Skyrim - Released, Review Roundup #1

I tried my hardest to stay up and play last night, but I'm a wimp when it comes to sleep time. I played for about 45 minutes and had to shut down. If I didn't have to work, I would have played a little longer.

So glad to be off next week and then have a 4-day weekend the following week- Thanksgiving in the USA.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
8,821
I actually think the UI is just fine. It is very keyboard focused, but it's quick to use and access. I have my hand on WASD anyway, it's not like you are thrown in a river with no boat. The only part I really disliked was the level-up menu, which was cumbersome.

As for everything else, barely started but it seems like a good step so far. By that I mean, it seems to be much better than Oblivion so far.
 
Joined
Jan 28, 2011
Messages
1,830
This is the first TES game I ever enjoyed on releases. Oblivion bored me to death on release. Yes I hate the UI and the game not being mouse friendly but you get used to it.

The game is streamlined but most of you should of known that since they announced what they changed already. It's the sign of of the times. Rpgs change.
 
Joined
Oct 1, 2010
Messages
36,178
Location
Spudlandia
That doesn't excuse TES. New Vegas showed me that you can have a huge world to explore and have a good story, C&C and good characters.

Saying that it's the way it's always been done doesn't work anymore. Not after another company showed them how to do it right.

I completely agree with this.

I've been saying it in the past that Bethesda is about the only company right now with the resources to pull off a sandbox game like this (well Obsidian sorta proved me wrong there).

Its just that they don't seem to care that much as those things were never a priority to them or their core audience…
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
1,734
I completely agree with this.

I've been saying it in the past that Bethesda is about the only company right now with the resources to pull off a sandbox game like this (well Obsidian sorta proved me wrong there).

Its just that they don't seem to care that much as those things were never a priority to them or their core audience…

With what I have done so far, it wouldn't fit on a beer coaster no matter how people would like to believe that. Lots of interesting characters and I like the world...lots of minor helpers throughout the world. Not really fair to bash them on it so far...it certainly has not been a weakness in this game.
 
Joined
Apr 17, 2007
Messages
5,749
Well that would be very nice indeed.

I love the freedom and exploration of a good sandbox game (and in regards to TES I am thinking Morrowind), but it starts to feel paper thin and superficial without the aforementioned elements implemented to some degree at least, to give the game a bit of substance.

Anyway, it seems a lot of people around here are very positive with their experience so far. I am tempted to jump right in when my copy arrives (instead of waiting for at least one more patch). That said they may already have that out by the 18th anyway :)
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
1,734
I completely agree with this.

I've been saying it in the past that Bethesda is about the only company right now with the resources to pull off a sandbox game like this (well Obsidian sorta proved me wrong there).

They do great open world games, they just don't concentrate on choices and deep stories. They never have, really. You can say you wish they did... hell, I wish they did... but expecting them to suddenly shift gears is kind of silly.
 
Joined
Jan 28, 2011
Messages
1,830
They do great open world games, they just don't concentrate on choices and deep stories. They never have, really. You can say you wish they did… hell, I wish they did… but expecting them to suddenly shift gears is kind of silly.

Yep, like I said that is not the game they care to make obviously.

And since their games sell like crazy as they are I doubt they will ever feel the pressure
to invest more in that direction.

Still I am somewhat more optimistic in that regard in comparison to Oblivion at least.
we'll see…
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
1,734
I can say already the dialogue in this game is better than Oblivion by quite a lot.
 
Joined
Jan 28, 2011
Messages
1,830
I completely agree with this.

I've been saying it in the past that Bethesda is about the only company right now with the resources to pull off a sandbox game like this (well Obsidian sorta proved me wrong there).

Its just that they don't seem to care that much as those things were never a priority to them or their core audience…

I don't think it is so simple. I really think the exploration aspect of F:NV suffered due to the design there. This isn't a matter of one being better than the other, but when I went to play F:NV I approached it like playing F3 and previous Bethesda games, and it simply does not work as well for that kind of play.

This struck me the most at the end of the game. I had two very different experiences:

- In F3 I tried to make sure to visit every part of the map, and was enjoying that until the very end because more often than not when I got to someplace new there would be something interesting (whether little or big) to do there and I had a good time.

- In F:NV when I was late in the game and going around to see what else there was to do, I spent almost all of my time going someplace new, and there either being nothing there, or looking like something *could* be there, but I probably couldn't experience it because I didn't have whatever quest was needed going.

I ultimately stopped playing F:NV long before I had stopped playing F3, because I got really frustrated and tired of checking out new places and not finding anything interesting.

(And worst of all, they left the perk in F:NV to put all the markers on your map, which was great in F3 because it helped find everything, but completely sucked in F:NV because most of the markers ended up being for places I couldn't do anything at. That just pissed me off going off to all of these interesting seeming places marked on my map, and finding time after time nothing there to do.)

Again, this isn't saying that one is better than the other. The various main quests and factions in F:NV were great and far better than F3. But as an "open world go explore where you want" game, I don't think it is nearly as good.
 
Joined
Apr 3, 2007
Messages
27
I ultimately stopped playing F:NV long before I had stopped playing F3, because I got really frustrated and tired of checking out new places and not finding anything interesting.

It's interesting the different experiences people have. I find your experience hard to fathom - 35 hours in Fallout 3, done. 120 hours in FalloutNV and still going back after Skyrim for more. I didn't go to every location in Fallout 3, because most locations had nothing I was interested in.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
11,842
Location
Sydney, Australia
@hackbod

Have to agree with Dhruin on this one. You are most certainly not describing my experience with the game.

Sure some things naturally had trigger events but at no time did I feel that I needed to
follow a dotted line through the game in order to see the content (other than following the
main quest when I felt like it)…
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
1,734
Sure some things naturally had trigger events but at no time did I feel that I needed to
follow a dotted line through the game in order to see the content (other than following the
main quest when I felt like it)…

I'm not at all talking about needing to follow a dotted line. Did you get the perk to add all map markers on both games? The difference for me was extreme -- in F3 pretty consistently if I went to a map marker I hadn't been to before, there would be *something* to do there. In F:NV I went to marker after marker and found nothing.

Again, I am not at all saying one is better than the other. I can actually see the interest in playing through F:NV again to try doing things differently; I have absolutely no interest in playing F3 again because I feel like I have seen everything I can. And the main quests in F:NV are for sure richer and more interesting. I just feel like the structure of F:NV that allows for the richer and more interesting main quests also comes at the expense if being able to play it primarily for the exploration.

My point is just that faulting Bethesda for not making a game like F:NV is questionable. If they want to make a game that is really great for going out and exploring the world and doing what you want, I didn't fine that the F:NV structure lends itself as well to that.
 
Joined
Apr 3, 2007
Messages
27
Hackbod isn't really wrong, Bethesda are better at making interesting worlds. I would say they failed a bit with Oblivion even on that score, but Morrowind and Fallout 3 are both infinitely more interesting to explore than New Vegas. Skyrim seems to be another great world as well.

What it comes down to is priorities. New Vegas had ten times better writing and quests and it also had more RPG elements like consequences for your choices. For me that made it an infinitely better GAME, even if the world itself was not as well done.

Skyrim, early on, seems to be doing well in all areas. If that keeps up it could be one hell of a game.
 
Joined
Jan 28, 2011
Messages
1,830
My point is just that faulting Bethesda for not making a game like F:NV is questionable. If they want to make a game that is really great for going out and exploring the world and doing what you want, I didn't fine that the F:NV structure lends itself as well to that.

We had very different experiences then. I found a world worth exploring. Everything from a burned down farm with notes scattered around the place telling the sad tale of the former owner to a gang of fiends terrorizing the citizens. I personally loved finding all of that. It made the world feel alive.

To each their own as they say, but if Skyrim has a living breathing world in it like NV then I'll be happy. In about three more hours I'll get to find out for myself.

BTW, I couldn't disagree more that Fallout 3 was more interesting to explore. I liked it as a survivor game and that's all. Fallout: New Vegas showed me that these kinds of Beth games can have a great world to explore and not have a idiotic plot or NPCs.
 
Joined
Feb 3, 2007
Messages
5,347
Location
Taiwan
It's interesting the different experiences people have. I find your experience hard to fathom - 35 hours in Fallout 3, done. 120 hours in FalloutNV and still going back after Skyrim for more. I didn't go to every location in Fallout 3, because most locations had nothing I was interested in.

I haven't played much of FO:NV yet, but I don't see how anyone who likes exploration could get bored with FO3 that quickly. I put in close to 200 hours before I started to get burned out on that game. I'd even consider it one of the better games I've ever played if I was to look at it purely from an exploration standpoint.
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
39,129
Location
Florida, US
BTW, I couldn't disagree more that Fallout 3 was more interesting to explore. I liked it as a survivor game and that's all. Fallout: New Vegas showed me that these kinds of Beth games can have a great world to explore and not have a idiotic plot or NPCs.

Plot and NPCs have nothing to do with exploration. I'm talking pure world design, Fallout 3 is much better in my opinion. Seems like that's the consensus as well, though of course you are free to disagree.
 
Joined
Jan 28, 2011
Messages
1,830
Did you get the perk to add all map markers on both games? The difference for me was extreme — in F3 pretty consistently if I went to a map marker I hadn't been to before, there would be *something* to do there. In F:NV I went to marker after marker and found nothing.

No, and also I also haven't played Fallout 3. I have to compare it with Oblivion and Morrowind here and I believe it trumps Oblivion and stands up very well to Morrowind
on that aspect even done by a smaller company that put its weight behind the elements we discuss.

I just didn't think that the exploration aspect really suffered just because there were some cause and effect (quests and event spawning after some trigger events happen in other places) going on. But maybe I was just lucky and didn't happen to many places in the circumstances you describe.

Also generally speaking I do not believe that you can make a case that a sandbox game with the kind of substance we are discussing just isn't possible because some things may not be immediately available coming from every possible direction and at any possible time.

A merge of the Fallout 3 qualities as you describe it (Lots of interesting unconnected
locations) and NV qualities should be possible (they are not mutually exclusive) but
it would take a Huge amount of resources and the will to hire the appropriate talent.
Hence my opinion that only a company of Bethesda's size and heft could pull it off…

Oh and interesting NPCs do have something to do about it.. It is nice to find someone interesting to talk to and interact in the new location in addition to a well designed dungeon i.e.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
1,734
Plot and NPCs have nothing to do with exploration. I'm talking pure world design, Fallout 3 is much better in my opinion. Seems like that's the consensus as well, though of course you are free to disagree.

So a burned out farm with notes scattered around is a NPC? Wow, ok. Never knew a building could be a NPC....well there was Planescape that had a few buildings that were NPCs. That was only one area off the top of my head. I could give more examples, but seriously who cares if you think Fallout 3 is better or not? I've got better things to do like actually playing a game. :p

My opinion is the exploration in Fallout 3 was boring as hell and made no sense what-so-ever in comparison to New Vegas, but like you said you're free to disagree.
 
Joined
Feb 3, 2007
Messages
5,347
Location
Taiwan
Back
Top Bottom