Skyrim Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim

[DArtagnan]

Even if you can't pick all perks with one character, it seems you can pick all perks for each of the most used skills with one character. If this is so, then it's a bad decision.

Not that I expect good design decisions from Beth, and it's 100% par for the course.

But it will hurt replayability for people who like certain kinds of characters. The same was true in Fallout 3. You could max out everything interesting to your playstyle - and there was no reason to replay with a different character.

However, maybe it's wrong info - or maybe they'll change it.

 

[Thaurin]

“We are working at pop-up issues, and we want to make sure that the graphics of the PC, Xbox 360, and PS3 are alike. All three will look just as good, aside from the higher resolution and the anti-aliasing of the PC of course.”

Why!? Engines can scale, can they not? PC version should be able to look better. Why bother trying to make the PC game the same as console versions?

 

[DArtagnan]

“We are working at pop-up issues, and we want to make sure that the graphics of the PC, Xbox 360, and PS3 are alike. All three will look just as good, aside from the higher resolution and the anti-aliasing of the PC of course.”

Why!? Engines can scale, can they not? PC version should be able to look better. Why bother trying to make the PC game the same as console versions?

They don't want to invest in the PC version, unless it pays off. It probably doesn't pay off to make it scale in other ways than those easiest to implement.

 

[zadokAllen]

But it will hurt replayability for people who like certain kinds of characters. The same was true in Fallout 3. You could max out everything interesting to your playstyle - and there was no reason to replay with a different character.

More casual players are not that interested in replays. Especially of such a huge game. And as we know they`re the target audience.

What they should do is grade the difficulty levels better.

Why!? Engines can scale, can they not? PC version should be able to look better. Why bother trying to make the PC game the same as console versions?

It`s annoying - but it`s a PR thing, they can`t say one version will be better looking than other, scared of upsetting the console crowd.

 

[DArtagnan]

More casual players are not that interested in replays. Especially of such a huge game. And as we know they`re the target audience.

What they should do is grade the difficulty levels better.

I don't think it would bother casuals if they had more to choose from either. I don't think it's about catering to casuals as much as it's about not understanding game design. That's certainly been my impression with Bethesda for a long time.

 

[zadokAllen]

I don't think it would bother casuals if they had more to choose from either.

Really? So why do you think every other game starting with DA2 is being streamlined? (Regardless from the fact it`s not necessarily what they want but what the suits think they want)

I actually had this feeling myself recently playing some Rpg that I didn`t really dig that much but enough to carry on. It annoyed me that I couldn`t open this door or that chest and wasn`t interested in replaying at all.

 

[GothicGothicness]

Why!? Engines can scale, can they not? PC version should be able to look better. Why bother trying to make the PC game the same as console versions?

They don't want console kids to feel cheated, because the game looks so much better on PC, and it saves them development money too.

 

[DArtagnan]

Really? So why do you think every other game starting with DA2 is being streamlined? (Regardless from the fact it`s not necessarily what they want but what the suits think they want)

I actually had this feeling myself recently playing some Rpg that I didn`t really dig that much but enough to carry on. It annoyed me that I couldn`t open this door or that chest and wasn`t interested in replaying at all.

In my opinion, there is a difference between having a choice and having to make a good choice to succeed.

So, I don't think casuals would mind having more than a handful of perks to choose from, and I don't think they'd mind not having access to everything on first playthrough - as long as the game is a cakewalk - which every modern AAA game is on medium difficulty level.

Not that I can't imagine a few people going "aw, I'd like everything" - but I really don't think anyone would stop playing because of that.

In fact, I think it would actually help introduce interesting gameplay to casuals - so they understand why such things can be satisfying.

My opinion about it being a flaw in terms of design, is based on how Bethesda approaches game design in general. They just LOVE to simplify and streamline in an overall sense, and they're probably right that it's a good way to do business OVERALL.

So, I think they're just not too interested in catering to enthusiasts, unless it doesn't bring extra balance work or some such.

Exactly like Bioware felt it was a good idea to remove inventory and stuff like that, because casuals wouldn't mind. So, why actually work on a good implementation, when all it would do would be pleasing a few "grouchy" hardcore gamers.

 

[zadokAllen]

Exactly like Bioware felt it was a good idea to remove inventory and stuff like that, because casuals wouldn't mind.

Well, maybe because they don`t. In fact on most of the more mainstream forums they cheer on.

It might be shocking to you or me - but thats what the general public seems to demand these days. I couldn`t believe reading many times that people actually want designs to be more closed than open, because more choice is a headache.

As for Bethseda`s alleged "LOVE" for streamlining - well, they`re ZeniMax company now so surely it is a factor. But if it was as terrible as you paint, FO3 could be a dumbfest too, instead of one of the most complex games ever. Also I do not recall titles before Oblivion being streamlined - rather the opposite, they tried to squeeze too much in.

 

[DArtagnan]

Well, maybe because they don`t. In fact on most of the more mainstream forums they cheer on.

It might be shocking to you or me - but thats what the general public seems to demand these days. I couldn`t believe reading many times that people actually want designs to be more closed than open, because more choice is a headache.

As for Bethseda`s alleged "LOVE" for streamlining - well, they`re ZeniMax company now so surely it is a factor. But if it was as terrible as you paint, FO3 could be a dumbfest too, instead of one of the most complex games ever. Also I do not recall titles before Oblivion being streamlined - rather the opposite, they tried to squeeze too much in.

First of all, none of it is a shock to me. Maybe to you, but not to me.

I have no issue with casuals or what they want. It's unfortunate that their approach to gaming is so different from mine, but that's what it is - and I would never blame people for not caring about deep or complex games. That's why I call them casuals - because that's EXACTLY what they are. They're not "derps" and I'm not "hardcore" - I'm an enthusiast.

Secondly, I'm not talking about Bethesda from the past - but what they're like now. Every iteration of TES since Daggerfall has been about streamlining the core game design. It seems to get worse with each iteration, but the games "as a whole" remain interesting - mostly for other reasons.

Fallout 3 - one of the most complex games ever?

I'm not sure what you played, but it can't have been what I played. I played a very streamlined version of Fallout 1/2 - but also one that was a lot more visually immersive and approachable for the casual player.

With the right mods, it's a fantastic game - but I don't think I can follow your opinion of it being so complex. Without mods, it's a decent enough game, with a lot of good points to it.

My point was that I agree with Bethesda that the casual audience don't want to have to invest a lot of time or energy when playing a game, but that I don't agree with every design decision they make - even considering the casuals.

The same goes for Bioware.

To make it really plain: I'm bitching because I don't think every design decision these guys make actually HELP sales - and that they would still be able to have their big hits without dumbing every aspect down. BUT - I understand that it's not their primary concern to care about enthusiasts - and I don't feel entitled to anything except my right to voice my opinion.

 

[Thaurin]

They don't want to invest in the PC version, unless it pays off. It probably doesn't pay off to make it scale in other ways than those easiest to implement.

It`s annoying - but it`s a PR thing, they can`t say one version will be better looking than other, scared of upsetting the console crowd.

They don't want console kids to feel cheated, because the game looks so much better on PC, and it saves them development money too.

But isn't it obvious to everyone that the PC can do better graphics? Why would any console owner be pissed off by that? Well, I suppose you're talking about the fanboys who wage war over these sorts of things.

I think it would be great PR to have a revolutionary new engine, wouldn't you think? A new benchmark for open-world RPG games. It sure generated a lot of hype for Oblivion (but yeah, that was the first on a new generation of console).

Pfff, I have a PS3, Xbox 360 and a fast PC. But I'd like to see some progress in engine development!! I loved those Oblivion screenshots, having only known Gothic and Morrowind do something similar. A huge, detailed world you can walk around in! Amazing!

 

[DArtagnan]

But isn't it obvious to everyone that the PC can do better graphics? Why would any console owner be pissed off by that? Well, I suppose you're talking about the fanboys who wage war over these sorts of things.

I think it would be great PR to have a revolutionary new engine, wouldn't you think? A new benchmark for open-world RPG games. It sure generated a lot of hype for Oblivion (but yeah, that was the first on a new generation of console).

Pfff, I have a PS3, Xbox 360 and a fast PC. But I'd like to see some progress in engine development!! I loved those Oblivion screenshots, having only known Gothic and Morrowind do something similar. A huge, detailed world you can walk around in! Amazing!

I think you're underestimating the work required to do development specifically for PC - especially regarding QA. They also have to consider that many PCs are not top-of-the-line - so it's not the entire PC audience they're "abandoning" but the relatively small percentage of PC enthusiasts.

They most likely have different people specialising in each platform, but I doubt they'd want to invest much in doing some kind of fantastic PC specific version - because most games sold are on consoles.

The console hardware of this generation is holding AAA development back, which is a well known fact.

So, until we see the nextgen consoles, we're going to have to make do with what we get.

That's just how the current industry works.

Personally, I'm less interested in technological advancements than in game design advancements. Sadly, both aspects are held back for monetary reasons.

It's one of the little ironies of life - and basically a good example of why capitalism doesn't work.

 

[zadokAllen]

and I'm not "hardcore" - I'm an enthusiast.

Heh, semantics is a funny thing.

Fallout 3 - one of the most complex games ever?

I'm not sure what you played, but it can't have been what I played. I played a very streamlined version of Fallout 1/2 - but also one that was a lot more visually immersive and approachable for the casual player.

Very streamlined? I think nostalgia is clouding your vision. "Slightly", perhaps. Which it makes up for more than enough with "visual immersion" that I very much treat as a part of it`s general complexity. But even if we`re talking just this funny ol` "RPG stuff" FO3 has implemented most of the tropes - from Speech successes to environmental effects.

Mods help - with re-balancing the game, which I don`t really hold against them. Because, like we established (oh, we didn`t) Normal is more like Easy these days.
On Very Hard game is fairly challenging anyway.

To make it really plain: I'm bitching because I don't think every design decision these guys make actually HELP sales - and that they would still be able to have their big hits without dumbing every aspect down. BUT - I understand that it's not their primary concern to care about enthusiasts - and I don't feel entitled to anything except my right to voice my opinion.

Thats of course true, which goes back to my original point -make difficulty levels more meaningful & everyone`s happy.

But isn't it obvious to everyone that the PC can do better graphics? Why would any console owner be pissed off by that?

I guess it`s a rhetorical question, if I ever seen one Goes back to Spectrum vs Atari vs Commodore days.

Logically- you`re right of course. But suits employ their own fuzzy logic. Besides PC is not anyone`s darling these days.
It`s actually 360 that`s dragging it all down…PS3 can handle a lot more.

Even the mighty Crysis 2, once a PC uber-benchmark has been brought down to the console level… (although in all fairness I think they mentioned few extras for PC version)

 

[JDR13]

Heh, semantics is a funny thing.

I see a storm on the horizon….

 

[DArtagnan]

Very streamlined? I think nostalgia is clouding your vision. "Slightly", perhaps. Which it makes up for more than enough with "visual immersion" that I very much treat as a part of it`s general complexity. But even if we`re talking just this funny ol` "RPG stuff" FO3 has implemented most of the tropes - from Speech successes to environmental effects.

I'm not particularly nostalgic, and I replayed Fallout 1 less than a year ago, and played a lot of Fallout 2 mere months ago.

Bethesda simplified the system in several ways, like removing traits, changing what skills do to facilitate an easy design, made combat about visceral action instead of tactical decisions, and so forth.

Visual immersion has nothing to do with design complexity in my opinion, but whatever.

Personally, I think FO3 is a good game, and considering it's Bethesda - better than I could hope for.

The strengths of the game is not about what Bethesda brought to the design, but what they took from Fallout coupled with advancements in technology.

If you follow Bethesda closely, and especially Todd Howard - you will see that their approach to game creation is about making a big impression on the player. That's their ENTIRE design philosphy. They want their games to be "cool" and have people go "ahhh" when they see it. That's fine, and there's nothing inherently wrong with that.

The only issue I have with them, is that they don't understand (or care) about finer mechanics and deeper gameplay.

Mods help - with re-balancing the game, which I don`t really hold against them. Because, like we established (oh, we didn`t) Normal is more like Easy these days.
On Very Hard game is fairly challenging anyway.

I'm not looking for challenge in terms of how hard the game is, but how interesting the decisions I make during the game are. Decisions become interesting when they matter, by the way.

Thats of course true, which goes back to my original point -make difficulty levels more meaningful & everyone`s happy.

I wouldn't be happy, no. As in, I wouldn't be more happy with the game. I don't want a "hard" game, I want an interesting game.

I don't mind a hard game though, but it's not what I'm primarily interested in.

 

[zadokAllen]

I see a storm on the horizon….

I`m in the mood

I'm not particularly nostalgic, and I replayed Fallout 1 less than a year ago, and played a lot of Fallout 2 mere months ago.

Bethesda simplified the system in several ways, like removing traits, changing what skills do to facilitate an easy design, made combat about visceral action instead of tactical decisions, and so forth.

Traits, ok. Adjusting skills, no biggie. Combat - did you really expect it to remain turn based in a fully realised 3d world? (Oh, wait - it actually sort of is)
If you play on V.Hard it actually becomes "tactical" - as much as 3D sort-of-real-time battles can be.

"So forth" - please do, this was not good enough.

Visual immersion has nothing to do with design complexity in my opinion

"Visual immersion" - rather abstract term, ok. But a slice of a 3D open world so chock full of relevant-to-gameplay detail and dynamic NPC`s is what I call complex.

The strengths of the game is not about what Bethesda brought to the design, but what they took from Fallout coupled with advancements in technology.

It amazes me to no end what lengths people will go on these pages just so ol` Bethsoft will not get even a sliver of credit

I wouldn't be happy, no. As in, I wouldn't be more happy with the game. I don't want a "hard" game, I want an interesting game.

I don't mind a hard game though, but it's not what I'm primarily interested in.

Well it`s easier to assume that by "meaningful difficulty levels" I meant just slapping some more hitpoints on Radoscorpions. Which goes against the grain of this discussion, but whatever.

 

[GothicGothicness]

It`s actually 360 that`s dragging it all down…PS3 can handle a lot more.

Even the mighty Crysis 2, once a PC uber-benchmark has been brought down to the console level… (although in all fairness I think they mentioned few extras for PC version)

That's not really true…. they are both extremely limited because of the low memory available in them… you can do LOD:ing / shading / mid-mapping / streaming / compression tricks… but in the end something like 200 mb is all you're going to have for the textures anyway. If you have high-res textures and normal maps and specular maps and detail maps for every object + displacement maps, neither the 360 or ps3 is going to be able to offer that much.. which can be proved with some simple calculations.

Besides in order to get the truly great improvement in terms of huge open-worlds, you'll need to use the feature called massive tessellation ( only availaible in latest ATI/NVidia cards )… something not supported by xbox360 or ps3 hardware… and only quite few PC's by the way.

So it makes perfect business sense to not spend a lot of resources on the PC version to make it cutting edge for the 2% of the target group that will be able to take advantage.

 

[DArtagnan]

Traits, ok. Adjusting skills, no biggie. Combat - did you really expect it to remain turn based in a fully realised 3d world? (Oh, wait - it actually sort of is)

I didn't expect anything. I'm responding to what I got versus what came before.

If you play on V.Hard it actually becomes "tactical" - as much as 3D sort-of-real-time battles can be.

I'm sure you think of more hitpoints and damage as a tactical challenge, but it's not enough for me. Generally, more hitpoints and damage = more reloads, and that's about it. If I have to be cautious - I'd like the mechanics to support a satisfying implementation. For instance, I don't mind having to be careful - but I don't want my perfect sniper shot to have minimal impact.

It's the kind of thing a real designer would understand.

"So forth" - please do, this was not good enough.

They made skill progression way too fast, and as I've already said - everything vital could be maxed way too soon.

As for "not good enough", I think you misunderstand my explanation as a symptom of desire to convince. I'm giving you my opinion, not expecting you to agree. I might as well ask a blind man to see

j/k

"Visual immersion" - rather abstract term, ok. But a slice of a 3D open world so chock full of relevant-to-gameplay detail and dynamic NPC`s is what I call complex.

I'm still not seeing how this relates to a complex design, but as I said: whatever.

It amazes me to no end what lengths people will go on these pages just so ol` Bethsoft will not get even a sliver of credit

My opinion is based on what I think of the game, and what I perceive. Not what I want.

That's how I work.

Bethesda made several huge hits, and as I guess that's what they wanted to achieve - I think that's more than enough credit. Besides, what would they do with my endorsement?

Well it`s easier to assume that by "meaningful difficulty levels" I meant just slapping some more hitpoints on Radoscorpions. Which goes against the grain of this discussion, but whatever.

You generally give no specifics. If you want a response to something, you should probably put it out there first

 

[zadokAllen]

That's not really true…. they are both extremely limited because of the low memory available in them…

I`m not saying that PS3 = PC - but it is capable of more graphical stunts than 360, it`s just a fact of life. Ask John Carmack and what he thinks about Rage on 360.
Or wait for Team Ico`s new game.

Back in the days of exclusives they at least tried to squeeze as much as they can out of particular hardware...remember the PS1 "performance tuner" or whatever it was called...

I think STALKER guys are PC`s last hope for seeing something above the current (boring Unreal) standard...

 

[zadokAllen]

I might as well ask a blind man to see

I'm still not seeing

Sort of sums it up

If you want a response to something, you should probably put it out there first

"But I don`t want anything."
(Not that I want or not, it`s just a sample of your style. As you can see it`s rather hard to argue with