• 163 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
#1 Edited by kishinfoulux (2283 posts) -
Online
#2 Posted by Brighty (251 posts) -

He's not exactly wrong, IMO.

He said he tried to think of five good characters from Skyrim and that he couldn't.

Yeah, neither can I.

#3 Edited by TheDudeOfGaming (6078 posts) -

Well I mean it did have great gameplay and pretty good graphics. But it also was kind of generic, didn't do that much for the lore of Elder Scrolls, at the very least not as much as Morrowind or Oblivion.

The first two Witchers hit on all the spots Skyrim didn't. They managed to create a game where exploration wasn't my primary motivator of playing, but the characters and the world were. To be fair very few fantasy titles can stand up to Witcher in terms of universe, story and characters. Elder Scrolls maybe has a more developed lore but not necessarily a more interesting one.

#4 Posted by PeasantAbuse (5138 posts) -

Yeah, but I still played it for 150+ hours.

#yolo #imajusdome #fourhundredtwenty

#5 Edited by Sooty (8082 posts) -

Skyrim has a very nice looking world, then all the dungeons and loot are as generic as they come.

I still think it's nuts games like Skyrim and Assassins Creed get away with having awful combat, especially when that takes up a lot of what you do within the game.

Game of the Year!

I enjoyed wandering around the world but got bored fairly quick after putting up with the braindead combat and feeling like I saw what the world had to offer.

#6 Posted by Funkydupe (3311 posts) -

Haha, that's a really good point about the characters. There aren't really many memorable ones for me either.

#7 Posted by Fredchuckdave (5353 posts) -

@sooty: Assassin's Creed hasn't had awful combat since AC1, it might be easy combat but it's still fluid and efficient (and it keeps getting better between games). Skyrim has problems but I still wouldn't go so far to call it awful; though yeah only the 6th or 7th best game of 2011.

#8 Posted by voltronadactylsaurusrex (69 posts) -

Looking back on it, Skyrim didn't really change much from oblivion. I still see the jank of gamebryo in the game and there games that are in the same vein that are better than it.

#9 Edited by Sooty (8082 posts) -

@fredchuckdave said:

@sooty: Assassin's Creed hasn't had awful combat since AC1, it might be easy combat but it's still fluid and efficient (and it keeps getting better between games).

You press one button to win, the AI stand around as they get slaughtered one-by-one just watching.

I don't find that enjoyable at all, it always felt clunky too because of all the context sensitive controls.

When games like Arkham Asylum are on the market I think awful is a pretty fair thing to call the combat in those games.

#10 Posted by RockHardRetard (4 posts) -
#11 Posted by Grimluck343 (1149 posts) -

I think Skyrim is an amazing game but he is kind of right. When you make a world that big you need to make sure that there's actually enough content to keep you wanting to explore that world.

#12 Posted by Pr1mus (3873 posts) -

Well he's right.

Skyrim was built using a checklist of generic fantasy tropes. It checked every box on that list but forgot to add a little something to differentiate itself.

It was big and long and could keep people occupied for a long time but there was nothing creative about it.

#13 Edited by Humanity (9061 posts) -

I think it's somewhat telling and horrifying how a lot of people, including game critics, will acknowledge that Skyrim had boring combat, mundane quests and lackluster dungeons - then continue to state how they still played 200hrs in total. I guess most people have just decided to settle for less as long as there's a fresh coat of paint applied.

#14 Posted by stalefishies (331 posts) -

Skyrim was a fantastic timesink but not much more than that really. I mean, I enjoyed the hours I put into it, but it hasn't really had a lasting impression on me.

#15 Posted by Morbid_Coffee (955 posts) -

The thing Skyrim did right was that it came out when no other games were being released, which gave everybody the time to put 100+ hours into it.

This wasn't the case for me. I bought it over the Steam Holiday sale, played for about 2 hours, and nothing really grabbed my attention to the point where I needed to play Skyrim instead of other games that came out that I wanted to play instead. It's still a good game...just kind of boring and slow.

#16 Edited by Fredchuckdave (5353 posts) -

@sooty: Well at minimum you're pressing 2 buttons; in AC3 it's more like 5 or 6 and the combat is really what you make it; you're an invincible killing machine yes but you can kill several dozen different ways; it's your own fault if you only do counter kills outside of the first game. I get the feeling you've only played one or two games in the series though so pretty hard to judge from that perspective. Arkham Asylum/City's combat is almost perfect so it's not fair to draw comparisons to it; nothing really comes close (even Bayonetta is far far behind), I mean I guess you could say Dark Souls is a slower paced version but it's a lot easier to tune a slower combat system (and obviously the biggest issue in Arkham City is counters only working 90-95% of the time instead of 100%)

The Witcher 2, fantastic game probably the best in 2011, has worse combat than AC2 onward, and it's not really close.

#17 Posted by believer258 (11808 posts) -

I loved Skyrim, fantastic game. OK, yeah, there were some things that were generic about it... but whatever, I enjoyed every minute of it and will probably put even more time into it later.

I hope CD Projekt Red doesn't get too ambitious or too proud - that's a fast road to hell. Too Human and Duke Nukem Forever are examples of that. I'm not saying they are, but suddenly challenging big-name AAA games sets up big expectations for your game. It's very cocky.

#18 Posted by Andorski (5287 posts) -

The third act of The Witcher 2 was a letdown.

boom.

#19 Posted by Fredchuckdave (5353 posts) -

@believer258: The Witcher 2 is a much better game than Skyrim, it's not "very cocky" in any regard (though it is an admittedly cheap way to get press)

#20 Edited by Pr1mus (3873 posts) -

@believer258: The Witcher 2 is a much better game than Skyrim, it's not "very cocky" in any regard (though it is an admittedly cheap way to get press)

Gotta agree with this. It's not being arrogant when they already delivered a better game than Skyrim. It puts the pressure on them to not fuck it up but they already proved they can produce quality games.

#21 Edited by mellotronrules (1192 posts) -

skyrim was essentially a viking myth simulator. and i am 100% ok with that.

if they plan on having very deep and nuanced character interactions in a totally open world...they have their work cut out for them. part of the brilliance of skyrim is the ability to point yourself in any direction and play the game- the radiant quest system, although impersonal and imperfect- worked. i can't imagine how difficult it must be to design deep character development, but then give players the kind of agency skyrim did.

that said, if they pull it off- kudos, bros.

#22 Posted by Fredchuckdave (5353 posts) -

@mellotronrules: Yeah, that and the general tendency of the second game in series to be excellent then the third game to be a slight letdown and I'm not overly optimistic that Witcher 3 will be better than 2 (but it will probably still be better than Skyrim)

#23 Posted by Miketakon (514 posts) -

I enjoyed Skyrim but I agree with the director.

#24 Posted by PillClinton (3291 posts) -

He's right, but I still put something like 120+ hours into it, although eventually got bored and never actually finished the main story quest line.

#25 Posted by RedCream (704 posts) -

Skyrim and The Witcher are both great games. I would argue that Skyrim needs that generic feel to it to create a breathing world. With all the NPCs populating the world it would be implausible to make every encounter memorable. Also I think of it as a game propelled by events/quests rather than individual personalities.

#26 Edited by Snail (8595 posts) -

@redcream said:

Skyrim and The Witcher are both great games. I would argue that Skyrim needs that generic feel to it to create a breathing world. With all the NPCs populating the world it would be implausible to make every encounter memorable. Also I think of it as a game propelled by events/quests rather than individual personalities.

Are you implying that the events/quests aren't generic?

Still a damn great game though.

#27 Posted by Fredchuckdave (5353 posts) -

@redcream: Huh, so generic is good? Grey/brown post apocalyptic is how every game should look! That's just an extremely poor argument in any regard; unless you're trying to prove that you're completely incorrect. Skyrim is too large and isn't run on an impressive engine so it has to be generic by necessity; but that isn't exactly a good consequence.

#28 Posted by SlashDance (1814 posts) -

What's with that trend of bashing Skyrim for no apparent reason lately ? So the man who made a game about witches and trolls set in a totally unique world of... elves and dwarves, finds Skyrim generic ? Well woopty-fucking-doo !

#29 Edited by Bourbon_Warrior (4523 posts) -

Couldn't get into Witcher 2 like I did Skyrim, I also thought Witcher 2 was very generic with bad combat and a very small "world" to explore.

#30 Edited by PeasantAbuse (5138 posts) -

Is there a significant difference between the first and second Witcher games? I played the first one for a few minutes, got confused as to how people enjoyed it, and never went back.

#31 Posted by SlashDance (1814 posts) -

@peasantabuse: To me The Witcher 2 is basically Fable but good. That is until you get to the final act but it's not that long anyway. Witcher 1 was a very different game, I couldn't really get into it either.

#32 Posted by Jams (2960 posts) -

@pr1mus said:
@fredchuckdave said:

@believer258: The Witcher 2 is a much better game than Skyrim, it's not "very cocky" in any regard (though it is an admittedly cheap way to get press)

Gotta agree with this. It's not being arrogant when they already delivered a better game than Skyrim. It puts the pressure on them to not fuck it up but they already proved they can produce quality games.

That director is up his own ass with those comments. It's easy for that cock mouth to say Skyrim was boring story wise when his is based off someone else's book. The elder scrolls series isn't about characters, but the world. Most people here can probably recite all the continents and even some history of the Elder Scroll games. I bet he can name 5 characters from the Witcher. That's because the had to read all the previous books to be able to make the game right. What an arrogant thing to say. I hope he eats his words when he realizes how hard it is to develop an open world (without making it on rails like the Witcher games).

I was looking forward to the new Witcher game now I don't know.

@humanity said:

I think it's somewhat telling and horrifying how a lot of people, including game critics, will acknowledge that Skyrim had boring combat, mundane quests and lackluster dungeons - then continue to state how they still played 200hrs in total. I guess most people have just decided to settle for less as long as there's a fresh coat of paint applied.

It must not have been that boring if they put that much time into the games. I think they bite the hand that feed in this regards. They sucked all the fun out of Skyrim they could have then once they get bored, they act that the whole game was boring the whole 200 hours they played it. I don't know about you, but if something bores me, I don't get past the first 2 hours let alone 200.

#33 Posted by jimmyfenix (3853 posts) -

The witcher sucks , come at me

#34 Posted by SlashDance (1814 posts) -

@jams said:

It must not have been that boring if they put that much time into the games. I think they bite the hand that feed in this regards. They sucked all the fun out of Skyrim they could have then once they get bored, they act that the whole game was boring the whole 200 hours they played it. I don't know about you, but if something bores me, I don't get past the first 2 hours let alone 200.

Spot-on. More often than not when I hear about how bad Skyrim is it's from people telling me how the Civil War is boring, how the Dark Brotherhood is disappointing, how the College is short, etc.Very rarely do you hear someone tell you "I got to Witherun and thought it was shit !" No ! They hated the game so much they completed every single quest line !

#35 Posted by Fredchuckdave (5353 posts) -

@jams: Try not to argue whilst angry or you'll say something silly; the original Witcher isn't even close to linear and the Witcher 2 is perhaps "mostly linear" but all that linearity does is greatly improve the plot to the point where it utterly destroys every other fantasy RPG released this generation; there's nothing wrong with linear gameplay if done well; if anything it's much much easier to make a huge world and slap random identical holes with nearly identical enemies everywhere; occasionally pausing to place a vaguely interesting questline.

#36 Posted by Brighty (251 posts) -
@jams said:

@pr1mus said:
@fredchuckdave said:

@believer258: The Witcher 2 is a much better game than Skyrim, it's not "very cocky" in any regard (though it is an admittedly cheap way to get press)

Gotta agree with this. It's not being arrogant when they already delivered a better game than Skyrim. It puts the pressure on them to not fuck it up but they already proved they can produce quality games.

That director is up his own ass with those comments. It's easy for that cock mouth to say Skyrim was boring story wise when his is based off someone else's book. The elder scrolls series isn't about characters, but the world. Most people here can probably recite all the continents and even some history of the Elder Scroll games. I bet he can name 5 characters from the Witcher. That's because the had to read all the previous books to be able to make the game right. What an arrogant thing to say. I hope he eats his words when he realizes how hard it is to develop an open world (without making it on rails like the Witcher games).

I was looking forward to the new Witcher game now I don't know.

Jesus christ, calm down with all the hostility. You act like the director ran over your dog or something.

That said, I'm sure he recognizes Skyrim is a great game but at the same time he's absolutely right about it being generic. I can't even name any characters from Skyrim except for Ulfric Stormcloak - and that was because I must have replayed the intro to that game making new characters about a dozen times. I've sunk over 100 hours into Skyrim and I enjoyed it for reasons that were not its story-telling.

The most remarkable thing I remember about Skyrim was that upon diving into the lore and discussing it on forums, you get the sense that the Imperials are really the side that you should align yourself with and not the Stormcloaks. THAT was outstanding story-telling - I loved the whole political intrigue bit with the war with the elves and the morally grey areas surrounding all the factions fighting them - but that was an optional side-quest chain and I can't for the life of me call to mind a single memorable character in the entirety of the game. There was the Stormcloak guy that helped me escape in the beginning, but I don't even remember his name.

I was hesitant when they announced Witcher 3 to be open world and following in the footsteps of Skyrim, but if anything the fact that they pointed out the significant flaws of Skyrim alleviates most of my fears and gets me that much more excited. They know where Skyrim misstepped and they're working on delivering an incredible experience.

#37 Posted by pweidman (2326 posts) -

I can agree with generic to some degree. It was still a huge beautiful world to explore and the factions/quests were a mixed bag, with some that were pretty damn good. As far as skills, loot(lack of imo), and lvling rewards, it was generic, but mostly in the sense that we've done all that before in ES games.

If the CDP devs wanna throw down a gauntlet, then so be it. They better come correct with Witcher 3 then. Big world, open feel, good quests and story, and better loot and progression than ES5 and Witcher 2. OK then; just let your game do the talking would be my preference if I was in on the development.

#38 Posted by Bourbon_Warrior (4523 posts) -

I don't see how you could be randomly walking though a forest when you see a giants camp, you go to sneak up to it to steal the loot and out of nowhere a Dragon comes and starts fighting the giants, then the mammoths get involved and then my horse decides to get in on the action, while I run for my life up a mountain (highest difficulty, dragons scared the shit out of me) and watch this battle play out. Nothing about that is generic, I don't think this developer knows what generic means and is a term that is widely overused in the gaming industry.

#39 Edited by ArtelinaRose (1850 posts) -

@jams said:

@pr1mus said:
@fredchuckdave said:

@believer258: The Witcher 2 is a much better game than Skyrim, it's not "very cocky" in any regard (though it is an admittedly cheap way to get press)

Gotta agree with this. It's not being arrogant when they already delivered a better game than Skyrim. It puts the pressure on them to not fuck it up but they already proved they can produce quality games.

That director is up his own ass with those comments. It's easy for that cock mouth to say Skyrim was boring story wise when his is based off someone else's book. The elder scrolls series isn't about characters, but the world. Most people here can probably recite all the continents and even some history of the Elder Scroll games. I bet he can name 5 characters from the Witcher. That's because the had to read all the previous books to be able to make the game right. What an arrogant thing to say. I hope he eats his words when he realizes how hard it is to develop an open world (without making it on rails like the Witcher games).

This is a very, very rude thing to say and demeans the work he and everybody else put into The Witcher games just as much as saying Skyrim was generic does to the team at Bethesda. Actually, it does moreso, because he wasn't outright insulting them.

#40 Posted by SSully (4164 posts) -

@bourbon_warrior: I am sure he is refering more to the story and characters, which I cannot blame him. Skyrim is a great game, but the best parts about that game are in the exploration and making your character. The main plot and it's characters are extremely forgetable. The only good story telling in the game has to be the self contained stories that develop as you are exploring caves and doing other side quests.

Honestly I hope Bethesda takes notes of the critisism people have been giving in terms of combat and story telling, because if they could boost the quality of those two things then their next game will be something really special.

#41 Edited by Quarters (1682 posts) -

I've thought that about Elder Scrolls since...well, since I've ever heard of Elder Scrolls. Never could get into it. Witcher 1 is pretty boss, though. I would play Witcher 2, but my computer is crap, and I haven't wanted to re-buy it for the 360 yet. When it gets cheap though...I'm on it.

#42 Posted by SlashDance (1814 posts) -

@jams: Try not to argue whilst angry or you'll say something silly; the original Witcher isn't even close to linear and the Witcher 2 is perhaps "mostly linear" but all that linearity does is greatly improve the plot to the point where it utterly destroys every other fantasy RPG released this generation; there's nothing wrong with linear gameplay if done well; if anything it's much much easier to make a huge world and slap random identical holes with nearly identical enemies everywhere; occasionally pausing to place a vaguely interesting questline.

That's more like Oblivion. Skyrim was much better about differentiating dungeons, and having small, self contained stories in each one. Of course with a world that huge it kinda has to get repetitive to some extent. You can't have 150+ dungeons without reusing assets and enemy types, but still, saying every dungeon in Skyrim is identical to the next is just as silly as saying The Witcher is on rails.

#43 Posted by Jams (2960 posts) -

@brighty: @fredchuckdave:

@pr1mus said:
@fredchuckdave said:

@believer258: The Witcher 2 is a much better game than Skyrim, it's not "very cocky" in any regard (though it is an admittedly cheap way to get press)

Gotta agree with this. It's not being arrogant when they already delivered a better game than Skyrim. It puts the pressure on them to not fuck it up but they already proved they can produce quality games.

This is a very, very rude thing to say and demeans the work he and everybody else put into The Witcher games just as much as saying Skyrim was generic does to the team at Bethesda. Actually, it does moreso, because he wasn't outright insulting them.

Why can't he let his games do the talking? Does he really have to talk down about other games? That's a pet peeve of mine and one that drives me up the wall every time. I always hate it when someone thinks they're hot shit and has to go on about it by saying other games (or whatever the topic is) aren't any good or aren't as good as their's. Just make your game and if it's as good then great. No need to talk a big game first. Next time he's going to challenge Todd Howard to a pissing competition.

#44 Posted by gogosox82 (424 posts) -

I think he's right. While i liked skyrim, I think the story is pretty boring and there aren't any memorable characters that i can think of. Most of the quests are kind of boring as well and the dungeons are pretty generic. Hopefully he'll be able to change that with the witcher 3.

#45 Posted by cmblasko (1198 posts) -

Great, can't wait to see what they bring to the table with The Witcher 3. I think the open-world RPG game space needs some disruption, and we only benefit from passionate competition between top-tier developers.

#46 Edited by Fredchuckdave (5353 posts) -

@slashdance: No I mean there's interesting dungeons and every once in a while you'll randomly encounter a new type and that'll be interesting for the first 2 or 3 times but by and large unless a dungeon directly ties in to a major faction or a daedra it's really boring and uninteresting and nearly identical to 5-10 other dungeons elsewhere. Even the ones that do involve major factions still use most of the same enemies and assets; though if you're lucky enough to find an area type you haven't encountered before it can make a story dungeon especially interesting (but there's no guarantee there). I will say the actual external world isn't nearly as repetitive as Oblivion, but the dungeons definitely need a rehaul.

@jams: It's not like he's Phil Fish and insults entire countries or something; as I said it's one way to get press; perhaps not the most delicate way but I'd be pissed too to see how many people thought Skyrim was wonderful but didn't even play the Witcher 2 (*cough* Jeff, Ryan, and Brad *cough*); it's natural to have some sort of negative response.

#48 Edited by Animasta (14673 posts) -

I don't see how you could be randomly walking though a forest when you see a giants camp, you go to sneak up to it to steal the loot and out of nowhere a Dragon comes and starts fighting the giants, then the mammoths get involved and then my horse decides to get in on the action, while I run for my life up a mountain (highest difficulty, dragons scared the shit out of me) and watch this battle play out. Nothing about that is generic, I don't think this developer knows what generic means and is a term that is widely overused in the gaming industry.

Uh... I don't see how that's not generic? Emergent gameplay doesn't exactly make something not generic. Most of the quests of Skyrim were extremely generic, in fact, and the characters were too.

Witcher 2 certainly has it's problems but the one word you can't use to describe is generic

#49 Posted by SlashDance (1814 posts) -
#50 Edited by DarthOrange (3858 posts) -

The dude is right. Skyrim is the most overrated game of this generation. I bought it when it was on sale on new years eve and could not get into it. The whole thing is so bland, it lacks the personality that the Fallout games have.