Elder Scrolls V: Skywind - Gameplay Demo

Maylander said:

In Baldur's Gate you're not the one directing the sword. In Morrowind you clearly aim the sword straight at something and then.. nothing happens. You don't even know if you're the one who missed or if the roll missed.

Click to expand...

Again, the combat in Morrowind is an abstraction. Just because it's first-person with a crosshair doesn't mean it's full-on action combat where player skill dominates the day. No, the system in Morrowind is more geared toward traditional RPGs that rolled dice to determine the outcome, regardless of the first-person view or not.

I'm surprised that the same ones who complain about Morrowind's system have no problems with turn-based combat. The game literally stops and allows you unlimited time to make a move. How is that any "better"? I can hear millions of Call of Duty gamers screaming at their monitors saying, "I want all my moves in real-time! I have a crosshair and a first-person view, all my moves should be real-time, too!"

So, it's all the same thing. Morrowind is more of a traditional RPG, Oblivion and Skyrim are more action-oriented determined by player skill and are heavily influenced by first-person shooters and action games.

I will always prefer the traditional RPG approach when given a choice. I'm aware most won't agree with me. That's why we don't see games use systems like Morrowind's anymore.

I don't see how a team of small amateurs can do something better than what Bethesda did back then. It's better to leave the original alone in my opinion. Especially for such an ambitious game, it would be too complex to fully port over to another engine.

Humanity has risen! said:

I don't see how a team of small amateurs can do something better than what Bethesda did back then. It's better to leave the original alone in my opinion. Especially for such an ambitious game, it would be too complex to fully port over to another engine.

Click to expand...

I agree the mod does sound ambitious, and that's why I hope they succeed.

Fluent said:

Again, the combat in Morrowind is an abstraction. Just because it's first-person with a crosshair doesn't mean it's full-on action combat where player skill dominates the day. No, the system in Morrowind is more geared toward traditional RPGs that rolled dice to determine the outcome, regardless of the first-person view or not.

I'm surprised that the same ones who complain about Morrowind's system have no problems with turn-based combat. The game literally stops and allows you unlimited time to make a move. How is that any "better"? I can hear millions of Call of Duty gamers screaming at their monitors saying, "I want all my moves in real-time! I have a crosshair and a first-person view, all my moves should be real-time, too!"

So, it's all the same thing. Morrowind is more of a traditional RPG, Oblivion and Skyrim are more action-oriented determined by player skill and are heavily influenced by first-person shooters and action games.

I will always prefer the traditional RPG approach when given a choice. I'm aware most won't agree with me. That's why we don't see games use systems like Morrowind's anymore.

Click to expand...

It's not the same thing at all. In Morrowind the player's skill determines whether or not you physically hit the target, and *then* a roll kicks in. In a game like Baldur's Gate, or most TB games, the player simply orders the character to attack and whether or not he/she hits is based exclusively on the character's skill, not the player's skill.

Basically, there's two skill checks instead of one, which is very confusing as there's no feedback to show you which one failed. Did the player fail or did the character fail? Was it my crazy mouse clicking that didn't succeed or is the weapon skill too low? There's simply no way to know. In pretty much every other game I've ever played, you know exactly who failed as they only use one of the two systems. In fact, Morrowind is pretty much the only game I can think of that even attempts using both at the same time, and it makes it much harder to replay than either Gothic (player skill) or Baldur's Gate (character skill), which are both from the same time period.

Maylander said:

It's not the same thing at all. In Morrowind the player's skill determines whether or not you physically hit the target, and *then* a roll kicks in.
*Snip*
Basically, there's two skill checks instead of one, which is very confusing as there's no feedback to show you which one failed.

Click to expand...

What are these two different skill checks you're referring to?

From the Elder Scrolls Wiki…

Chance to Hit

Combat in Morrowind is relatively straight-forward. Your chance to hit can be generalized as (Attacker's Hit Rate - Defender's Evasion)%.

Hit Rate

(Weapon Skill + (Agility / 5) + (Luck / 10)) * (0.75 + 0.5 * Current Fatigue / Maximum Fatigue) + Fortify Attack Magnitude - Blind Magnitude PEMDAS applied.

In essence, your Hit Rate is equal to your Weapon Skill, increased by 1% for every 5 points of Agility or 10 points of Luck you have. This is then multiplied by somewhere between .75 to 1.25, depending on how much Fatigue you have left. Having full Fatigue will increase your accuracy by 25%, and being depleted of fatigue will decrease your accuracy by 25%. Finally, your hit chance is increased by a flat amount from Fortify Attack effects (such as from the Warrior Birthsign), and because of a glitch, Blindness effects.

Evasion

((Agility / 5) + (Luck / 10)) * (0.75 + 0.5 * Current Fatigue / Maximum Fatigue) + Sanctuary Magnitude

Evasion works exactly the same as Hit Rate, only the defender's Weapon Skill isn't used and evasion is increased by Sanctuary instead of Fortify Attack.

Click to expand...

So it's basically your hit rate vs the opponents evasion, but it's all calculated together at the same time. What makes you think it's being done in two separate rolls?

*Edit* Nevermind. I just realized I misread your post. I thought you were saying that there are 2 "in-game" skill checks. I don't consider the players aim to be a skill check.

Fluent said:

Again, the combat in Morrowind is an abstraction. Just because it's first-person with a crosshair doesn't mean it's full-on action combat where player skill dominates the day. No, the system in Morrowind is more geared toward traditional RPGs that rolled dice to determine the outcome, regardless of the first-person view or not.

I'm surprised that the same ones who complain about Morrowind's system have no problems with turn-based combat. The game literally stops and allows you unlimited time to make a move. How is that any "better"? I can hear millions of Call of Duty gamers screaming at their monitors saying, "I want all my moves in real-time! I have a crosshair and a first-person view, all my moves should be real-time, too!"

So, it's all the same thing. Morrowind is more of a traditional RPG, Oblivion and Skyrim are more action-oriented determined by player skill and are heavily influenced by first-person shooters and action games.

I will always prefer the traditional RPG approach when given a choice. I'm aware most won't agree with me. That's why we don't see games use systems like Morrowind's anymore.

Click to expand...

You're not listening.

We don't mind abstraction when we don't have direct control - and we're not supposed to represent our character through an avatar.

It's about immersion and suspension of disbelief. Games aren't reality - so it's not like we expect reality in all aspects of all games. That's silly.

Your Call of Duty "observation" makes you sound closed-minded and ignorant, frankly.

Skyrim and Oblivion are both made by the same team as Morrowind - and they're both much more influenced by Morrowind than a shooter. You must have taken it personally when Bethesda decided to go for a more visceral and realistic combat system.

When a game tries to simulate reality to a certain extent - your expectations change. That's what has happened over the years, as FP games evolved from mostly static and primitive engines to real-time engines. You can see the evolution all the way from Akalabeth to Bard's Tale to Dungeon Master to Ultima Underworld - and so on. These games went from slow turn-based stuff, to more and more real-time aspects. Oblivion was a natural step forward when it comes to the nature of combat.

Again, I have no problem with people who disagree. What I don't understand is how you can't see it from our point of view.

It sounds like you refuse to acknowledge the validity of what we're saying. Is that true?

Obviously, you prefer "traditional" and abstracted mechanics in all your games - and you don't seem to enjoy being in direct control of the combat outcome. That's fine and I don't have a problem understanding that. I know several people who're turned off by the "action" aspects of combat in games like Oblivion, Fallout 3 and Skyrim.

But you really liked Gothic and Bloodlines? You claimed that Bloodlines was more or less your favorite game of all time.

That's surprising, since it's also giving you direct control in a similar way to Skyrim and Oblivion. It's based on the Half-Life 2 engine - and it's much more of a shooter than Skyrim or Oblivion.

So, you're a walking contradiction when you stop to think about it.

Fluent said:

Again, the combat in Morrowind is an abstraction. Just because it's first-person with a crosshair doesn't mean it's full-on action combat where player skill dominates the day. No, the system in Morrowind is more geared toward traditional RPGs that rolled dice to determine the outcome, regardless of the first-person view or not.

Click to expand...

I think that nobody says one of the approaches is superior, just that there are personal preferences.
I agree with you, basically. Character skill should be the determining factor in RPGs, not player skill (I guess you'll like our system, just a wait a few months until we can announce ).

But you do not seem to understand the problem at hand is not the system but its representation. It is about suspension of disbelief, just as DArtagnan said. But the failed suspension of disbelief in Morrowind combat is not the underlying system. Nobody says that, I think.
The problem is that the underlying system is presented in a way that fails at suspension of disbelief. In a first person game, anything is closer and viewed from the eye of the player and thus it is much easier to break the suspension with something that is not represented in a believable way. And nothing is not a believable reaction to you swinging your sword.

^ More or less, yeah.

I wouldn't presume to speak about what's best in an objective sense. What you enjoy is good - what you don't is bad, and that's it.

However, I would like to argue that it's a natural evolution for FP games like this - and to expect abstraction in a game that wants to simulate the exciting parts of reality is probably going to lead to a lot of disappointment.

But, it's not like we're in a great drought of traditional RPGs now is it? I mean, D:OS, Wasteland 2, PoE, and so on?

I think there's room for immersive FP games too, don't you?

DArtagnan said:

However, I would like to argue that it's a natural evolution for FP games like this - and to expect abstraction in a game that wants to simulate the exciting parts of reality is probably going to lead to a lot of disappointment.

Click to expand...

Well, it's just that the taste of more players is naturally one that favors a player skill focused approach over the more abstract, closer to roleplaying approach of focusing on character skill.
It's just more interesting to more people.

But I see neither approach as better or worse per se. Just more or less fitting to something that wants to be a true roleplaying game. And roleplaying means focused on character skill, not player skill. The player gives orders, the character executes them. Otherwise Doom would be an RPG and we probably don't want to go there

Skyrim does not even try to be true a roleplaying game. It is an action game first and foremost that has some very varied character development on top. But player skill is the determining factor for pretty much everything except pure damage values. So Action-RPG it is. And a good one.
However, Morrowind had a far more character-skill focused approach, which is why many see it far more as an actual RPG than they do with Skyrim.

Which is again why I also doubt this mod quite a bit. Skyrim is a far more actiony game than Morrowind, so this mod will be more like Skyrim in another world than it will be Morrowind with better graphics.

TheSHEEEP said:

Well, it's just that the taste of more players is naturally one that favors a player skill focused approach over the more abstract, closer to roleplaying approach of focusing on character skill.
It's just more interesting to more people.

Click to expand...

My argument is that it's about more than that. It's about what you want to achieve with your game - and to appreciate what a game like Morrowind and Skyrim is trying to achieve - you have to listen to the developers and you have to pay attention to how the games have evolved.

It's not really about catering to some supposed majority. It's about simulating reality in such a way as to make you forget you're playing a game.

That's always been Bethesda's approach. To give you the freedom and the tools to get lost and go do your own thing.

But I see neither approach as better or worse per se. Just more or less fitting to something that wants to be a true roleplaying game. And roleplaying means focused on character skill, not player skill. The player gives orders, the character executes them. Otherwise Doom would be an RPG and we probably don't want to go there

Click to expand...

No, I don't agree. Roleplaying can be like acting - and just like a method actor will put himself into the role to such a degree that he can forget himself, so can a player put himself into the role of his character and that requires him to BE the character when it comes to interaction and combat.

There's no more RPG in stats than there is in true player interaction. Such is my claim, anyway.

Skyrim does not even try to be true a roleplaying game. It is an action game first and foremost that has some very varied character development on top. But player skill is the determining factor for pretty much everything except pure damage values. So Action-RPG it is. And a good one.
However, Morrowind had a far more character-skill focused approach, which is why many see it far more as an actual RPG than they do with Skyrim.

Click to expand...

I completely disagree. Skyrim is a fantastic roleplaying game, because it gives me the freedom to choose who I want to be - and what I want to do.

That's because roleplaying, to me, is very much about the freedom to play my character and to act out a fantasy version of myself in a world that I'll never get to see.

It's important not to confuse your own personal concept of an RPG with that of other people - and imagine that your own view is the only view.

As I said, I can easily accept that Skyrim isn't an RPG to people who think of RPGs as they once were - and games full of stats and artificial mechanics.

That's not me, however.

Also, trust me, I'm FAR from the only one who thinks like this. Besides, Bethesda - the actual developers - agree with me about this way of roleplaying. I know, because I've followed their efforts for a very, very long time. I also play close attention when Todd Howard is interviewed about what they're going for.

Which is again why I also doubt this mod quite a bit. Skyrim is a far more actiony game than Morrowind, so this mod will be more like Skyrim in another world than it will be Morrowind with better graphics.

Click to expand...

I hope it will be much more like Skyrim than Morrowind in every way except the actual content - as in the world and the story.

Morrowind was like walking through a painting. I don't find much entertainment in that.

It's nothing negative to say that that Skyrim is an action adventure CRPG.
Player twitch skill is important and character skills are important as well in all TES games. That's what I like in TES games.
(Auto-leveling diminishes the character skills somewhat, but that's another discussion.)

I loved Morrowind for exploration and lore as well, but combat balance was completely broken (in the unmodded version) after level 12 or so.

DArtagnan said:

No, I don't agree. Roleplaying can be like acting - and just like a method actor will put himself into the role to such a degree that he can forget himself, so can a player put himself into the role of his character and that requires him to BE the character when it comes to interaction and combat.

There's no more RPG in stats than there is in true player interaction. Such is my claim, anyway.

Click to expand...

Cool. I can totally identify myself with Duke Nukem. Whenever I play that game, I feel as if it was me who is firing these shrinking cannons.
I am roleplaying! But just because you can roleplay with a game, it does not make the game an RPG. As I said, by that definition, everything becomes an RPG as soon as someone uses it for roleplaying.
Let us please not allow RPG to become a hipster pseudo-definition like "art". As soon as anyone says something is art, it is. I do not want that for my favorite genre, it deserves something made up of facts, not fancy ideas.

DArtagnan said:

I completely disagree. Skyrim is a fantastic roleplaying game, because it gives me the freedom to choose who I want to be - and what I want to do.

That's because roleplaying, to me, is very much about the freedom to play my character and to act out a fantasy version of myself in a world that I'll never get to see.

It's important not to confuse your own personal concept of an RPG with that of other people - and imagine that your own view is the only view.

As I said, I can easily accept that Skyrim isn't an RPG to people who think of RPGs as they once were - and games full of stats and artificial mechanics.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but this is not about personal concepts, but logic and provable arguments.

Again,by your incredibly vague definition, pretty much all games that leave enough freedom to the player for him to feel like he is playing a role would already be an RPG:
The Sims? Yep! SimCity? For sure, you can be any kind of major! Duke Nukem? Proven above. MineCraft? Well, hell yeah, you have no idea how many roles I already played in that game. Same then for Terraria and Starbound. X? No doubt, you can be pretty much any kind of space pilot and join all kinds of factions. Europa Universalis? Sure, who says you cannot roleplay a nation or a dynasty? Truck Simulator 2014? I fear the answer is yes, but I do not want to delve into that image in my head.

I hope you see where this is leading.
Only because a game allows you to roleplay, or because you are playing the role of someone in a game, it does not make it a roleplaying game.
Because if that was the definition... well, almost every game would be an RPG.
A horse is not a bike because it allows you to ride it.

When defining what something means we must take into consideration the origins, not only the literal words themselves. If that means your favorite game to do roleplaying with is not an RPG, then this is the way it is.
Skyrim is also one of my favourite games for sure, and I like to roleplay a lot with it, but I would never claim it to be a true computer RPG.
The word "Roleplaying Game" comes from Pen&Paper and that is how it should be understood. The closer to that, the more RPG.

Skyrim is as little an RPG because you use it to roleplay as it is a shooter because you shoot with bows and magic there.
A useful definition must not be defined by personal experiences but by measurable facts that can also be not true. "I can play a role" is not a measurable fact as it is purely subjective.
"Uses character skill instead of player skill" is measurable, for example. And there are more of these to measure with.

DArtagnan said:

Also, trust me, I'm FAR from the only one who thinks like this. Besides, Bethesda - the actual developers - agree with me about this way of roleplaying. I know, because I've followed their efforts for a very, very long time. I also play close attention when Todd Howard is interviewed about what they're going for.

Click to expand...

I honestly think you've been falling for a lot of PR stuff.
Much of what Todd says is either a blatant lie (as proven many times) or just nice sounding words without much meaning, prepared by PR teams.
Skyrim is certaintly not good because of him. More likely, despite him being involved and because of some actually talented people in the team, who unfortunately rarely get the chance to sit in front of cameras.

And I know a lot of people consider anything that has stats a full RPG, but that is only because every 2nd developer that has a game with any kind of character development claims it to be and most journalists, sheep that they are (why are you looking at me now?) repeat without further thinking.

TheSHEEEP said:

Cool. I can totally identify myself with Duke Nukem. Whenever I play that game, I feel as if it was me who is firing these shrinking cannons.
I am roleplaying! But just because you can roleplay with a game, it does not make the game an RPG. As I said, by that definition, everything becomes an RPG as soon as someone uses it for roleplaying.
Let us please not allow RPG to become a hipster pseudo-definition like "art". As soon as anyone says something is art, it is. I do not want that for my favorite genre, it deserves something made up of facts, not fancy ideas.

Click to expand...

Sure, let's see you make it about facts then. So far, you've talked about your own narrow view - and I hope you don't expect me to see that as some kind of fact in terms of a definition.

I'm sorry, but this is not about personal concepts, but logic and provable arguments.

Click to expand...

If, by logic and provable arguments, you mean your own personal opinion that makes little sense as a claim to objective truth - then sure.

Again,by your incredibly vague definition, pretty much all games that leave enough freedom to the player for him to feel like he is playing a role would already be an RPG:

Click to expand...

I have no definition. I'm not arrogant enough to believe myself capable of defining what makes an RPG for other people.

But, I can say that I consider some games great RPGs - whether they include abstracted mechanics or not.

Duke Nukem doesn't feel like an RPG to me, because it's narrow and rigid in terms of allowing me to play a role. It's also very pre-defined and I don't actually enjoy the role much.

So, it would certainly be a bad RPG - if it was an RPG.

But I don't feel threatened by the notion that some people would consider it an RPG.

The Sims? Yep! SimCity? For sure, you can be any kind of major! Duke Nukem? Proven above. MineCraft? Well, hell yeah, you have no idea how many roles I already played in that game. Same then for Terraria and Starbound. X? No doubt, you can be pretty much any kind of space pilot and join all kinds of factions. Europa Universalis? Sure, who says you cannot roleplay a nation or a dynasty? Truck Simulator 2014? I fear the answer is yes, but I do not want to delve into that image in my head.

Click to expand...

It's scary, isn't it? This concept of people having different ideas about "your" genre?

It's almost as if people who disagree with you must be insane - or there's something wrong with them.

I hope you see where this is leading.

Click to expand...

Let's just say I've been down this path with countless people before.

I hope you don't think you're the first person on RPGWatch to openly display arrogance on this level, when it comes to their own private definitions being challenged.

Only because a game allows you to roleplay, or because you are playing the role of someone in a game, it does not make it a roleplaying game.
Because if that was the definition… well, almost every game would be an RPG.
A horse is not a bike because it allows you to ride it.

Click to expand...

Again, you have no facts whatsoever. Not a single fact. You have an opinion, true, but it has zero support.

You could start out by making it factual that a game allowing you to roleplaying isn't an RPG.

Why are you so afraid of it, though?

Isn't it because you have an emotional investment in a number of games that you, personally, consider RPGs - and you think that if people can't see how they set themselves apart and "deserve" to be called RPGs - then something terrible might happen?

I understand that kind of paranoia - but it has nothing to do with facts.

Again, I don't fret about definitions. I don't care what other people consider to be RPGs. It's hardly relevant to me.

If you want the genre to be narrow - and if you tell yourself that your own definition - that you've utterly failed to present in a "factual" way - is the ONLY definition, then I'm not standing in your way.

When defining what something means we must take into consideration the origins, not only the literal words themselves. If that means your favorite game to do roleplaying with is not an RPG, then this is the way it is.
Skyrim is also one of my favourite games for sure, and I like to roleplay a lot with it, but I would never claim it to be a true computer RPG.
The word "Roleplaying Game" comes from Pen&Paper and that is how it should be understood. The closer to that, the more RPG.

Click to expand...

I'd rather look at what words mean, instead of what they've been used for in a single instance.

The word roleplaying and the word game have been used for a very, very long time.

PnP RPGs were derived from pure tactical combat games - which means the more combat, the more RPG - right? Which is a joke.

Of course not.

No, we have to look at the words themselves - and then we must realise that we're dealing with some pretty broad concepts here.

If there's a game - and if it has roleplaying in it - it might qualify as an RPG.

That's how it works for me - as a logical and rational human being.

If you want to pretend the words have only been used to define the PnP experience - and you tell yourself that the freedom in Skyrim isn't a hell of a lot closer to the PnP freedom than, say, rigid pre-defined games like Torment - then that's your choice.

But you're not going to convince me until you start making sense.

Skyrim is as little an RPG because you use it to roleplay as it is a shooter because you shoot with bows and magic there.
A useful definition must not be defined by personal experiences but by measurable facts that can also be not true. "I can play a role" is not a measurable fact as it is purely subjective.
"Uses character skill instead of player skill" is measurable, for example. And there are more of these to measure with.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, you can't come up with a single measurable fact - so to claim we need them, makes your whole argument that much less convincing.

You can play Skyrim as a stealth game and avoid almost all combat. You could play it as a craftsman, merchant or a hunter. You could play it as a diplomat or an explorer. There are countless options and a huge arsenal of freedom compared to most RPGs.

I honestly think you've been falling for a lot of PR stuff.
Much of what Todd says is either a blatant lie (as proven many times) or just nice sounding words without much meaning, prepared by PR teams.
Skyrim is certaintly not good because of him. More likely, despite him being involved and because of some actually talented people in the team, who unfortunately rarely get the chance to sit in front of cameras.

Click to expand...

Interesting opinion that smacks of emotional bias - which isn't helping your argument a whole lot.

And I know a lot of people consider anything that has stats a full RPG, but that is only because every 2nd developer that has a game with any kind of character development claims it to be and most journalists, sheep that they are (why are you looking at me now?) repeat without further thinking.

Click to expand...

Sure, it's all an evil conspiracy to ruin "your" games in "your" genre, right?

Why does this discussion feel so familiar and why do you people never come up with something rational for support?

It's amazing the kind of fantasy worlds you make for yourself to sustain these ridiculously narrow points of view.

They're all liars and sheep, bla bla bla.

I mean Y A W N!

—-

You know what, I've done this enough times already. I don't know how many times I have to make this kind of conceited ignorance appear as exactly that.

My time has to be better spent doing something else. Like playing Risen 3 - as it seems like such a great game.

I'll leave this crap and bid you all a good day!

HiddenX said:

It's nothing negative to say that that Skyrim is an action adventure CRPG.
Player twitch skill is important and character skills are important as well in all TES games. That's what I like in TES games.
(Auto-leveling diminishes the character skills somewhat, but that's another discussion.)

I loved Morrowind for exploration and lore as well, but combat balance was completely broken (in the unmodded version) after level 12 or so.

Click to expand...

There's nothing positive or negative about calling it an RPG or a swimming simulator. What matters is whether a definition makes sense or not. That's all I care about.

What people call Skyrim in their own private world is of no matter to me.

But once you start smacking others around with your own narrow view, that's when you're going to get in trouble.

Anyway - enough of this.

I'll be back on Monday to finish this, if people really want to go through the same definition bullshit all over again.

TheSHEEEP said:

When defining what something means we must take into consideration the origins, not only the literal words themselves. If that means your favorite game to do roleplaying with is not an RPG, then this is the way it is.
Skyrim is also one of my favourite games for sure, and I like to roleplay a lot with it, but I would never claim it to be a true computer RPG.
The word "Roleplaying Game" comes from Pen&Paper and that is how it should be understood. The closer to that, the more RPG.

Skyrim is as little an RPG because you use it to roleplay as it is a shooter because you shoot with bows and magic there.
A useful definition must not be defined by personal experiences but by measurable facts that can also be not true. "I can play a role" is not a measurable fact as it is purely subjective.
"Uses character skill instead of player skill" is measurable, for example. And there are more of these to measure with.

Click to expand...

I have to disagree with your assessment here. Pen and paper RPGs may have influenced the early direction of the genre, but video game RPGs are an entirely different beast. By your definition, an overwhelming majority of RPGs out there are not actually RPGs, especially most games made in the last 10 years.

I'm not a fan of putting the RPG genre into some narrow little box, where only the most pure qualify.

I would say that Skyrim is certainly an RPG, based on the whole gameplay experience, not just the combat. Batman Arkham Asylum is an action game. Assassin's Creed is an action game. Skyrim has far more in common with a game like Baldur's Gate than either of those two games. It may not be 100% pure, but it is still considered an RPG by almost everybody, due to the types of mechanics featured. To say Morrowind is an RPG but Skyrim is not, simply because the combat is not dice-based, does not make sense to me. Nor does lumping a bulk of the games out there under the generic term of "action" simply to avoid diluting the strict, formal definition of the RPG genre.

On topic - I'm very excited for Skywind. It looks like the team is doing an amazing job, and taking the concept of mods to a whole new level.

TheSHEEEP said:

And nothing is not a believable reaction to you swinging your sword.

Click to expand...

Eh, to this I just say, "use your imagination". I know I'll catch some flack for this, but I always viewed a missed attack in Morrowind as either a weapon fumble caused by very poor skill of my character or the enemy dodged/deflected the blow. I never had a problem with using my imagination for this aspect of the game but it seems others do. Due to that, many people have jumped on the "Morrowind's clunky/Morrowind's combat sucks/etc." bandwagon, and we will probably never see a first-person, dice-rolling RPG for awhile, which is a shame.

That said, I still enjoy Skyrim and Oblivion a lot. They are great games and great RPGs. But Morrowind is a bit more traditional, which is my personal preference. That's one of the reasons why I still consider Morrowind to be my personal favorite out of the TES series (among other reasons).

Sorry for starting this thread on the off-topic route, though. I realize it was basically my fault that we now have walls of off-topic text in this thread. Sorry!

Back to Skywind, I'm interested in it, we'll see if they can pull it off. I'm more interested in Enderal: Shards of Order, though, to be honest.

Fluent said:

Sorry for starting this thread on the off-topic route, though. I realize it was basically my fault that we now have walls of off-topic text in this thread. Sorry!

Click to expand...

Don't apologize bro. It's not your fault that certain neurotic individuals feel the need to put so much effort into trying to convince you that your opinion is wrong because they can't cope with someone having a different view than them.

DArtagnan said:

There's nothing positive or negative about calling it an RPG or a swimming simulator. What matters is whether a definition makes sense or not. That's all I care about.

What people call Skyrim in their own private world is of no matter to me.

But once you start smacking others around with your own narrow view, that's when you're going to get in trouble.

Anyway - enough of this.

I'll be back on Monday to finish this, if people really want to go through the same definition bullshit all over again.

Click to expand...

When little DArt is out of arguments he's just showing his true colors: he's just a troll - and not even a polite one...

DArtagnan said:

Sure, let's see you make it about facts then. So far, you've talked about your own narrow view - and I hope you don't expect me to see that as some kind of fact in terms of a definition.

If, by logic and provable arguments, you mean your own personal opinion that makes little sense as a claim to objective truth - then sure.

Click to expand...

Interesting. What points did I raise that are opinion and not facts?

I feel you don't even know what my point is.
Well, my point is that "RPG" is not something everyone can just slap on something and suddenly it becomes an RPG. RPG in computer games is something that can be quantified, even if not perfectly as there are various definition of it - we sure agree there.
But I have never heard anyone claim a game to be an RPG because he manages to roleplay with/in it.
Seriously, this is like saying, while pointing at an apple "My, what a great pumpkin! You might not see it as a pumpkin, but I do! Hooray for opinions!".
Uhm, no? Reality does not work like that.

DArtagnan said:

I have no definition. I'm not arrogant enough to believe myself capable of defining what makes an RPG for other people.

Click to expand...

And there is the problem, you think of the term "RPG" as something that everyone must define and find for his own like the sense of life or one's own sexuality.

Well, no, genre definitions do not work like that.
Think of other genres: Jump 'n' runs are well defined, as are FP shooters, hack & slays, sidescrollers, sandbox games, racing games, certain sub-categories of RPG like JRPGs or blobbers, trading card games, economy simulations, turn-based strategy, etc., etc.
None of these have subjective views to them that would make it impossible to attach these tags to games. Imagine the chaos that would be at virtual distribution platforms if every game could be found in every category because everyone claims game X to be of genre Y.

Also, what arrogance? I don't claim to have the perfect definition of RPGs. I just state that your definition does not even deserve to be called such as it is based purely on subjective point of views.

Plus, how does "I have no definition" fit with "What matters is whether a definition makes sense or not. That's all I care about."?

DArtagnan said:

It's scary, isn't it? This concept of people having different ideas about "your" genre?

Click to expand...

Scary is the wrong word, I'm more baffled by your statements.
I'm used to the discussion about what is an RPG. But these are usually about the facts used to define an RPG. Like, how much must it be character based, are choices and consequences of importance, do only persons count or are abstract entities also "roleplayable".
You know, things one can actually argue about.

But "whatever fits for you" is not a definition. It's basically some esoteric-religious argumentation that can neither be denied nor proven, making the one who claims it entirely safe from anything based on science. Yes, science, game design is a mostly a craft and thus in the end based on science. A pretty new science.
It's like the alternative practitioner talking to the doctor, claiming that it is fine if the doctor believes in the effect of Aspirin, as if there was something to "believe in" in the first place - where in truth the doctor tries to argue based on facts while the hippie is shrugging everything off as opinion just so he can stick with his point of view.

DArtagnan said:

You could start out by making it factual that a game allowing you to roleplaying isn't an RPG.

Click to expand...

Because that would mean every game would be an RPG depending on the point of view. Which would make it impossible to even call it a definition. Again, how would you rate it, where should it be put in stores, how would you even talk about the RPG mechanics with other people when nobody knows what an RPG mechanic even is to you?

DArtagnan said:

If you want the genre to be narrow - and if you tell yourself that your own definition - that you've utterly failed to present in a "factual" way - is the ONLY definition, then I'm not standing in your way.

Click to expand...

Yes, I did not present my definition, that is right. My whole point was not defining it but that your definition is not even a definition to begin with (I repeat myself, I know) as it has no basis other than subjective opinion. It is as useless as the "definition" of "art" where I am aiming for a definition that is as useful and based on quantifiable variables as the definition of "rain".
Do you want me to post my definition of RPG? Would it help you?

DArtagnan said:

If there's a game - and if it has roleplaying in it - it might qualify as an RPG.
That's how it works for me - as a logical and rational human being.

Click to expand...

This isn't even completely wrong. Skyrim is an action-RPG (some may slap adventure in, too). But it is neither a pure RPG nor a pure action game.

DArtagnan said:

Unfortunately, you can't come up with a single measurable fact - so to claim we need them, makes your whole argument that much less convincing.

Click to expand...

Honestly, how can you claim that "based on character skill vs based on player skill" is not measurable? Of course it is. Maybe not down to the last detail, but pretty close. Close enough to be used as part of a definition.
Snake is almost completely player skill based, whereas ADOM is almost completely character skill based. This is not an opinion.

DArtagnan said:

Sure, it's all an evil conspiracy to ruin "your" games in "your" genre, right?

Why does this discussion feel so familiar and why do you people never come up with something rational for support?

Click to expand...

Conspiracy? Hahaha, no. But it would be pretty fun.
There is no evil scheme here, it is just a publicly-traded corporation.
It has shareholders, powerful investors, basically loads and loads of people that have a lot of influence that lead to decisions which are not even remotely based on the good of games or genres or players, but entirely on profit. This is not something only Zenimax does, obviously. It is a normal capitalistic company as it works in every country and society.
If you truly believe any kind of PR that comes from these directions and do not take them with an overdose of salt instead of just a grain, you will be very, very easily fooled.
Everything they do is based on reaching maximum profit, and the higher a person is ranked that talks to the press, the more careful one has to be when listening. Again, I do not consider this evil. I certainly don't like it, but I suspect no maniac laughing in the background.
Still, they obviously have some good designers there at Bethesda that are not affected by the "higher tier" corporate business. But I would not count Todd Howard amongst those, that is all.

HiddenX said:

When little DArt is out of arguments he's just showing his true colors: he's just a troll - and not even a polite one…

Click to expand...

If he is trolling, he is rather good at it. In any case, I'm having a good time here.
Also, focused politeness is overrated in discussions, IMO. I prefer people telling their opinions honestly right away instead of wasting time formulating it in a way to make sure it does not rub anyone the wrong way. People should grow a thicker skin instead of forcing others to hold back artificially.
I mean he has called me paranoid and whatnot. He has my explicit permission to call me whatever suits him. I find it pretty funny, actually

Fluent said:

Sorry for starting this thread on the off-topic route, though. I realize it was basically my fault that we now have walls of off-topic text in this thread. Sorry!

Back to Skywind, I'm interested in it, we'll see if they can pull it off. I'm more interested in Enderal: Shards of Order, though, to be honest.

Click to expand...

Don't feel sorry Fluent.

In most of these threads the basic problem is always DArtagnan.

I'm also interested in Enderal: Shards of Order, and I hope Sure AI release the mod soon. I know they are getting close to entering Beta, and need more testing.