I must not understand some games

[Lionheart]

Hey, I just wanted to make a thread about some games and how I don't understand that they can get so much publicity and such great scores. I may not be available to respond as often as I like, though. Got some school stuff going on.

First off, The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim. Call me crazy, but I don't see how this game is ''perhaps the best RPG of all time''. I thought a lot of its quests were either boring or unfulfilling. There were so many quests that told you to ''beat generic bandit X and receive amount of gold of Y''. I know you don't have to do those quests, but man, I can't think of anything duller than that. Aside from that, guild quests were very easy and made you the Guild Master in a jiffy. And it seemed like Oblivion's Dark Brotherhood quest was far superior to that of Skyrim.
And then there were the environments. I've been criticized for saying this, but Skyrim's environments seem colorless and depressing to me. Maybe that's the point, but if so, there should at least be some environments that stand out. If the game world is cold and colorless, I expect inns to be warm and inviting, but they weren't. You're just going from one cold place to another.

I don't mean to sound like I'm 'hating on' Skyrim, but I feel like it's definitely not worth a 9/10. I actually reviewed the game on Gamefaqs, giving it about a 7/10. I appreciate the amount of work put into Skyrim, but that just isn't enough for me to enjoy playing the game. The quests aren't as deep or as varied as Oblivion's. In Oblivion, there was a 'whodunit' quest. There was also a quest that allowed you to go into a painting, where paint trolls lived, and you needed to kill them with turpentine applied to your weapons and bring back Rythe Lythandas. There was a quest in which you had to kill a 'sir Roderick' (I think) by replacing his medicine with a flask of poison. Sneak behind a wall panel to make a minotaur head fall on top of Baenlin. And these were perhaps the least memorable quests! In Skyrim, none of that. Just 'hey, you need to go into a dungeon again. Oh look, generic Falmer. Again.'' And it would've been great if the main quest had gone into the civil war (Nords vs Imperials) some more, but instead, we got 'evil dragon tries to destroy all life'. The civil war would've been more interesting. Heck, you're the Dragonborn, so why not help with military proceedings? Why not meticulously plan the attack on the Nords/Imperials by using your map? Why not lead a phalanx of Imperial or Nord warriors?
As it is, most of the side quests were mediocrely written, and in some cases even badly.

Second is The Witcher 2, which is marketed as an 'adult' game in which you make choices that matter. I've been playing it for a while now, and that doesn't seem to be true. First of all, the game is not at all adult. People swearing all the time, some people being aggravated all the time, a lot of gore, and arbitrary sex scenes scream 'desperate' to me, not 'adult'. Some dialog is just ridiculous because of how aggravated both characters are, for no apparent reason. I'd almost expect them to just grunt all the time. It seems to me like pandering to a teenage crowd. It's amazing how much the game resembles Fable II or III. Some NPCs sound almost exactly like the people in Fable I/II. It even has the same spells (Fable I and II); Aard = Force Push, Igni = Fireball, Yrden = sort of like Vortex, Quen = Physical Shield, Axii = Turncoat. And that's all of the spells, really.
So far, I really dislike playing it, as every decision you make seems not to matter. I had to choose between Roche and Iorveth, but there's no real downsides OR advantages so far. Since Iorveth seems pretty much like a terrorist, I don't see the point in choosing him, though I did choose him to see if the game would get more interesting.

My review of Skyrim can be found here: http://www.gamefaqs.com/pc/615805-the-elder-scrolls-v-skyrim/reviews/review-150200
Thanks for reading.

 

[Dark Drakan]

Hey, I just wanted to make a thread about some games and how I don't understand that they can get so much publicity and such great scores. I may not be available to respond as often as I like, though. Got some school stuff going on.

First off, The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim. Call me crazy, but I don't see how this game is ''perhaps the best RPG of all time''. I thought a lot of its quests were either boring or unfulfilling. There were so many quests that told you to ''beat generic bandit X and receive amount of gold of Y''. I know you don't have to do those quests, but man, I can't think of anything duller than that. Aside from that, guild quests were very easy and made you the Guild Master in a jiffy. And it seemed like Oblivion's Dark Brotherhood quest was far superior to that of Skyrim.
And then there were the environments. I've been criticized for saying this, but Skyrim's environments seemed very colorless and depressing to me. Maybe that's the point, but if so, there should at least be some environments that stand out. If the game world is cold and colorless, I expect inns to be warm and inviting, but they weren't. You're just going from one cold place to another.

I don't mean to sound like I'm 'hating on' Skyrim, but I feel like it's definitely not worth a 9/10. I actually reviewed the game on Gamefaqs, giving it about a 7/10. I appreciate the amount of work put into Skyrim, but that just isn't enough for me to enjoy playing the game. The quests aren't as deep or as varied as Oblivion's. In Oblivion, there was a 'whodunit' quest. There was also a quest that allowed you to go into a painting, where paint trolls lived, and you needed to kill them with turpentine applied to your weapons and bring back Rythe Lythandas. There was a quest in which you had to kill a 'sir Roderick' (I think) by replacing his medicine with a flask of poison. And these were perhaps the least memorable quests! In Skyrim, none of that. Just 'hey, you need to go into a dungeon again. Oh look, Falmer. Again.'' And it would've been great if the main quest had gone into the civil war (Nords vs Imperials) some more, but instead, we got 'evil dragon tries to destroy all life'. The civil war would've been more interesting. Heck, you're the Dragonborn, so why not help with military proceedings? Why not meticulously plan the attack on the Nords/Imperials by using your map? Why not lead a phalanx of Imperial or Nord warriors?

Second is The Witcher 2, which is marketed as an 'adult' game in which you make choices that matter. I've been playing it for a while now, and that doesn't seem to be true. First of all, the game is not at all adult. People swearing all the time, some people being aggravated all the time, a lot of gore, and arbitrary sex scenes scream 'desperate' to me, not 'adult'. Some dialog is just ridiculous because of how aggravated both characters are, for no apparent reason. I'd almost expect them to just grunt all the time. It seems to me like pandering to a teenage crowd. It's amazing how much the game resembles Fable II or III. Some NPS sound almost exactly like the people in Fable I/II. It even has the same spells (Fable I and II); Aard = Force Push, Igni = Fireball, Yrden = sort of like Vortex, Quen = Physical Shield, Axii = Turncoat. And that's almost all of the spells.
So far, I really dislike playing it, as every decision you make seems not to matter. I had to choose between Roche and Iorveth, but there's no real downsides OR advantages so far. Since Iorveth seems pretty much like a terrorist, I don't see the point in choosing him, though I did choose him to see if the game would get more interesting.

Thanks for reading.

First of all there are a lot of recycled quests in Skyrim but most of the side quests are unique and some very good ones in there, I have pumped over 1000 hours into the series easily and its definately one of my favourite RPG series of all time due to just how much there is to do in the world. The world is its selling point and the random things that can happen in different playthroughs, the main quest alone would be a 7/10 but as a package as a whole there are very few that come close to the depth and sheer scale of The Elder Scrolls series. The game has the most varied environments out of most I have played and most areas have their own unique terrain/weather types, snow covered lands/mountains, woodland, rain soaked wastes, foggy marshes, lands scorched with fire/lava, portals to other realms, even most caves this time feel quite unique and some are HUGE rather than the copy paste job of Oblivions caves.

The Witcher 2 has sex, gore, drug use and adult language and is one of the more adult RPG on the market due to its dark nature and complex/deep story rather than sheer adult shock value. Though the full on sex scene did take me by surprise as someone who didnt play the first due to not having a PC capable of running it. The choices do matter as the whole middle of the game changes depending on your choices at that point. I have completed it once but there is a whole other story branch to the game im yet to see due to these choices plus your choices will carry over into the new game. The combat is like Fables spell system with a slight Assassins Creed edge to sword play and I actually really liked it, The Witcher 3 is my most highly anticipated new title.

Played a lot of RPG's in my time and I thought these 2 were a breath of fresh air in the genre to be honest.

 

[Lionheart]

First of all there are a lot of recycled quests in Skyrim but most of the side quests are unique and some very good ones in there, I have pumped over 1000 hours into the series easily and its definately one of my favourite RPG series of all time due to just how much there is to do in the world.

Maybe, but I've played Skyrim for a long time, and there wasn't that much to do for me. I don't really care about the little things like chopping wood or forging weapons. Nor do I care about the immensely unsatisfying marriage system in Skyrim. I'm saying most of the quests in Skyrim don't hold a candle to the ones in Oblivion. I like The Elder Scrolls, but Skyrim is probably the worst TES game out of the three I've played when it comes to quests. Even *spoilers* killing the Emperor did not have any outcome or emotionally satisfying results.

The world is its selling point and the random things that can happen in different playthroughs.

Sure, random events and stuff are nice, and the overworld is nice, but I've found there's very little interesting stuff to do, and I've played Skyrim until I finished every quest I could find. Aside from that, Skyrim again has the problem TES games have, in that you can't really be evil. Or rather, you can, but it always comes down to 'you must and you will save the world, even if you don't want to'.

The game has the most varied environments out of most I have played, snow covered lands/mountains, woodland, rain soaked wastes, lands scorched with fire, portals to other realms, even most caves this time feel quite unique and some are HUGE

But the dungeons/caves etc are filled with the same thing you've seen over and over again. Chances are you'll encounter a generic Draugr in a dungeon, even though you already encountered one in the previous dungeon. Chances are he'll also wield the same weapons and there will be a chest somewhere beside him that contains the same stuff you already picked up in another dungeon. It's just not varied or exciting enough, and the loot is terrible.

The Witcher 2 has sex, gore, drug use and adult language and is one of the more adult RPG on the market due to its dark nature and complex/deep story rather than sheer adult shock value.

So far, the plot isn't exactly deep. There's an order (or maybe just one guy) who tries to kill a number of kings. You are trying to stop him and figure out why he's doing it. That's it. I also don't really have a good idea of what the plot is about, since nobody has explained it. I haven't played The Witcher 1, so maybe I've missed something, but all I know is, kings are being murdered and possibly replaced, and you need to find out why and stop them.

The choices do matter as the whole middle of the game changes depending on your choices at that point. I have completed it once but there is a whole other story branch to the game im yet to see due to these choices plus your choices will carry over into the new game.

Well, I hope that's correct. But even then, would I really care about how it unfolds either way? So far, I haven't seen any advantages to siding with one side, nor any downsides to siding with that one, or the other.

The combat is like Fables spell system with a slight Assassins Creed edge to sword play and I actually really liked it, The Witcher 3 is my most highly anticipated new title.

So far, it's been a hack and slash fest, and it does not require skill. I just mash the A button, sometimes throwing in X, and that's enough to kill every enemy without taking damage (or very little damage).

 

[Lionheart]

I'll post my review of Skyrim just to give you an idea of what I mean. I'm sure most people will disagree with my review, but remember, reviews are largely subjective. I did not set out to dislike the game or anything, as I often like Bethesda's products and liked TES IV. I really gave it a good shot, but this is the result.

http://www.gamefaqs.com/pc/615805-the-elder-scrolls-v-skyrim/reviews/review-150200

 

[Dark Drakan]

Maybe, but I've played Skyrim for a long time, and there wasn't that much to do for me. I don't really care about the little things like chopping wood or forging weapons. Nor do I care about the immensely unsatisfying marriage system in Skyrim. I'm saying most of the quests in Skyrim don't hold a candle to the ones in Oblivion. I like The Elder Scrolls, but Skyrim is probably the worst TES game out of the three I've played when it comes to quests. Even *spoilers* killing the Emperor did not have any outcome or emotionally satisfying results.

Sure, random events and stuff are nice, and the overworld is nice, but I've found there's very little interesting stuff to do, and I've played Skyrim until I finished every quest I could find. Aside from that, Skyrim again has the problem TES games have, in that you can't really be evil. Or rather, you can, but it always comes down to 'you must and you will save the world, even if you don't want to'.

I have put over 200 hours into Skyrim alone on one playthrough and 75 hours on a second playthrough and although you do get to a point where some quests recycle I havent really ever found myself with nothing to do. That said in all that time ive never bothered with marriage at all and chopped wood once for the achievement. However I do really like forging things and really regret not putting more time into t early on in my first playthrough as its great way to make cash and can craft some great armour. The story has never been great or emotional and main quests are often pretty mediocre but ive thoroughly enjoyed the side quests and still havent done them all after 275 hours and 2 playthroughs. I have always wondered why they dont give you an option to truly side with evil however.

But the dungeons/caves etc are filled with the same thing you've seen over and over again. Chances are you'll encounter a generic Draugr in a dungeon, even though you already encountered one in the previous dungeon. Chances are he'll also wield the same weapons and there will be a chest somewhere beside him that contains the same stuff you already picked up in another dungeon. It's just not varied or exciting enough.

Granted there are a lot that do but there are also a lot that dont any many of the more interesting quests, best items, armour and weapons can be found solving puzzles in the caves. As well as collecting all over the Dragon Masks which I still have not done myself, got a decent amount of them but not all of them. The chests are levelled so depends how high of a level you are when you enter, I have found some great stuff at level 50+.

So far, the plot isn't exactly deep. There's an order (or maybe just one guy) who tries to kill a number of kings. You are trying to stop him and figure out why he's doing it. That's it. I also don't really have a good idea of what the plot is about, since nobody has explained it. I haven't played The Witcher 1, so maybe I've missed something, but all I know is, kings are being murdered and possibly replaced, and you need to find out why and stop them.

There are far more factors at play in the game than the obvious ones and far more repocussions to your actions and those of others around you than come into play in the overarching narrative than at first glance. Geralt is no hero really and can mostly be crafted into how you want him to be.

Well, I hope that's correct. But even then, would I really care about how it unfolds either way? So far, I haven't seen any advantages to siding with one side, nor any downsides to siding with that one, or the other.

They dont make them obvious and some will likely carry over to the next game before the true consequences come into play. I will play the other story branch when I get around to it so I can see things from the other characters point of view too and get a better idea of the bigger picture.

So far, it's been a hack and slash fest, and it does not require skill. I just mash the A button, sometimes throwing in X, and that's enough to kill every enemy without taking damage (or very little damage).

What difficulty are you on because in some of the larger battles I had to really think about what I was doing because I got my ass handed to me on occasion. The whole you cant take potions in battle can add strategic elements to the game as you have to think what skills to 'buff' before you engage the enemy. Killing with finesse and chaining kills together takes skill and I only remember managing to pull off 2 group executions in the whole game correctly. They are looking to add more sword fighting elements to the game as well as more stances for more strategic blocking and countering in the sequel. We have a thread on it here. I definitely wouldnt say I got very far just mashing the buttons, was just a quick way to die on the harder difficulties.

Each to their own however, as a huge RPG fan both The Elder Scrolls series and The Witcher have scratched my RPG itch very well. Both have taken up more of my time than most other RPG's in last few years put together. You disliked them and I liked them, merely opinions that wont be changed by words, variety is the spice of life and all that jazz lol.

 

[Lionheart]

I have put over 200 hours into Skyrim alone on one playthrough and 75 hours on a second playthrough and although you do get to a point where some quests recycle I havent really ever found myself with nothing to do. The story has never been great or emotional and main quests are often pretty mediocre but ive thoroughly enjoyed the side quests and still havent done them all after 275 hours and 2 playthroughs. I have always wondered why they dont give you an option to truly side with evil however.

I'm sure there's a lot to do, as I argued in my review, but it's all pretty boring to me. For example, I don't care about reading some random bandit's journal, because he doesn't write anything of interest to me. The journal doesn't lead to a fun sidequest, it's just... a journal of some random guy I would probably kill on sight. The main quest is worse than the one in Oblivion in that you don't get rewarded, and the characters are pretty bland. Skyrim can be pretty epic in how it presents things, but epicness isn't enough when the game just doesn't yield any rewards or ways for my character to develop. I know your skills do develop, but once I get all skills I want, and the Daedric armor and weapons, that's it. Game complete. Character fully developed, most side quests done. Now what?

Granted there are a lot that do but there are also a lot that dont any many of the more interesting quests, best items, armour and weapons can be found solving puzzles in the caves. As well as collecting all over the Dragon Masks which I still have not done myself, got a decent amount of them but not all of them. The chests are levelled so depends how high of a level you are when you enter, I have found some great stuff at level 50+.

I know. I've played the game to death, but it hasn't gotten better. I did the Daedric quests: same gear as in other games, and mediocre quests to get that gear. Oh look, the Goldbrand again. I only got it like fifty times before in Oblivion. Mace of Molag Bal again, and a similarly themed quest as in TES IV... how fun.

There are far more factors at play in the game than the obvious ones and far more repocussions to your actions and those of others around you than come into play in the overarching narrative than at first glance. Geralt is no hero really and can mostly be crafted into how you want him to be.

Alright, but so far that hasn't been the case. When I play games, I expect them to draw me in from the moment I start playing, not from the moment I reach 50% completion of the game. The plot has been pretty unexciting up to now.

What difficulty are you on because in some of the larger battles I had to really think about what I was doing because I got my ass handed to me on occasion. The whole you cant take potions in battle can add strategic elements to the game as you have to think what skills to 'buff' before you engage the enemy.

But you usually don't know which enemy you're going to face, so how will you know what potions to use? I'm playing the game on normal difficulty, as far as I know. Didn't change any of the settings, and I'm playing on the 360. I can just spam A and use the Fireball sometimes, and the enemies all die. I just recently fought a boss, and I did the same thing again. He died without dealing much damage to me.

Each to their own however, as a huge RPG fan both The Elder Scrolls series and The Witcher have scratched my RPG itch very well. Both have taken up more of my time than most other RPG's in last few years put together. You disliked them and I liked them, merely opinions that wont be changed by words lol.

True. I guess we just look for different things in RPGs. I look for a deep plot and deep sidequests that give you a lot of freedom to play as the character you want to play, not as the character the game tells you to be. I personally don't care about random NPCs' life stories and stuff, unless they involve my character in some way. I also place great value on loot, as I want to equip my character with various things and mix and match stuff to get a stylish, powerful character. Maybe that's more a trait of traditional Japanese RPGs.

 

[Dark Drakan]

I'm sure there's a lot to do, as I argued in my review, but it's all pretty boring to me. For example, I don't care about reading some random bandit's journal, because he doesn't write anything of interest to me. The journal doesn't lead to a fun sidequest, it's just... a journal of some random guy I would probably kill on sight. The main quest is worse than the one in Oblivion in that you don't get rewarded, and the characters are pretty bland. Skyrim can be pretty epic in how it presents things, but epicness isn't enough when the game just doesn't yield any rewards or ways for my character to develop. I know your skills do develop, but once I get all skills I want, and the Daedric armor and weapons, that's it. Game complete. Character fully developed, most side quests done. Now what?

You are rewarded from side quests more than from the main quest, the best items/spells/weapons/armour and shouts are all found exploring away from the main quest. The journals and books actually can lead to other quests on occasion and some can only be found by finding certain books and journals and are not given by NPC's. There is better armour than Daedric armour in Skyrim as well as new crafting materials brought in with the DragonBorn DLC to craft some even more badass items. Every game has to have an end point, difference is that with Skyrim its after hundreds of hours and not the standard 40 (unless you ONLY do the main quest). I havent yet managed to max out a single character skills wise or level wise.

I know. I've played the game to death, but it hasn't gotten better. I did the Daedric quests: same gear as in other games, and mediocre quests to get that gear. Oh look, the Goldbrand again. I only got it like fifty times before in Oblivion. Mace of Molag Bal again, and a similarly themed quest as in TES IV... how fun.

They were mere easter eggs that paid homage to other Elder Scrolls games, I didnt actually use either of them myself and quickly sold them as I had better weapons.

Alright, but so far that hasn't been the case. When I play games, I expect them to draw me in from the moment I start playing, not from the moment I reach 50% completion of the game. The plot has been pretty unexciting up to now.

Again thats merely down to preference, I was interested from the opening cutscene which I thought was very impressive. The plot as a whole is a lot to take is as someone who hasnt played the original (I hadnt either) but I did find it well written and engaging as a whole and felt the choices were better than most games I had played. Some really made me think about the repercussions of my actions before I decided what to do, you are pretty much free to kill most characters.

But you usually don't know which enemy you're going to face, so how will you know what potions to use? I'm playing the game on normal difficulty, as far as I know. Didn't change any of the settings, and I'm playing on the 360. I can just spam A and use the Fireball sometimes, and the enemies all die. I just recently fought a boss, and I did the same thing again. He died without dealing much damage to me.

You have to research in the hunter books and they generally give you a location of where certain enemies linger and what regions to find them. That gives you an idea of the 'type' of enemy you are likely to face when venturing into that particular area (I wasnt aware of this straight away either) the game doesnt hold your hand however which I liked. I played it on hard and died quite a lot, its rather unforgiving.

True. I guess we just look for different things in RPGs. I look for a deep plot and deep sidequests that give you a lot of freedom to play as the character you want to play, not as the character the game tells you to be. I personally don't care about random NPCs' life stories and stuff, unless they involve my character in some way. I also place great value on loot, as I want to equip my character with various things and mix and match stuff to get a stylish, powerful character. Maybe that's more a trait of traditional Japanese RPGs.

Thats rather odd as I look for the same, however I also like side quests that dont tell me how to complete them or give me set goals or punish you for not doing them exactly as stated. I like to be given choices as to how I finish a quest, I do like to hear about the stories of towns/cities and its people so I can actually care about what happens to them. I used to be a fan of JRPG's but they just feel dated to me these days and most offer no real choices last 2 good ones I played were FFX and Lost Odyssey however in them you are playing a role and they do tell you what/who to be. Ive found more western RPG's give you the freedom of choice and customisation more (Elder Scrolls/Mass Effect/Fallout/KoTOR/Dragon Age/Deus Ex). However as you say its more a JRPG thing to mix and match items and level up a more powerful character.

 

[Lionheart]

You are ... level wise. Every game has to have an end point, difference is that with Skyrim its after hundreds of hours and not the standard 40 (unless you ONLY do the main quest).

Yeah, but if there's nothing for me to do, there's no reason for me to get all the shouts, or all the weapons and armor. I actually came to the conclusion that most of the armors and weapons in the game are useless, since you'll always end up using Daedric gear. There's no incentive to use Elven armor or Steel or anything else once you get Daedric armor. Which is sad, because I don't want my entire character to be defined by the piece of armor he/she is wearing. Unfortunately, that's exactly what happens if you wear Daedric. I personally don't like Daedric; I think it makes you look sort of evil, but the game eventually forces you to wear it, unless you're prepared to enchant every piece of armor of your choice with a Shield spell. And the amount of time I can spend in the game world doesn't matter to me; I'm not interested in going for a walk by a lake or anything like that, I don't find games that immersive, at least not yet.

They were mere easter eggs that paid homage to other Elder Scrolls games, I didnt actually use either of them myself and quickly sold them as I had better weapons.

That shouldn't matter; they're a waste of game development time. If Bethesda could've given you better/cooler weapons, but more importantly, better and original quests, then they should have.

I did find it well written and engaging as a whole and felt the choices were better than most games I had played. Some really made me think about the repercussions of my actions before I decided what to do, you are pretty much free to kill most characters.

It may be fairly well written, but if there's characters in The Witcher 2 that just act ridiculous or don't give me any reason to like them, that's it for me. Maybe I still have to come across these excellent choices, I don't know. But so far, I find it unacceptable that I have no idea what's going on or why it should interest me. I've been asked to side with Iorveth or Roche, but nobody explains the repercussions, nor do they seem to matter. I'm not sure I have the patience to wait until the game is halfway over to see what the fuss was about.
And why would you kill characters? There's no incentive for you to do that, in my opinion. I can go kill some random lout who's standing at some camp near a town, but it won't get me anything, and it won't get me anywhere. It doesn't contribute in any way to my character or the development of the plot.

You have to research in the hunter books and they generally give you a location of where certain enemies linger and what regions to find them. That gives you an idea of the 'type' of enemy you are likely to face when venturing into that particular area (I wasnt aware of this straight away either) the game doesnt hold your hand however which I liked. I played it on hard and died quite a lot, its rather unforgiving.

I think I did find something that detailed how to kill some random enemies, but not bosses. I do expect games to sort of demand skill or make it fun to play, regardless of difficulty. I'm playing it on normal, so it should at least be enjoyable. I haven't encountered any enemy I couldn't kill by mashing away, sadly.

Thats rather odd as I look for the same, however I also like side quests that dont tell me how to complete them or give me set goals or punish you for not doing them exactly as stated. I like to be given choices as to how I finish a quest, I do like to hear about the stories of towns/cities and its people so I can actually care about what happens to them. I used to be a fan of JRPG's but they just feel dated to me these days and most offer no real choices last 2 good ones I played were FFX and Lost Odyssey however in them you are playing a role and they do tell you what/who to be. Ive found more western RPG's give you the freedom of choice and customisation more (Elder Scrolls/Mass Effect/Fallout/KoTOR/Dragon Age/Deus Ex). However as you say its more a JRPG thing to mix and match items and level up a more powerful character.

Well, I'd rather play a game that actually gives you choices that matter. I'm all for choices, but now I just have to know why I would pick one path over the other. I'm usually not interested in stories about towns or their NPCs, unless they're done well. If I see a character that's plain obnoxious, I wouldn't care about killing him or saving him, it could go either way. And games like Mass Effect are exactly what's wrong with RPGs these days, in my opinion. They give you choices, but they always boil down to the question 'evil or good/black or white?' I've played all three Mass Effects, and they're basically about: A. acting like an evil character and doing everything as efficiently as possible, or B. act like a total hero and take the long path. If you choose the neutral responses, you're punished for it. For example, I couldn't give a neutral response to most things, because it doesn't net me any Paragon or Renegade points, and that's what ME is all about (ME1 and ME2, anyway). If you don't have enough Paragon points, good luck being a good guy. If you don't have enough Renegade points, no way you can resolve things in an evil way. The 'neutral way' does not exist in ME. It's always 'release the Rachni queen or kill her', it's never something in between.

 

[Lionheart]

See i want Skyrim because i can become a vampire or werewolf.

But i want DragonsDogma because it's darker & creepy & has a DarkSouls feel to it.

Meh, Dragon's Dogma isn't very dark (but it is fun to see the world change at night). I sort of liked Dark Souls, but it's not that great compared to Dragon's Dogma, at least not to me. But then, they're pretty different games. Dark Souls can be fun just because of how you need to figure out the right strategy for every situation. I thought it often was a bit too easy, though. Aside from that, it suffered from the same issues as some other RPGs, such as forcing you to use a certain weapon because 'it's 20 points stronger than this thing', you know? I did like that there were weapon types, though (slashing, piercing, etc). Dragon's Dogma had its own share of issues, such as boss enemies only spawning at fixed locations. Or how the voice acting isn't always excellent. OR how you have to choose one class over the other, not being able to combine skills to create your own character.

 

[Dark Drakan]

Yeah, but if there's nothing for me to do, there's no reason for me to get all the shouts, or all the weapons and armor. I actually came to the conclusion that most of the armors and weapons in the game are useless, since you'll always end up using Daedric gear. There's no incentive to use Elven armor or Steel or anything else once you get Daedric armor. Which is sad, because I don't want my entire character to be defined by the piece of armor he/she is wearing. Unfortunately, that's exactly what happens if you wear Daedric. I personally don't like Daedric; I think it makes you look sort of evil, but the game eventually forces you to wear it, unless you're prepared to enchant every piece of armor of your choice with a Shield spell. And the amount of time I can spend in the game world doesn't matter to me; I'm not interested in going for a walk by a lake or anything like that, I don't find games that immersive, at least not yet.

I am yet to even use ANY Daedric Armour as the armour I have crafted myself is far better and actually has better benefits. Though I do like how it looks it doesnt offer me the same benefits as my own custom armour. I dont just walk around the game as thats pointless but I have never found myself with nothing to do and my quest log always has quests in it no matter how much I try to clear it I always find more quests while on others.

That shouldn't matter; they're a waste of game development time. If Bethesda could've given you better/cooler weapons, but more importantly, better and original quests, then they should have.

Plenty of good quests in there, just takes some dedication to find the more special ones. I have found some great ones in the most random and far away locations and even looked up the top places to visit in Skyrim article to find others I missed. Doesnt really take any time to add items into a game and every game has easter eggs in it, I thought it was a nice touch and remind me of when I first laid eyes on those weapons.

It may be fairly well written, but if there's characters in The Witcher 2 that just act ridiculous or don't give me any reason to like them, that's it for me. Maybe I still have to come across these excellent choices, I don't know. But so far, I find it unacceptable that I have no idea what's going on or why it should interest me. I've been asked to side with Iorveth or Roche, but nobody explains the repercussions, nor do they seem to matter. I'm not sure I have the patience to wait until the game is halfway over to see what the fuss was about.
And why would you kill characters? There's no incentive for you to do that, in my opinion. I can go kill some random lout who's standing at some camp near a town, but it won't get me anything, and it won't get me anywhere. It doesn't contribute in any way to my character or the development of the plot.

Maybe its just not for you, I have seen far more gamers praise the game than those that disliked it and CD Projeckt Red have gained plenty of new fans since releasing the enhanced version on consoles and their piracy attitude.

I think I did find something that detailed how to kill some random enemies, but not bosses. I do expect games to sort of demand skill or make it fun to play, regardless of difficulty. I'm playing it on normal, so it should at least be enjoyable. I haven't encountered any enemy I couldn't kill by mashing away, sadly.

I enjoyed it and found it to be comfortably challenging and no button mashing involved in my playthrough. They have said there will be drastic improvements and more finesse and skill in the next game though and they have extensively researched actual sword fighting stances and techniques and motion captured them.

Well, I'd rather play a game that actually gives you choices that matter. I'm all for choices, but now I just have to know why I would pick one path over the other. I'm usually not interested in stories about towns or their NPCs, unless they're done well. If I see a character that's plain obnoxious, I wouldn't care about killing him or saving him, it could go either way. And games like Mass Effect are exactly what's wrong with RPGs these days, in my opinion. They give you choices, but they always boil down to the question 'evil or good/black or white?' I've played all three Mass Effects, and they're basically about: A. acting like an evil character and doing everything as efficiently as possible, or B. act like a total hero and take the long path. If you choose the neutral responses, you're punished for it. For example, I couldn't give a neutral response to most things, because it doesn't net me any Paragon or Renegade points, and that's what ME is all about (ME1 and ME2, anyway). If you don't have enough Paragon points, good luck being a good guy. If you don't have enough Renegade points, no way you can resolve things in an evil way. The 'neutral way' does not exist in ME. It's always 'release the Rachni queen or kill her', it's never something in between.

Unfortunately its rather a trend with most games to have black and white choices, its a real shame there arent more choices in games that arent so clear cut. Such as picking what you think is a good/evil option and then having it backfire on you as everything wasnt as it seemed. Annoyed me with the Paragon and Renegade choices that they forced you to pick one or the other or they locked you out of certain options and colour coding the choices made you pick them based on your alignment rather than actually making an informed choice. I really hope that Bioware have learned from this for future games as well as other developers who include moral choices.

 

[Lionheart]

''I am yet to even use ANY Daedric Armour as the armour I have crafted myself is far better and actually has better benefits. Though I do like how it looks it doesnt offer me the same benefits as my own custom armour. I dont just walk around the game as thats pointless but I have never found myself with nothing to do and my quest log always has quests in it no matter how much I try to clear it I always find more quests while on others.''

Daedric armor has the highest armor rating in Skyrim, barring armor found in DLC. That's why most people wear it, and so I doubt you've found a set of armor that somehow has a better armor rating And even if it does, you probably had to enchant it with the Shield effect just to be able to survive more easily. And that's one of Skyrim's issues; punishing you for wearing anything other than Daedric armor by hugely lowering your armor rating.
Why do you care about the number of quests you have to do? Seriously, it's like saying ''oh, I have so much grocery shopping to do! How fun!'' Nobody likes shopping, just as nobody likes doing boring quests, looking for that elusive piece of armor that actually looks good and is worth a damn.

''Plenty of good quests in there, just takes some dedication to find the more special ones.''

I have played the entire game, walked all across the map, did all the side quests I could find. There were very few truly good quests, at least, in my opinion. I don't pull this stuff out of my *ss, I'm comparing it to the previous entry in the Elder Scrolls series. Skyrim is a good RPG, but not excellent in the area of writing (its quests). It may have a lively world, but if there's few nice things to do, few characters to like, and not much of a reason to develop your character, then there's nothing worth playing for me. I'm not saying Oblivion was such a fine piece of artistry that deserves to be praised for everything, but it sure knew how to do its quests (Dark Brotherhood, Thieves' Guild etc).

''Maybe its just not for you, I have seen far more gamers praise the game than those that disliked it and CD Projeckt Red have gained plenty of new fans since releasing the enhanced version on consoles and their piracy attitude.''

Yeah, I noticed that, but I don't believe we were talking about the game's developer. I don't really care who developed it, I'm saying it's not all it's cracked up to be. So far, I've been able to get away with button mashing, which is bad enough. Even the menus don't really work that well (360 version). I don't see why they should be able to get away with making a plot that only gets interesting halfway through. Nor should they get away with explaining what the plot is about only halfway into the game. Such things work for some tv shows, but not for video games like these. At the moment, I have no idea why I'm even playing the game; I need a reason to defeat enemies and put up with annoying characters. To be honest, it would be great if you could just kill the characters you don't like immediately. The game does not interest me, the characters act like they're trying to be 'epic badasses' all the time, even when they're just having normal conversations. The plot is interesting at best, but it doesn't exactly draw me in, because I don't care if kings are getting killed. I don't know who those kings are! I don't know who Iorveth is, other than that he's a sort of terrorist freedom fighter. I don't know why I should care about Roche dying or living. If they had given me something to look forward to, fine, but there's nothing.


''They have said there will be drastic improvements and more finesse and skill in the next game though and they have extensively researched actual sword fighting stances and techniques and motion captured them.''

Well, that covers the gameplay aspect of it, at least. Now they just need to give me a reason to want to see how the plot turns out, and I'm sold.

''Unfortunately its ... moral choices.''

We agree on that, then. I hated Fable III, but I liked it for some of its simplest quests. Some of those things were, for example: 'set the tax rates for the citizens of Albion. Choose between keeping it as it is, lowering it, or raising it'. Then it sort of went downhill due to the consequences attached to those choices: 'raising it will make you evil, but will ensure most of Albion's citizens survive' etc. You will be given choices such as: 'mine a certain area to gain resources to save a great deal of villagers' or 'leave the area unspoilt, but kill a lot of villagers in the process.' Now, you'd choose the first choice, since it's the most sensible thing to do, right? Wrong. The former of the two choices is considered 'evil' and the latter 'good.' Lionhead really dropped the ball on this, just like many other developers have. They think they have a monopoly on what's 'good' or 'evil'. Such a shame.

Anyway, it's clear we have differing opinions and that we can't convince each other to change some points or anything.

 

[Lionheart]

lol Well actually DarkSouls is brilliant that way.
It makes you think you need a certain weapon because of 20pts here but i've actually.......well me & a few friends used 3different weapons NG+
DarkSouls is all about strategy & knowing how to build.

In a way, yes, but I remember using the Claymore all the time, because it had a high power rating. There was no sense in using a rapier or any other weak weapon. Although I admit there were weapons that could hold their own against strong weapons.


When you say : I thought it often was a bit too easy, though.
How exactly ?
Did you summon others
How far did you get, was it beyond NG+ ?
What tactics did you use.

No, it was still in the main game. I didn't usually summon others. I just thought it was a pretty simple game, because it's all about figuring out the appropriate tactics. Right in the beginning, you figure out that you need to evade undead soldiers or parry them to kill them easily, and that's how some enemies become easy to defeat. Not ncecessarily because of parrying, but because of finding the right spot to attack from, the right moment to attack and stuff.​

 

[Lionheart]

But see that's exactly what you're questioning.
A game that's as vast as Skyrim get nearly the same review summaries from different journalists.
​

Maybe it's because it's in the morning here, but I don't think I understand your sentence. What do you mean, exactly?

 

[Chancey289]

Games like Skyrim are setup where players will have a unique experience from each other, yet the reviews seem very similar to each other.
It's like they're phoning in the review & telling people what they wanna here in order to push the game.
​

You don't need to really push anything to be honest. The Elder Scrolls is a franchise that already has a huge established fanbase and they will buy whatever new one comes out. It's like mandatory. Same with stuff like CoD. Like reviews even matter when it comes to particular franchises. They'll sell like hot cakes regardless.

I could never get in to The Elder Scrolls games. I tried multiple times but the gameplay turns me off. I can appreciate the size and effort put in to the world and stuff because I like those kinds of games that let me make up my own fun but, I've always like set my standards for action games or sword fighting to stuff like Devil May Cy and Prince of Persia.

Elder Scrolls just isn't fun to me. Same reason why I just can't like games like Dark Souls. I just get bored with it.

 

[Dark Drakan]

You don't need to really push anything to be honest. The Elder Scrolls is a franchise that already has a huge established fanbase and they will buy whatever new one comes out. It's like mandatory. Same with stuff like CoD. Like reviews even matter when it comes to particular franchises. They'll sell like hot cakes regardless.

I could never get in to The Elder Scrolls games. I tried multiple times but the gameplay turns me off. I can appreciate the size and effort put in to the world and stuff because I like those kinds of games that let me make up my own fun but, I've always like set my standards for action games or sword fighting to stuff like Devil May Cry and Prince of Persia.

Elder Scrolls just isn't fun to me. Same reason why I just can't like games like Dark Souls. I just get bored with it.

The combat is its weakest element and anyone who is used to real sword fighting/combat games with pace would be disappointed. I mean its come leaps and bounds since Morrowind but still I can see why some people wouldnt like it, I didnt particularly enjoy Morrowind because of its combat. Had I played it before Oblivion I might have had a different opinion but because I didnt play it until afterwards it felt really clunky and awkward (obviously being an older title).

That said however, to this day The Elder Scrolls series remains in my top 5 list of the best value for money series I have ever played. It is the series that has had the most play time out of everything I have played and has some of the best value for money expansions and DLC also (horse armour aside lol). I played Oblivion still up to last year (7 years after release) though did have it on PC and mods really extend a games shelf life and I have been playing Skyrim (360) since release and will still be playing it for a long time yet (got to try other races and new playthroughs). I was a big fan of Fallout 3 and New Vegas too but those that disliked The Elder Scrolls series were not really fans of those either but I have pumped hundreds of hours into them too.

Elder Scrolls is a popular franchise but it isnt for the same reason as CoD, it isnt seen as popular to purchase the Elder Scrolls titles. There isnt the mob mentality of the CoD crowd and most people I mention it to at work have never even heard of it (somehow) but they all own your CoD, Fifa, Assassins Creed games. The people who buy Elder Scrolls games every year do so usually because they really enjoy the series and play them for years rather than buying them simply because your friends are talking about it and everyone else has it.

 

[Sieghart]

Skyrim is not the greatest RPG of all time, it really is. Heck, some even say that Morrowind was better than it. Majority of my enjoyment in Skyrim comes from installing and playing with mods anyway.

 

[Dark Drakan]

Skyrim is not the greatest RPG of all time, it really is. Heck, some even say that Morrowind was better than it. Majority of my enjoyment in Skyrim comes from installing and playing with mods anyway.

The people that prefer Morrowind often do so because of the lore/time period in the world and they prefer the setting, the mechanics in future games are far better but its the general setting that they prefer. The combat was awful and very few will say otherwise after playing future titles, text based conversations were quite confusing too I found after having fully voiced ones in future games. I liked the world and the history but gameplay wise I just couldnt get along with it personally, I tried to board that ship long after it had sailed unfortunately and it was very dated by time I got around to it.

My wish is for a company to develop an RPG world as vast and detailed as those by Bethesda but to make it a 3rd person game (with option of 1st person) but with a deep combat system. A Spartacus/Rome/Game of Thrones style one would be fantastic with an emphasis on a dark, adult world with plenty of violence and gore (essentially Spartacus/Game of Thrones TV show in Skyrim world) lol.

 

[Lionheart]

Games like Skyrim are setup where players will have a unique experience from each other, yet the reviews seem very similar to each other.
It's like they're phoning in the review & telling people what they wanna here in order to push the game.
​

Yes, that's an unfortunate truth. Many people only like certain aspects of it, and those aspects get blown up beyond proportion in order to help sell the game. Many reviews pander to general things people like regardless of their game type orientation. I personally don't care about dragons or 'epicness', because I'll decide what's epic and what's not. But people like to hear it, regardless.

 

[Dark Drakan]

Surely if all the reviewers are only pra

Yes, that's an unfortunate truth. Many people only like certain aspects of it, and those aspects get blown up beyond proportion in order to help sell the game. Many reviews pander to general things people like regardless of their game type orientation. I personally don't care about dragons or 'epicness', because I'll decide what's epic and what's not. But people like to hear it, regardless.

Reviews are nothing more than a persons point of view, if systems in a game are bad they will say they are bad. No matter how good reviewers say something is, if it isnt that good then gamers will quickly speak out about it. However the series remains one of gamers favourite around, most of the things in it come down to preference and cant scream foul play from 89 professional reviewers all recommending it & an average user score of 8.4 based on nearly 3000 ratings because they dont have the same thoughts or preferences as you. Does that make you wrong? No of course not, others just enjoyed it more than you and their taste differs thats all. You dont like Dragons and didnt feel anything epic from it, whereas others did. There are no rights and wrongs in opinions...

I mean there are plenty of games & movies I thought sucked that reviewers and the majority of the public actually seemed to like but they simply werent to my taste and I saw things from a different perspective. I dont doubt there are some out there that may take some bribes/sponsor money that could sway scores etc (like the gamespot scandal) but the majority of reviewers are real gamers merely voicing their opinion or recommendation on large media sites. In most cases the reviewers gain nothing from being positive about a game or 'helping to sell it' to people, they are merely voicing an enjoyment of a product the same way we would but with an audience.

You have made your decision on if you like a product and so have they, its not so much that they 'blow up' the good things its just they have to go into as much detail about likes/dislikes as they can. Its just easier to get carried away when praising things (we have all done it when we have enjoyed an experience). They also have to make the review sound interesting so some reviewers have a particular style to grab readers/viewers attention with their being so much competition. Most reviewers try and sit on the fence when it comes to describing things that could be open to interpretation between different types of gamers.

I have found more sites are doing the opposite to praising games to get attention and some sites are slating games and being overly negative & critical so they get more hits on their reviews. I dont want to hear reviewers that are being swayed either way, I would rather read genuine accounts and impressions of games then make my own mind up. Sometimes I have agreed with gamers/reviewers other times I havent but so long as I have personally enjoyed my experience it matters not what others think.

 

[Lionheart]

Reviews are nothing more than a persons point of view, if systems in a game are bad they will say they are bad. No matter how good reviewers say something is, if it isnt that good then gamers will quickly speak out about it. However the series remains one of gamers favourite around, most of the things in it come down to preference and cant scream foul play from 89 professional reviewers all recommending it & an average user score of 8.4 based on nearly 3000 ratings because they dont have the same thoughts or preferences as you. Does that make you wrong? No of course not, others just enjoyed it more than you and their taste differs thats all. You dont like Dragons and didnt feel anything epic from it, whereas others did. There are no rights and wrongs in opinions...

I honestly don't think a score of 9.5 or something out of 10 is an unbiased score. Whether they want to support Bethesda or the TES games, it seems clear to me that there can't be that many reviewers giving it such a ludicrous score. Maybe I'd understand an 8/10, but when I see ONLY the most important review sites give it a 9.5/10, I do start to think something's up. It's like with IGN giving Fable III an 8.5/10. No way it's worth that. Not even in an alternate universe. And that's not my opinion, that's just a fact when you consider the depth of the story, the depth of the characters, the originality of the game, the graphics, its difficulty, and so on.

Reviews are indeed biased in the sense that people often give scores based on how much they liked the game on a scale of 1 to 10, but that's not how reviews should work. Reviews should still be held accountable to certain rules, such as that you need to inspect the gameplay, the graphics, the soundtrack and the plot, and compare those to what has come before. Movies are also scored in this way. If they weren't, there would be no way to tell which movies are good and which are bad. The late Roger Ebert did not become a movie reviewer to show his enthusiasm about something in the amount of stars he awards, he became a reviewer to give a partial yet fair review that takes into account whether or not the story is deep enough, whether the characters are two-dimensional or three-dimensional, and so on and so forth. It's an account of what's good about it and what's bad. And sure, his opinion will shine through and affect his grading, but reviews should be reviews, not random spouting about how great something is. There is a method behind reviewing that should not be dismissed.

I mean there are plenty of games & movies I thought sucked that reviewers and the majority of the public actually seemed to like but they simply werent to my taste and I saw things from a different perspective. I dont doubt there are some out there that may take some bribes/sponsor money that could sway scores etc (like the gamespot scandal) but the majority of reviewers are real gamers merely voicing their opinion or recommendation on large media sites. In most cases the reviewers gain nothing from being positive about a game or 'helping to sell it' to people, they are merely voicing an enjoyment of a product the same way we would but with an audience.

Liking something and reviewing something are two wholly different things. I can't just review something favorably simply because 'I liked it'. That may be an opinion, but it's not based on anything (yet). You still have to take into account how good the graphics are, the plot, the characters, the gameplay etc etc. THEN you can review something and give your well founded opinion.

You have made your decision on if you like a product and so have they.

Yes, and I've based it mainly on whether the core aspect of the game, the quests, are deep and enjoyable enough, and whether or not there's a sense of fulfillment after completion of the side quests and main quest. I based it on a reasoned assessment. I'm not sure what their motives are, but it's a well-known fact some reviewers like to appease game developers, because they promised them free games or a profitable relationship with the reviewer's website. For me, the quests absolutely weren't deep and enjoyable enough. Compare Skyrim to Oblivion, perhaps especially with the Dark Brotherhood questline, and you will see Oblivion is a clear winner. That's just a fact.


its not ... of gamers.

Thankfully, that's the case for some reviewers, but not nearly all of them.

I have found more sites are doing the opposite to praising games to get attention and some sites are slating games and being overly negative & critical so they get more hits on their reviews. I dont want to hear reviewers that are being swayed either way, I would rather read genuine accounts and impressions of games then make my own mind up. Sometimes I have agreed with gamers/reviewers other times I havent but so long as I have personally enjoyed my experience it matters not what others think.

So would I. Nevertheless, there can be some reviewers with whom you identify. I personally read as many user reviews as I can find to see if I can find somebody who has sort of the same standards as me, then I read his review. After that, I have no choice but to play the game (usually) to see what the fuss is about. I don't often bother with IGN or other large companies, because that's what they are first and foremost: companies that look for profit. They're like the Ferengi of the gaming industry.