Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim

[Walsingham]

I got this for Christmas.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Oner]

I got this for Christmas.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

?

[Enoch]

I bought it when it was $40-and-change as a daily deal in the Steam sale yesterday. Probably a mistake, given that I have plenty of other things to play at the moment and that I've already resolved to wait for further mod maturity before jumping in. But the game probably won't be widely available at that price for quite a while yet, and I might get the urge to go ElderScrolling in the interim, if Witcher2/ArkhamCity/Shogun2/DE:HR/FrozenSynapse fail to hold my attention.

[WDeranged]

I'm fifty something hours into my second game, still enjoying the dual wielding and destruction magic, summons are also handy but they nerfed the selection, I found a mod that brings spell perks in line with the weapon perks, letting you eventually do double damage, it makes magic feel more worthwhile.

 

One thing I found amusing is how I can't bring myself to join the Legion, I'm surprised at how many people who saw the Imperials as the good guys

[Magnum Opus]

Hmm... am actually not all that surprised, really. Not because I think the Imperials are in any way squeaky clean, but because there's been at least two points of lore which suggests the Nords have been right bastages in their own right.... and in exactly the same way as the Imperials are being toward them in the present. Nords come along and drive the Snow Elves/Falmer underground. Nords come along and drive the Forsworn out of their homeland as well. Now the Imperials come along and, under the gentle and loving encouragement of the Thalmor, they finally have a taste of their own medicine.

 

Me, I'm just about 150 hours into my first character and about level 35 or so, and I've yet to decide which side I'm going to pimp myself out to. Both groups seem to engage in more than a little dip****tery.... although I DO make a point of killing every Thalmor I come across. Even at cost of a bounty being placed 'pon my brow.

Edited December 30, 2011 by Magnum Opus

[Tigranes]

You quickly realize it doesn't matter, because whichever side you choose you just fight some random buggers spawning out of thin air, then listen to some boring B-grade hollywood ripoff speeches you can't skip.

 

If I make another character I'm making sure to not bother with the faction questlines, biggest letdown in the whole game. I still enjoyed Skyrim but the faction stuff only really gets played out a little bit in Markarth, and AFAIK, the racial segregation deal in Windhelm doesn't go anywhere. Not to mention the Thalmor end up pretty much as window dressing after the one quest.

[HoonDing]

Stormcloaks are idiots with their heads up Ulfric's ass, basically, it also doesn't help that Ulfric himself is pretty pathetic and a hypocritic coward.

 

If Vladimir Kulich had been more true-blooded Viking, I would've followed him in an instant.

 

But yeah, overall it's better to go for the truce.

[Magnum Opus]

Aw hell, I never held out any hope that the conflict between the Imperials and the Stormcloaks, or everything going on with the Thalmor (or any other major plot element) would be dealt with in prominent, Bioware B-movie style... rammed down my throat (possibly when I least expect it). Bethesda just doesn't deal with the story in the same way as Obsidian, or Bioware, or CDPR (thank heaven; vive la differenance, an' all that rot). All I'm looking for are differences, they don't have to be major, they don't even have to impact anything else, not really; most of the story that Bethesda puts into their games is imagination-fodder anyway. But they provide that imagination fodder really, really well.

 

Besides, am not entirely sure I'd appreciate major impacts in a game such as Skyrim, truth be told. One of the things that allows me to continue on with my "hundred plus hour with no end in sight" character is precisely the fact that the ramifications for my screws ups AREN'T irreversible. I end up killing Gulum-Ei in the Thieves Guild quest line by accident? I don't happen to have a saved game I want to use? Screw it, just keep going. THAT is where the best story elements take place in a Bethesda game: those little incidental occurrences that provide a WTF, or even an "awwww ****!", moment that, despite it not being a particularly good outcome, I still end up playing through. Major impacts broadcast at me from a mile away? I'm saving, and I'm going to "get the scenario right". Even if it is inherently less satisfying that simply dealing with whatever shizzle happens.

 

At the end of the day, I find a slightly "thinner" story -- with less bighuge C&C moments, maybe, but whose moments I won't automatically game to death -- to be more meaningful than one that's been scripted to hell and back. The scenarios play out more naturally because they're not scripted, and if they feel natural I'm going to identify with them on a more immediate level (ie. me, vs The Protagonist Of The Story That The Developers Have Written And Directed), which in turn allows a modicum of emotion to seep into the experience. Gaming a scenario might be fun, but it's no way to appreciate the scenario itself from the perspective of being IN the moment, which is where any emotion might play out.

 

As I said, though, I still have yet to deal with the rebellion, or Alduin, or any other major plot element, so I'm still reserving my opinion on the specifics of how such things have actually been handled in Skyrim. In principle, am not at all perturbed by reports of less-than-stellar C&C elements in certain types of games, despite C&C being the new fad that EVERY GAME HAS TO HAVE OR IT'LL BLOW CHUNKS. Almost the opposite, really.

[Slowtrain]

Bethesda seems to be doing a pretty good job their last couple games of maximizing the value of what they do well and downplaying stuff they're not so good at.

 

Since no developer can do everything well, given the real world limitations in resources for every game, in the end that's about the best you can expect.

[sorophx]

interesting, do go on, gentlemen. I might even consider buying this thing and playing through it, now that you've gotten my attention

[Tigranes]

True, before release I was afraid they'd learn the wrong lessons from FO3 and start putting in cinematic story crap in there, but they've done well to make the world have a bit more life in it without getting in the way - after all, TES is a strangely soulless world for all its lore, and that's part of its charm.

 

I'm debating whether to try another character, but the only real path I have left is the mage, and looking at the wiki lists they still seem rather uninspiring. I've just reinstalled BG1tutu, so...

[WorstUsernameEver]

Bethesda seems to be doing a pretty good job their last couple games of maximizing the value of what they do well and downplaying stuff they're not so good at.

 

Since no developer can do everything well, given the real world limitations in resources for every game, in the end that's about the best you can expect.

 

"Programming" is something every developer should learn to do well.

[Walsingham]

I can't work out if my character is this aesome warrior or some kind of combat clown. I am sticking to two handed hammers, and I miss about one swipe in three.

 

 

 

 

Lunged off a bridge when a fellah sidestepped.

 

 

 

 

 

Died.

[Gorth]

"Programming" is something every developer should learn to do well.

"Programming" is like "science". It would be a mistake to assume a scientist knows all science

[TheHarlequin]

I can't work out if my character is this aesome warrior or some kind of combat clown. I am sticking to two handed hammers, and I miss about one swipe in three.

 

 

 

 

Lunged off a bridge when a fellah sidestepped.

 

 

 

 

 

Died.

 

LOL

 

I have done that to opponents. Whacked them and they feel off a cliff or bridge. But never to myself

[Walsingham]

LOL

 

I have done that to opponents. Whacked them and they feel off a cliff or bridge. But never to myself

 

I'm not proud of it, you bastard.

[MrBrown]

I've been killed by a mudcrab.

[WorstUsernameEver]

"Programming" is something every developer should learn to do well.

"Programming" is like "science". It would be a mistake to assume a scientist knows all science

 

I was using developer as a stand-in for studio. Granted, I don't know how well-trained are Bethesda programmers, but I doubt that's the real problem, it's the studio's culture that doesn't seem to be good enough when it comes to managing scope and bugs. Granted, they're taking baby steps, but it's still too little. They certainly can't claim they have a money problem, especially after shipping 10 million copies with Skyrim.

[Slowtrain]

to managing scope and bugs.

 

 

It's a pretty common issue though since I can't single out Bethie.

 

Our beloved obs has far more problems with it then Bethie does, for example.

 

The whole "buggy-game" syndrome is more of a gamer issue than a developer/publisher issue anyway. Gamers are going to buy games at release whether they're buggy or not, then complain afterwards. There's not a huge amount of motivation for developers and publishers to spend a lot of money fixing bugs prior to release -- it's money spent that won't make the game sell any better. If the game sells really well, then you patch.

Edited January 1, 2012 by Slowtrain

[Spider]

People who want Bethesda games want them to have as large a scope as possible. They are willing to take minor bugs, because otherwise the game probably would never exist. Because of the size of Skyrim testing must have been a nightmare.

 

WUE says bethesda doesn't have a money problem because they shipped 10 million copies. I say they don't have a bug problem for the exact same reason. besides, the game didn't feel that buggy to me.

[WorstUsernameEver]

Uh, are you guys joking? Skyrim on PlayStation 3 goes to 0 FPS. 0. Check Digital Foundry. That's simply not acceptable, especially coming from a developer as big as Bethesda. I'm not talking about the occasional oddity, I'm talking about game-breaking performance.

 

Furthermore, justifying a developer for not fixing their title because they're not going to get any money out of it (which uh, is kind of a complicated issue since it doesn't take into account people who won't buy another Bethesda title full-price because of the state the title was released in) simply strikes me as dumb. I mean, I could understand if that logic was coming from a Zenimax higher up, but as a customer it screams of Stockholm syndrome.

 

And yeah, Bethesda shouldn't be singled out, but neither they should come out scot-free. I've always criticized Obsidian for the poor state they released their titles out of the gate (with the only exception of Dungeon Siege III), so I really don't see why I shouldn't do it with Beth.

[Oner]

They are willing to take minor bugs, because otherwise the game probably would never exist.

In my experience, most people have no concept of how a game's size relates to it's buggyness.

[Morgoth]

The more "simulation type" the game is (i.e. large scale Bethesda games with lots of non-scripted events), the more buggy it's gonna be. Duh.

 

So we either can have huge ambitious games with some annoying bugs, or straigh dull linear tube-cutscene-tube style games with virtually no bugs.

Edited January 1, 2012 by Morgoth

[WDeranged]

Skyrim has been blissfully smooth for me, if only because they seem to have finally solved the age old Bethesda crashes on PC, I've had a couple of broken quests but absolutely nothing that can't be corrected with a few console commands.

 

I can totally understand the rage of PS3 users though, Bethesda nailed their nuts to the wall with the 11-11-11 release date, shoddy behaviour

[Slowtrain]

people who won't buy another Bethesda title full-price because of the state the title was released in)

 

 

Gsmers have been making that same tired claim for YEARS. Seriously. 20 years ago boards still had those threads filled with "OMG this game is so buggy I'm never buying anther product by them again etc and so forth." and I'm sure a handful have even stood by that. But not enough to have the complaints carry any weight to publisher.

 

Just the fact that enough people would buy a game from Bethesda, a known publisher of buggy games who also doesn't even do a very fixing said bugs, so that they could ship 10 million copies, just shows how dumb gamers are as consumers.

 

. I mean, I could understand if that logic was coming from a Zenimax higher up, but as a customer it screams of Stockholm syndrome.

 

I'm not saying it's right or that I agree with it. But that's the way it is. gamers have earned their buggy games by being non-discriminating consumers. Publishers KNOW they can release buggy games and they'll sell anyway.

 

And yeah, Bethesda shouldn't be singled out, but neither they should come out scot-free. I've always criticized Obsidian for the poor state they released their titles out of the gate (with the only exception of Dungeon Siege III), so I really don't see why I shouldn't do it with Beth.

 

fair enough.