The Elder Scrolls

[hoppem]

I've seen playthroughs of Skyrim, know of family that plays the game, and i've purchased Oblivion while it was on sale just to see if Skyrim would be worth buying. Comparing it to Oblivion and observing others play it, there are a few things that Skyrim has that i've been wishing for in Oblivion, but i cannot say that these small things and slightly upgraded graphics is worth $60, or the $40 price i saw during the Steam sales. It looks more like a $30 to $35 game to me. Skyrim seems like it'd keep my attention more than Oblivion so far has (i found Oblivion to be a bit boring and reminiscent of Fallout 3 mechanics only set in a different time), but i wouldn't waste $60 on it.

well first of all oblivion was made before fallout and it was made in 2006!that game was epic for its time the only bethesda rpg that isnt worth 60 dollars is fallout new vegas

[Arvuti]

I've seen playthroughs of Skyrim, know of family that plays the game, and i've purchased Oblivion while it was on sale just to see if Skyrim would be worth buying. Comparing it to Oblivion and observing others play it, there are a few things that Skyrim has that i've been wishing for in Oblivion, but i cannot say that these small things and slightly upgraded graphics is worth $60, or the $40 price i saw during the Steam sales. It looks more like a $30 to $35 game to me. Skyrim seems like it'd keep my attention more than Oblivion so far has (i found Oblivion to be a bit boring and reminiscent of Fallout 3 mechanics only set in a different time), but i wouldn't waste $60 on it.

well first of all oblivion was made before fallout and it was made in 2006!that game was epic for its time the only bethesda rpg that isnt worth 60 dollars is fallout new vegas

Bethesda game studios didn't create new vegas, obsidan created it.

As of right now, bethesda game studios has created morrowind, oblivion, fallout 3 and skyrim.

[eliasfrost]

You guys may find me strange, but i prefer Fallout 3 of all RPG's.

If only it was an rpg. you might want to try New Vegas if you like rpg games, 'cause it's the best and the closest to an rpg game that Bethesda have ever published.

I've seen playthroughs of Skyrim, know of family that plays the game, and i've purchased Oblivion while it was on sale just to see if Skyrim would be worth buying. Comparing it to Oblivion and observing others play it, there are a few things that Skyrim has that i've been wishing for in Oblivion, but i cannot say that these small things and slightly upgraded graphics is worth $60, or the $40 price i saw during the Steam sales. It looks more like a $30 to $35 game to me. Skyrim seems like it'd keep my attention more than Oblivion so far has (i found Oblivion to be a bit boring and reminiscent of Fallout 3 mechanics only set in a different time), but i wouldn't waste $60 on it.

I think you are a but unfair, the improvements between Oblivion and Skyrim are actually really really big, and you judging the game solely by play-throughs is sadening, especially when it comes to such a massive game, but each to their own I guess. Also Oblivion is the worst thing that ever happened to Bethesda, you should have played Morrowind instead because it's much more like Skyrim than Oblivion is, and better than any of them.

The only thing that could ever cause a game to last that long would require a player to be ignorant, not make use of any teleportation features, aim to complete every side quest possible, aim to get every sort of magic and high-quality inventory items possible, aim to remove every inch of "fog of war" from their maps, and who knows what other potentially irrelevant thing "required" to complete the game that the game has to offer. To include things like side-quests and personal interests of the player when determining how long it would take to complete a game would never tell you how long it requires to complete the game. All that is required to complete the game is to complete the main story. Apparently, if you have the skill and know-how, you can beat the game in about 2 hours and 20 minutes.

The game is not supposed to be played by only running through the main quest, those who do so is the ignorant people you refer to. If it was the purpose of the game they wouldn't throw in the hundreds of side-quests and randomly generated objectives that the game offers. All of the Elderscrolls games have been open ended adventure games that should be explored fully and they always will be. The main quest is merely a small part of the game.

[Arvuti]

Also while talking about elder scrolls, god damn working in bethesda game studios is my dream job.





Just look at that studio, daaaamn.

[Your Computer]

I think you are a but unfair, the improvements between Oblivion and Skyrim are actually really really big, and you judging the game solely by play-throughs is sadening, especially when it comes to such a massive game, but each to their own I guess. Also Oblivion is the worst thing that ever happened to Bethesda, you should have played Morrowind instead because it's much more like Skyrim than Oblivion is, and better than any of them.

If not by others playing, user ratings, advertisements and possibly playing the previous games in the series yourself, then by what should people base their decision on before purchasing a product? And why should companies waste time and money on putting out trailers and other forms of advertisements if not to entice and excite? Unfortunately for gaming companies, i don't (easily) give in to hype.

I may have to take you up on your suggestion on playing Morrowind, as it indeed has a better rating than Skyrim itself, as you implied it would.

The game is not supposed to be played by only running through the main quest, those who do so is the ignorant people you refer to. If it was the purpose of the game they wouldn't throw in the hundreds of side-quests and randomly generated objectives that the game offers. All of the Elderscrolls games have been open ended adventure games that should be explored fully and they always will be. The main quest is merely a small part of the game.

You can say that about many free-roaming games, but that doesn't change the fact that beating the game takes a lot shorter time than what many have been saying. Nevertheless, to even try to emphasize freedom to explore is to also imply what the player chooses to do. How then can you claim that it is ignorant of people to even dare to choose to run through the main story, skipping a lot of what the game has to offer, when it was their decision to do so? To be given freedom is to be given the right to do what you want. There is no ignorance in such a choice.

[Googolplex]

Provided you can get them to work. I bought Gothic 3 a while ago but returned it within two days because it crashed more often than Al Qaeda Airlines - with the patch installed. That game had better not show up on my doorstep without some serious refinement and a basket of apologies.

Be sure to install the latest patch 1.74

http://www.worldofgothic.de/dl/download_415.htm
That's all you need. It fixes thousands of bugs in the game - read the changelog!
But Gothic 3 was the beginning of destroying the Gothic legend.
Play Gothic 1 and 2, this are the only good Gothic games, really really!!!

[eliasfrost]

If not by others playing, user ratings, advertisements and possibly playing the previous games in the series yourself, then by what should people base their decision on before purchasing a product? And why should companies waste time and money on putting out trailers and other forms of advertisements if not to entice and excite? Unfortunately for gaming companies, i don't (easily) give in to hype.

I may have to take you up on your suggestion on playing Morrowind, as it indeed has a better rating than Skyrim itself, as you implied it would.

My problem was that you stated things about the game that isn't true, like that Skyrim is a tad bit improved Oblivion with slightly better graphics, which is in no way true. And that it's short, which it's clearly not.

You can say that about many free-roaming games, but that doesn't change the fact that beating the game takes a lot shorter time than what many have been saying. Nevertheless, to even try to emphasize freedom to explore is to also imply what the player chooses to do. How then can you claim that it is ignorant of people to even dare to choose to run through the main story, skipping a lot of what the game has to offer, when it was their decision to do so? To be given freedom is to be given the right to do what you want. There is no ignorance in such a choice.

Just like you said that ignorant people do other stuff than the main quest, which is like the majority of the Elder Scrolls gamers.

I say that because the game has no ending, just like most of Bethesda games, they have a main quest, sure, but they are not the main part of the game despite its name. All of Bethesdas games are open game worlds at its core and the quest lines are merely just branches of the game world, including the main quest, the main quest have never been the lead in any of their "epics" (morrowind, oblivion, fallout 3 and skyrim).

[Your Computer]

My problem was that you stated things about the game that isn't true, like that Skyrim is a tad bit improved Oblivion with slightly better graphics, which is in no way true. And that it's short, which it's clearly not.

Just like you said that ignorant people do other stuff than the main quest, which is like the majority of the Elder Scrolls gamers.

I say that because the game has no ending, just like most of Bethesda games, they have a main quest, sure, but they are not the main part of the game despite its name. All of Bethesdas games are open game worlds at its core and the quest lines are merely just branches of the game world, including the main quest, the main quest have never been the lead in any of their "epics" (morrowind, oblivion, fallout 3 and skyrim).

When i stated ignorance in post #10, i intended that to be taken as a player that is presented with an environment that they know nothing about. If they knew where to go and what to do (e.g. if they followed a guide), play time would obviously be decreased. My following statements that related to length of play covered decisions that the player chooses to make that dictate length of time played. However, that being said, we know that a game can only be declared as beaten (completed) when all main story tasks have been completed. In which case we can objectively declare an estimate of how long it would take for an average gamer to beat the game, which turns out to be no where near 200 hours (or 300 hours like some say). It would have been a different story if people declared that the game included over 200 hours of content, but many have stated it differently, as if to promote hype. We could continue estimating length of play based on subjective game factors, in which case we may as well declare that the game's length is indefinite, since each person is different, but that is prone to an never-ending discussion.

But to talk more about the actual worth of the game, if we were to continue emphasizing side quests, wouldn't it be appropriate to ask whether or not these side quests are repetitive? And are they all "go here, get this and return that"? Perhaps even "go here, kill this, get reward." And is the time taken to complete these side quests actually worth the experience and any items? Repetition implies a sloppy attempt to lengthen gameplay. From my experience from Oblivion, some are worth it because of the rewards, but i can't say it was because of any story or adventure tied to it. The side quests in Oblivion have also shown similar patterns across the board, only thing different between them were the NPCs met, what to get or kill and the rewards following. What didn't make some quests worth it, though, were based more on the game mechanics themselves.

As far as game mechanics and graphics are concerned, game mechanics in Skyrim look more bearable and less of a chore. Graphics are better, but they're not something to boast about. UI seems more organized, but i still question the usability and how it reflects intuition and its navigational features. Considering everything, based on a $60 standard, i ask, "Is it worth $60?" Based on my research: No, it isn't.

[BlueFury]

Skyrim is clearly the best ElderScrolls game but i have to disagree on you by calling New Vegas better. It's so buggy, boring and bad compared to Fallout 3. Big dissapointment...very big!

---

@Arvuti
DAYUM, what a place to work.

[eliasfrost]

My problem was that you stated things about the game that isn't true, like that Skyrim is a tad bit improved Oblivion with slightly better graphics, which is in no way true. And that it's short, which it's clearly not.

Just like you said that ignorant people do other stuff than the main quest, which is like the majority of the Elder Scrolls gamers.

I say that because the game has no ending, just like most of Bethesda games, they have a main quest, sure, but they are not the main part of the game despite its name. All of Bethesdas games are open game worlds at its core and the quest lines are merely just branches of the game world, including the main quest, the main quest have never been the lead in any of their "epics" (morrowind, oblivion, fallout 3 and skyrim).

When i stated ignorance in post #10, i intended that to be taken as a player that is presented with an environment that they know nothing about. If they knew where to go and what to do (e.g. if they followed a guide), play time would obviously be decreased. My following statements that related to length of play covered decisions that the player chooses to make that dictate length of time played. However, that being said, we know that a game can only be declared as beaten (completed) when all main story tasks have been completed. In which case we can objectively declare an estimate of how long it would take for an average gamer to beat the game, which turns out to be no where near 200 hours (or 300 hours like some say). It would have been a different story if people declared that the game included over 200 hours of content, but many have stated it differently, as if to promote hype. We could continue estimating length of play based on subjective game factors, in which case we may as well declare that the game's length is indefinite, since each person is different, but that is prone to an never-ending discussion.

But to talk more about the actual worth of the game, if we were to continue emphasizing side quests, wouldn't it be appropriate to ask whether or not these side quests are repetitive? And are they all "go here, get this and return that"? Perhaps even "go here, kill this, get reward." And is the time taken to complete these side quests actually worth the experience and any items? Repetition implies a sloppy attempt to lengthen gameplay. From my experience from Oblivion, some are worth it because of the rewards, but i can't say it was because of any story or adventure tied to it. The side quests in Oblivion have also shown similar patterns across the board, only thing different between them were the NPCs met, what to get or kill and the rewards following. What didn't make some quests worth it, though, were based more on the game mechanics themselves.

As far as game mechanics and graphics are concerned, game mechanics in Skyrim look more bearable and less of a chore. Graphics are better, but they're not something to boast about. UI seems more organized, but i still question the usability and how it reflects intuition and its navigational features. Considering everything, based on a $60 standard, i ask, "Is it worth $60?" Based on my research: No, it isn't.

Again, the game has no ending and no you don't beat it by completing the main quest, I'm sorry Your Computer but that's how the games are built.