial patches, Mesh improvements and SkyUI.

Let see how long I survive without installing a bunch of other mods.

 

[DArtagnan]

The thing about the vanilla version is that, upon release, there weren't a lot of mods - so you didn't know what you were missing.

I had a wonderful time with it - and I still consider it one of the best experiences of my gaming life.

But that's because I'm a huge immersion freak - and I adore freeform open world gameplay, and exploration.

Some people think there's not enough C&C - and that it's a flaw that it's not there.

In that same way, I think it's a huge flaw that TES games don't offer cooperative gameplay in small groups.

I bet the vast majority of the Watch does NOT consider the lack of cooperative gameplay in TES games a flaw.

As such, it demonstrates my point about how such flaws don't objectively exist - they depend on the person playing the game.

 

[Ripper]

As such, it demonstrates my point about how such flaws don't objectively exist - they depend on the person playing the game.

No, it doesn't. To describe something as "flawed" is an objective criticism, in the same way that describing one thing as superior or inferior to another is an objective concept. Such claims have to be supported with evidence and rational argument, and will be either strong or weak. It's rather fatuous to pop up in the middle of such an argument and say, "Well, it's all subjective, isn't it?"

If you confuse objective criticism with doubts about what "objectively exists", you'll find yourself in some difficulty.

 

[zahratustra]

The thing about the vanilla version is that, upon release, there weren't a lot of mods - so you didn't know what you were missing.

I had a wonderful time with it - and I still consider it one of the best experiences of my gaming life.

Yes, I also had fun with vanilla version for about 40-50 hours. Than I have started adding mods and played for another 90 (or so) hours.

 

[crpgnut]

I played a couple hundred hours vanilla, then added "pretty" mods and played for another while, then I started modding things that change the game and probably won't ever go back. The number one thing that Bethesda does is allow other people to not only play in their sandbox, but to bring their own toys