• 163 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
#101 Posted by Animasta (14699 posts) -

@animasta said:
@bourbon_warrior said:

@animasta said:
@galiant said:

Generic or not, I spent way more time (and had more fun) playing Skyrim than I did playing The Witcher 2.

That said, I still loved it and really hope The Witcher 3 delivers.

That means nothing and you know it.

I spent 40 hours in two playthroughs for witcher 2, I spent 120 hours in Skyrim, but Witcher 2 is still way better.

Why does that mean nothing because it's not your opinion?

I was talking about mentioning the amount of time you've played it, because that has nothing to do with how great a game is.

He said he had more fun... Read before you comment.

well first of all he mentioned the time thing first and it was the most important part of the comment (seeing as how the fun part was in a parenthetical), and I was pretty clearly mentioning the time thing without getting into the fact that he liked it better (which i think he's wrong but who cares).

I just think it's a completely idiotic thing to mention and that was all, no need to take up Skyrim's defense here

#102 Posted by AlecOfTheWest (279 posts) -

They're both pretty boring, but at least the combat in The Witcher games could be considered somewhat intuitive. I've never understood the popularity that Bethesda's games have gotten. Between the paper-thin plot, lifeless world, and boring combat, what is there to like?

#103 Posted by RollingZeppelin (1999 posts) -

I have no desire to go back to the Skyrim world. I saw it once, played the game until I was bored. Saved the world and became a god-like character, far more powerful than any legend in the ES lore and the world still refuses to even acknowledge my existence.

If there were additional Witcher 2 content on the other hand I would be all over that shit. Why? Because everyone I interacted with who knew of the deeds of my character or even just the order of the Witchers had an interesting opinion of me. Everything I did in that game mattered and was remembered by at least some of the characters. I felt like I actually had a role in that world instead of being this weird, incredible powerful, yet completely inconsequential spectre.

Dude is right, and I can understand why he's mentioning the weak writing of Skyrim.

@jasonr86: Professionalism has nothing to do with marketing, that's why marketing isn't a profession. Businesses have to position their competing products in a favourable light in order to differentiate them to show their value to the customer. All he did was state the facts about another game with the promise that his will be different.

#104 Posted by ArtelinaRose (1855 posts) -

They're both pretty boring, but at least the combat in The Witcher games could be considered somewhat intuitive. I've never understood the popularity that Bethesda's games have gotten. Between the paper-thin plot, lifeless world, and boring combat, what is there to like?

The ability to mod in all of the anime hair and outrageously huge titties that I demand from my video games.

#107 Posted by chrissedoff (2116 posts) -
@sooty said:

@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.

That's incorrect. Mashing only works on the low-ranking dudes and even then it's not the most effective way to fight them. The other guys will also take swings at you occasionally, but if you want them to bum-rush you all at once and you still expect combat to be fun, I don't know what to tell you.

#108 Posted by MentalDisruption (1639 posts) -

Can't really argue with him on that one. All I can really look back on fondly about skyrim at this point is walking around, enjoying the scenery, and finding whatever random shit happened to be going on. Nothing about the lore or characters in the world really stood out to me.

#109 Posted by ArtelinaRose (1855 posts) -

@sooty said:

@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.

That's incorrect. Mashing only works on the low-ranking dudes and even then it's not the most effective way to fight them. The other guys will also take swings at you occasionally, but if you want them to bum-rush you all at once and you still expect combat to be fun, I don't know what to tell you.

This here is a big part of the problem. Just about every enemy in the game can be defeated by pressing two buttons when they attack you to instantly kill them, or kicking them and then mashing the attack button until you get their health down two blocks and then instantly kill them. Later games in the series recognized just how pointless fighting people was and ended up just giving you the ability to slaughter entire groups by doing a counter attack and then pushing a single button and a direction. Zero skill involved.

#110 Edited by Animasta (14699 posts) -

@animasta said:

@icicle7x3 said:

I dont need to name 5, I only need to name 1:

1) Sheogorath

Done.

was that the crazy daedric guy

also he is literally just "lolol so randum xD" the character

Now you are just showing what little maturity you have with that comment and it's spelled random...

that whole quest line was just "think of something random for this guy to say" and then there was some silly shit with the stick thing or something. and that was literally one of the less generic quests, which was really sad. I was fucking playing Skyrim last week and the only quest I can remember with any detail is the cannibalism one because that's who my companion is

(also no need to be condescending, I could easily ask you to use commas or something snide like that)

(also I purposefully misspelled the word, I was saying that it was something that 4chan would come up with)

(also you are a jerk)

#111 Posted by JasonR86 (9715 posts) -

@rollingzeppelin:

I suppose. I mean all I can really remark on is how I reacted to the article and the comments and, to me, it sounds bush league. It probably isn't and I understand business reasons for why you would do what this guy did. But as a consumer, an enthusiast, and a professional myself (though in a different field) it rubs me the wrong way. But the dude can say what he wants.

#112 Posted by Hailinel (24973 posts) -

@jasonr86 said:

@rollingzeppelin:

I suppose. I mean all I can really remark on is how I reacted to the article and the comments and, to me, it sounds bush league. It probably isn't and I understand business reasons for why you would do what this guy did. But as a consumer, an enthusiast, and a professional myself (though in a different field) it rubs me the wrong way. But the dude can say what he wants.

I disagree. He's levying criticisms against Skyrim that are actually legitimate; it's not a game with great characters or even a good story. It has a big open world to explore with a lot of things to do, but damn if I could remember the names of any of the characters I met.

#113 Posted by DaMisterChief (628 posts) -

Yes generic quest and so forth

#114 Posted by President_Barackbar (3462 posts) -

@brighty: @golguin: I deliberately didn't use a wiki and only went off the top of my head. To the point of the RLM description game, some of the characters don't hold up, some do. Its hard to develop characters very much in a game as large as Skyrim, but I feel like the important ones they do make an effort to develop do it reasonably well; and even the ones they don't develop very well have a recognizable character trait (Farengar being a little to eager to experiment on dragons, the Augur of Dunlain being a ball of energy after a Restoration experiment)

#115 Posted by chrissedoff (2116 posts) -

@artemesia: Assassin's Creed's combat is easy, sure, but only when you're doing it the way you're supposed to. Challenging isn't necessarily good and easy isn't necessarily bad. Maybe you didn't find it fun because it didn't demand very much from you, but the combat isn't generic or unusually repetitive even if it is easy.

#116 Edited by Humanity (9384 posts) -

@jams: I don't think he's being arrogant. People can name a lot of memorable characters from games that have strong plots. Skyrim, among many important game issues, had a horrible plot. The main quest line isn't exactly anything to write home about, with poor pacing and forgettable fetch tasks. Now don't get me wrong, I don't think it's a BAD game. Skyrim does a lot of things right, mainly getting you hooked in the beginning much like a good iOS game. It's just that after a while when the novelty wears off you start to see how really empty this whole world is. Their is this myth that the Bombcrew and fans like to propagate how "it's a huge world where you can go and do ANYTHING.." but what is that anything exactly? By Patricks example of Dragons Dogma - he claims it has a boring world where when you climb a mountain there is nothing to do, there was no point in climbing it. What does one do in Skyrim when they climb a mountain, apart from shouting a goat off a cliff and marveling at this amazing thing called "ragdoll physics"? What are these adventures you can have in Skyrim that are so freeform? Killing wolves when traversing the wild? Finding a cave, looting it only to come back to it later for a story specific quest with a completely different decor? Picking shrubbery? I mean it's at times a stunning world with beautiful snowstorms and weather effects (even if they are very one note), but it's just as dead and empty like any other open world game. Unless there is a quest with scripted events there is nothing to do until you reach a dungeon or get assailed by random road mobs.

Also saying the Witcher team can fall back on books making crafting the story a lot easier is a cheap shot. If anything it's harder as they have to work within the confines those books set while the Elder Scrolls team can create new fiction at will - which is exactly what they did. Skyrim isn't the first game in the series. They literally had a ton of lore and previous games to fall back on if they wanted to - and I think a big error in judgement was distancing Skyrim from previous Elder Scrolls games. If they had constant call backs to Oblivion and Morrowind throughout the main storyline I think it would be quite exciting for a lot of people that played those past titles.

#117 Edited by tourgen (4515 posts) -

The Witcher 2 was already a better RPG. I enjoyed the quest lines in Skyrim but yep, not many interesting characters or larger story lines. Not a big deal. daedric quests were pretty good. civil war was good. main quest wasn't too bad.

The bad side of Skyrim was the combat, especially magic combat, and the loot. The loot was the WORST! So generic, so uninteresting. 2 or 3 of the daedric items were Alright, that's it. And that combat. I guess it's marginally improved since Arena? It's just uninteresting. Combat spells and magic ability balance was seriously screwed up in the base game.

Witcher 2 just made Skyrim combat look even worse. The way it handled larger groups, all the options available, and a really cool potion and traps system that was supremely designed and balanced.

CD Projekt has earned the right to throw a little smack talk around. They had the GOTY RPG whether that fact was recognized at the time or not.

#118 Posted by Subjugation (4722 posts) -

Bold words. Now to see if they deliver a game to back up that talk. I couldn't ever get in to The Witcher 1 or 2, despite trying multiple times. I spent a ton of time with Skyrim though, and enjoyed it thoroughly.

I really think this is foolish and a little childish. Taking shots at a critical and commercial success when you haven't delivered a similar experience doesn't make me impressed. Now they have set the expectation that they are going to out-Skyrim Skyrim, and if they don't everyone will circle back to these comments and rage.

#119 Posted by Vinny_Says (5714 posts) -

This is the video game equivalent of Kendrick Lamar saying Nas makes generic music.

Take that as you will, but at the end of the day, dude has an opinion and he's entitled to it.

#120 Posted by SlashDance (1818 posts) -

@tourgen: Act 1 of The Witcher 2 had great combat but by the time you get to act 3 it gets easy to the point of being trivial. I didn't play the enhanced edition but the base game wasn't well balanced at all. Also they only had one character with very few skills which is probably easier to balance than 18 skills and something like 250 perks. Not saying it's an excuse for bland combat but TW2 isn't exactly without flaws.

But really they're such different games, there's no point in saying one is better than the other, because they don't even try to do the same things. The fantasy setting is probably the only thing they have in common. Saying TW2 is better because it has better characters is like saying Basketball is better than Hockey because you score more often.

Basketball is definitely better than Hockey by the way. Take that Canada !

#121 Posted by AssInAss (2655 posts) -

I don't think even the most hardcore Skyrim fan could find 5 memorable characters. This is kind of why I never got past 20 hours in those games. Played Oblivion for 20 hours, liked bits of it but didn't care enough to carry on and the combat was outdated. Same thing with Skyrim except side quests were even less memorable.

Open world RPG where I give a damn about characters, storytelling, and plot, that'll certainly be a new thing.

#122 Edited by mellotronrules (1193 posts) -
#123 Posted by zenmastah (920 posts) -

Ive put 150hrs into Skyrim and can kinda see what he means in the interview, just the other day i was talking to a friend about fast travelling in Skyrim and he said that it would be awesome to do a playthrough without fast travel and i couldnt agree with him at all.

Skyrim feels void of life most of the time and i guess thats how it is at the northern parts of Tamriel but it sure makes walking from place to place boring..

#124 Edited by WinterSnowblind (7617 posts) -

These seem like valid complaints. Even if you're a fan of the game, the main selling point is the size of the world and the amount of exploration. Nobody is playing the games for the quests/combat/characters and I think that's a major flaw with the series.

That and the fact each instalment has been getting progressively dumbed down. Games like Sleeping Dogs especially help to highlight the lack of life and detail in the game world too.

#125 Edited by OfficeGamer (1087 posts) -

@animasta said:

@bourbon_warrior said:

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

I don't even know what generic means anymore, it's just a noise now. Generic. Generic.

Can you please tell me what you mean by generic and how according to your definition, this post of yours that I'm quoting has merit?

#126 Posted by Rafaelfc (1350 posts) -

I love both games, SHOOT ME!!!!!

#127 Posted by Gamer_152 (14081 posts) -

Yeah, I don't think Skyrim is as great as most as people say it is, and I totally agree with him that from a narrative standpoint that game is pretty generic. You are the "chosen one" in a fantasy-ass fantasy world, with little really engaging plot or characters.

Moderator
#128 Posted by MordeaniisChaos (5730 posts) -

@brighty said:

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.

That's a really narrow minded thing to say. Elder Scrolls games have never really been about "characters." It's about the world and the places you are in.

I didn't need Skyrim to blow me away with awesomely deep characters. It was a world to explore, and it nailed that part of it. It also used environments that aren't seen enough in the gaming industry, and the unique feel of the Elder Scrolls franchise shines through pretty well in the game, in my opinion.

I think that argument is sort of like the arguments most ArmA players (epsecially those using over-haul mods like ACE2 or Project Reality) use against Call of Duty. Neither of those games are trying to do the things the other is doing, and acting like that's wrong is a bit silly.

If Skyrim was a bad game, it wouldn't have had the effect it did on as many people as it did. I've played over 200 hours, and I still go back to it.

Sure, it doesn't have the characters of a Fallout game. But Fallout has always had a bit more focus on the people you meet along the way. Skyrim always felt more about the journey and the world, and I appreciate that.

You know what other game had really generic (and very sparse) characters? STALKER. S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Call of Pripyat is still one of my favorite games of this "generation," because it gave a world that felt I could live in. It doesn't need super memorable characters, because most people in life aren't that memorable. They are, for the most part, like any other people. There's a spectrum, and exceptions, sure. But a game doesn't need to do everything in the world just to be an awesome game. And there are plenty of things Skyrim does that aren't generic. A lot of the lore that they do is pretty unique to the franchise. It's often playful, and has a very specific tone to it. And there's a shit ton of it scattered through the world.

Also, he says that Skyrim was generic, goes and copies their structure. I'm simplifying, and I'm also super stoked with the direction that Witcher 2 is going, but I still think that it's a bit odd to be going more and more in a Skyrim direction and also claim to be making a bigger world but also saying that it's generic to populate that world with a lot of similar environments and simple characters. What are they going to do, make totally unique geometry and textures for every one of the hundreds of caves and shit?

#129 Edited by JZ (2125 posts) -

Not enough boneing

#130 Posted by Bourbon_Warrior (4523 posts) -

Yeah, I don't think Skyrim is as great as most as people say it is, and I totally agree with him that from a narrative standpoint that game is pretty generic. You are the "chosen one" in a fantasy-ass fantasy world, with little really engaging plot or characters.

Isn't that the same with Geralt?

#131 Posted by Gamer_152 (14081 posts) -

@bourbon_warrior said:

@gamer_152 said:

Yeah, I don't think Skyrim is as great as most as people say it is, and I totally agree with him that from a narrative standpoint that game is pretty generic. You are the "chosen one" in a fantasy-ass fantasy world, with little really engaging plot or characters.

Isn't that the same with Geralt?

Sounds like it, I haven't played The Witcher games yet though. Still, whatever issues they might have, I don't think they make this criticism of Skyrim any less valid.

Moderator
#132 Posted by ArtisanBreads (3861 posts) -

@gamer_152 said:

Yeah, I don't think Skyrim is as great as most as people say it is, and I totally agree with him that from a narrative standpoint that game is pretty generic. You are the "chosen one" in a fantasy-ass fantasy world, with little really engaging plot or characters.

Isn't that the same with Geralt?

No it's not really. He's just a political player. I mean a lot hinges on him but it's much different than how "chosen ones" usually operate, a good example being how most people don't like Geralt. And depending on which side you choose, you are excluding half the world more or less.

Anyways, I'll say it again, all this sounds great, but I really hope they back this up. Now I don't think Bethesda has the best writing or anything, but there's a reason beyond that why their games don't have that involved stories or quests or anything... it's hard to do that on their scale, their level of freedom, etc. So I love what the CDPR guys are saying but it's going to be very difficult to pull off. No one wants them to do it more than me though.

#133 Posted by Dacnomaniac (442 posts) -

I agree with him. This is one of the reasons I hated Skyrim in the first place...

#134 Posted by BaneFireLord (2941 posts) -

Skyrim'd probably my first or second favorite game of all time and I still can't argue with this guy. If you go into a Bethesda game looking for strong characters or story, you're in the wrong place.

#135 Posted by Bourbon_Warrior (4523 posts) -

@bourbon_warrior said:

@gamer_152 said:

Yeah, I don't think Skyrim is as great as most as people say it is, and I totally agree with him that from a narrative standpoint that game is pretty generic. You are the "chosen one" in a fantasy-ass fantasy world, with little really engaging plot or characters.

Isn't that the same with Geralt?

No it's not really. He's just a political player. I mean a lot hinges on him but it's much different than how "chosen ones" usually operate, a good example being how most people don't like Geralt. And depending on which side you choose, you are excluding half the world more or less.

Anyways, I'll say it again, all this sounds great, but I really hope they back this up. Now I don't think Bethesda has the best writing or anything, but there's a reason beyond that why their games don't have that involved stories or quests or anything... it's hard to do that on their scale, their level of freedom, etc. So I love what the CDPR guys are saying but it's going to be very difficult to pull off. No one wants them to do it more than me though.

I should probably pick it back up, I got bored after doing the Kraken quest and all the boring side quests around that village town, but up until then you felt like the "chosen one", not that that is a bad thing, I love being the bad ass in games.

I would love a true competitor to the Bethesda style RPG, they are my favorite type of games.

#136 Posted by SirOptimusPrime (2011 posts) -

@artisanbreads said:

Anyways, I'll say it again, all this sounds great, but I really hope they back this up. Now I don't think Bethesda has the best writing or anything, but there's a reason beyond that why their games don't have that involved stories or quests or anything... it's hard to do that on their scale, their level of freedom, etc. So I love what the CDPR guys are saying but it's going to be very difficult to pull off. No one wants them to do it more than me though.

I feel like this is one of the few level-headed comments in here. No wonder I agree with it.

Also Skyrim sucks, lololol.

#137 Posted by Jams (2961 posts) -

@bourbon_warrior said:

@gamer_152 said:

Yeah, I don't think Skyrim is as great as most as people say it is, and I totally agree with him that from a narrative standpoint that game is pretty generic. You are the "chosen one" in a fantasy-ass fantasy world, with little really engaging plot or characters.

Isn't that the same with Geralt?

Sounds like it, I haven't played The Witcher games yet though. Still, whatever issues they might have, I don't think they make this criticism of Skyrim any less valid.

That's not entirely true for Skyrim. Right after you get out of that first cave in Skyrim you can say "No" to the main story, turn the other way and start off on your own adventure never even doing the main quest. Remember, Skyrim IS a game after all so that main quest will always be waiting for you, but you never actually have to do it and be the hero. Maybe someday when games can be more complex that you can skip a main quest and watch it unfold from the sidelines, but until then Skyrim is the closest thing to making your own choices in a game.

#138 Edited by ArtisanBreads (3861 posts) -

@bourbon_warrior said:

@artisanbreads said:

@bourbon_warrior said:

@gamer_152 said:

Yeah, I don't think Skyrim is as great as most as people say it is, and I totally agree with him that from a narrative standpoint that game is pretty generic. You are the "chosen one" in a fantasy-ass fantasy world, with little really engaging plot or characters.

Isn't that the same with Geralt?

No it's not really. He's just a political player. I mean a lot hinges on him but it's much different than how "chosen ones" usually operate, a good example being how most people don't like Geralt. And depending on which side you choose, you are excluding half the world more or less.

Anyways, I'll say it again, all this sounds great, but I really hope they back this up. Now I don't think Bethesda has the best writing or anything, but there's a reason beyond that why their games don't have that involved stories or quests or anything... it's hard to do that on their scale, their level of freedom, etc. So I love what the CDPR guys are saying but it's going to be very difficult to pull off. No one wants them to do it more than me though.

I should probably pick it back up, I got bored after doing the Kraken quest and all the boring side quests around that village town, but up until then you felt like the "chosen one", not that that is a bad thing, I love being the bad ass in games.

I would love a true competitor to the Bethesda style RPG, they are my favorite type of games.

Yeah you should pick Witcher 2 back up. After that part you have to make a pretty big choice and you can see where it starts to get really political. The whole second act is different depending on what side you choose.

And agreed on wanting competition. Like I wrote, I think there are reasons for Bethesda game's weaknesses but for example they have writing in their games and it's just not that great. And you could push more interaction and story.

I think the fact that Witcher 3 has a defined player character is a big step towards allowing them to have focus in their writing, story, character interaction. That approach sounds appealing vs Skyrim's total openness. It's a nice contrast.

@siroptimusprime said:

@artisanbreads said:

Anyways, I'll say it again, all this sounds great, but I really hope they back this up. Now I don't think Bethesda has the best writing or anything, but there's a reason beyond that why their games don't have that involved stories or quests or anything... it's hard to do that on their scale, their level of freedom, etc. So I love what the CDPR guys are saying but it's going to be very difficult to pull off. No one wants them to do it more than me though.

I feel like this is one of the few level-headed comments in here. No wonder I agree with it.

Also Skyrim sucks, lololol.

Yeah I don't think people really understand design that much to be honest. Not saying I'm a designer myself, but just put yourself in Bethesda's shoes and think about how hard it is to tell a story when you're also allowing that much freedom. I think I see people say this about GTA more than about Bethesda games which is insane if you think about it.

For all the issues you have aligning the freedom Niko has in GTA IV with the plot they have laid out, imagine multiplying that by a ton for what you can do, and then imagine oh hey you aren't Niko you are a man or woman or one of X number of other races.

#139 Edited by Bourbon_Warrior (4523 posts) -

@jams said:

@gamer_152 said:

@bourbon_warrior said:

@gamer_152 said:

Yeah, I don't think Skyrim is as great as most as people say it is, and I totally agree with him that from a narrative standpoint that game is pretty generic. You are the "chosen one" in a fantasy-ass fantasy world, with little really engaging plot or characters.

Isn't that the same with Geralt?

Sounds like it, I haven't played The Witcher games yet though. Still, whatever issues they might have, I don't think they make this criticism of Skyrim any less valid.

That's not entirely true for Skyrim. Right after you get out of that first cave in Skyrim you can say "No" to the main story, turn the other way and start off on your own adventure never even doing the main quest. Remember, Skyrim IS a game after all so that main quest will always be waiting for you, but you never actually have to do it and be the hero. Maybe someday when games can be more complex that you can skip a main quest and watch it unfold from the sidelines, but until then Skyrim is the closest thing to making your own choices in a game.

LOL that would be fantastic, you take on a major story line quest then decide to go be a wizard at the magic school,

You then start hearing tales about a hero taking down dragons and saving kingdoms, you're like "OH HELL NOOOO!" and go back to the quest giver, "But you gave that quest to me!" you say, Quest giver all like "We needed that shit done straight away, you think we can just wait around while dragons are terrorising towns! So we paid Steve to do it, you ran off to become a Harry Potter, AINT NOBODY GOT TIME FOR THAT!"

#140 Edited by ArtisanBreads (3861 posts) -

@bourbon_warrior said:

@jams said:

That's not entirely true for Skyrim. Right after you get out of that first cave in Skyrim you can say "No" to the main story, turn the other way and start off on your own adventure never even doing the main quest. Remember, Skyrim IS a game after all so that main quest will always be waiting for you, but you never actually have to do it and be the hero. Maybe someday when games can be more complex that you can skip a main quest and watch it unfold from the sidelines, but until then Skyrim is the closest thing to making your own choices in a game.

LOL that would be fantastic, you take on a major story line quest then decide to go be a wizard at the magic school,

You then start hearing tales about a hero taking down dragons and saving kingdoms, you're like "OH HELL NOOOO!" and go back to the quest giver, "But you gave that quest to me!" you say, Quest giver all like "We needed that shit done straight away, you think we can just wait around while dragons are terrorising towns! You ran off to become a Harry Potter, AINT NOBODY GOT TIME FOR THAT!"

If you guys remember this was supposed to be what happened in Fable originally, more or less. It was the most exciting part of the pitch to me and of course it didn't come to be.

The idea of competing adventurers I think is really amazing and would be a lot of fun to play around with. I hope we see that done some day in a game.

#141 Edited by Flappy (2276 posts) -

As a fan of competition, I'm down for a lil' trash talk. Talk more shit so better games can be made! Skyrim's combat was complete ass but I still played it for...100 hours. Fuck. That was a dark month in my life.

#142 Posted by Bourbon_Warrior (4523 posts) -

If you guys remember this was supposed to be what happened in Fable originally, more or less. It was the most exciting part of the pitch to me and of course it didn't come to be.

The idea of competing adventurers I think is really amazing and would be a lot of fun to play around with. I hope we see that done some day in a game.

Like a Elder Scrolls game where you share the world with 5 of your friends. Some could be on the good side, some on the evil. Like one guy could be the "chosen one" doing all the main quests and such, while you are doing the thieves guild, stealing his treasure from his house. A dude could just be a baird recording songs over his mic to be repeated by all the bairds in the game. That Elder Scrolls MMO had so much potiental, but they wasted it on a WOW clone.

#143 Posted by Bourbon_Warrior (4523 posts) -

@flappy said:

As a fan of competition, I'm down for a lil' trash talk. Talk more shit so better games can be made! Skyrim's combat was complete ass but I still played it for...100 hours. Fuck. That was a dark month in my life.

I tend to agree with just the standard melee combat, then I started again as a wood elf and maxed out my Bow skills, that game became awesome sneaking around sniping dudes in slow motion with zoomed in vision and also just back stabbing dudes with the dagger as well, turned into a stealth game with that character.

#144 Posted by Flappy (2276 posts) -

@bourbon_warrior: I had a stealthy Khajiit with dual daggers that lay waste to everything. This was cool at first because I didn't have the best HP/Armor, so I had to get my kills from behind. Once the armor and perks started coming in, Skyrim was screwed. Daedric dudes? Dead. Dragons? Toast. Main Quest bosses? Piece o' cake.

I almost regret becoming so overpowered.

#145 Posted by Gamer_152 (14081 posts) -

@jams said:

@gamer_152 said:

@bourbon_warrior said:

@gamer_152 said:

Yeah, I don't think Skyrim is as great as most as people say it is, and I totally agree with him that from a narrative standpoint that game is pretty generic. You are the "chosen one" in a fantasy-ass fantasy world, with little really engaging plot or characters.

Isn't that the same with Geralt?

Sounds like it, I haven't played The Witcher games yet though. Still, whatever issues they might have, I don't think they make this criticism of Skyrim any less valid.

That's not entirely true for Skyrim. Right after you get out of that first cave in Skyrim you can say "No" to the main story, turn the other way and start off on your own adventure never even doing the main quest. Remember, Skyrim IS a game after all so that main quest will always be waiting for you, but you never actually have to do it and be the hero. Maybe someday when games can be more complex that you can skip a main quest and watch it unfold from the sidelines, but until then Skyrim is the closest thing to making your own choices in a game.

Doesn't that seem like a bit of a cop-out? I mean you theoretically could just never do the main quest, but the "Main quest" basically is the story of that game, it's what the game was pushing you into doing, and what percentage of players really turned tail and didn't even start the main storyline? I also don't think that Skyrim is the pinnacle in gaming when it comes to story choice, and I have to disagree with what you said earlier about how some devs shouldn't talk down other dev's games. I think it's healthy for the industry for people to criticise each other's work, and I think there's serious worth in a developer being able to say "Look, X game had this flaw, or couldn't do this, we can offer you a game that fixes that problem".

Moderator
#146 Posted by DaMisterChief (628 posts) -

I literally just finished The Witcher 2 and found it to be enjoyable and it really stuck to it "Fiction" and filled the video game world with character and all the other stuff to make it a good game

#147 Posted by probablytuna (3684 posts) -

I think the quests, most of the dungeon layouts are pretty generic but the world itself is pretty unique. Maybe it's cause I haven't play many Nordic-inspired games.

#148 Posted by Carousel (418 posts) -

I just replayed Skyrim last week and barely remember it.

I haven't played TW1 or TW2 since they released and can remember every single plot point.

However, I do remember becoming Archmage at the Mage's Guild when I only knew 1 spell.

Oh yeah, then I murdered the Emperor and it had no impact at all on the world.

That was pretty dumb.

Skyrim is pretty dumb.

#149 Posted by Galiant (2193 posts) -

@animasta said:

@galiant said:

Generic or not, I spent way more time (and had more fun) playing Skyrim than I did playing The Witcher 2.

That said, I still loved it and really hope The Witcher 3 delivers.

That means nothing and you know it.

I spent 40 hours in two playthroughs for witcher 2, I spent 120 hours in Skyrim, but Witcher 2 is still way better.

What I do with my time means something to me. I keep playing a whole lot of Skyrim, but I still don't feel like playing through The Witcher 2 again.

#150 Posted by stryker1121 (1464 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.

I've only played part of the first Witcher, but that game is more concentrated in hubs and does not have the "do anything" feel of Skyrim. Yeah, there's no really memorable characters in Skyrim, but the way the game's designed, the world and your place in it is the character rather than NPC #54325 you meet on the road.

Skyrim is a bit shallow as a fantasy RPG, I'll grant, and BethSoft played it super safe w/ the story, characters, customization and some of the quests. But I don't think it's fair to compare Witcher and Skyrim directly, as they are not analogous experiences.