unfortunately, words cannot make bethesda go bankrupt.cmdrflashheart said:
- Status
Anybody actually has any doubt about it? Shitrim is the king of generic.
Shitty fetch quests, retarded NPCs, little to no impact of the supposed "choices" we get and if there is, it's superficial and hardly matters. Copy-pasted dungeons. Almost every quest involves going into a cave to retrieve something. Boring characters, overused voices, bland world, boring combat, everything simplified, the micromanagement is almost non-existent. I find it odd, you look at Shitrim and it's...well shit and then you look at Fallout and it's so good.
Shitty fetch quests, retarded NPCs, little to no impact of the supposed "choices" we get and if there is, it's superficial and hardly matters. Copy-pasted dungeons. Almost every quest involves going into a cave to retrieve something. Boring characters, overused voices, bland world, boring combat, everything simplified, the micromanagement is almost non-existent. I find it odd, you look at Shitrim and it's...well shit and then you look at Fallout and it's so good.
I'm sorry, but... slander? I can certainly discuss your opinion on an argument-for-argument basis, but this last remark literally blew me away. Did you even think when you wrote it, or were you just being emotional for some reason? Because when a mild criticism of a specific aspect of Skyrim, which really served no other purpose than to help convey Konrad's thoughts on where CDPR intended to go with TW3, suddenly is called slander - well, it hit me like a hammer. What would you like, Karimloo? That the whole game industry become uncritical - gullible even - society full of brown-noses, praising each other and not even trying to see their faults? I personally find it commendable that Konrad said what he said, because this speaks of rationality and, yes, critical thinking, it speaks about CDPR looking closely at how things are done and actually striving to improve them, instead of copying and pasting them into their own game. I fail to understand why shouldn't they do that, and I fail to understand why shouldn't they present their opinions and get themselves involved in discussions about various aspects of game making. And I fail to see why you took the whole thing so personally - or at least appear to have.Karimloo said:
Yes... long post again... Sorry community!
I will also point out that you didn't address anything that Konrad said in the post except the one word "generic" and you have chosen to disregard or argue anything actual in the post which Konrad brought up. I will though say that in the post Konrad didn't address anything that can come as a surprise about Skyrim. The game itself feels very bland and there's little you as a player can do to change the world or to get immersed in the story. Skyrim is a great game for exploration and customization, but that's all things that you as a played do to add weight and depth, not the game itself. The game gives you a sandbox and then you are free to do and craft a story for yourself.
Also why are you so concern on what Konrad thinks of Skyrim? It's his opinion about the game, why can't you accept his opinion about a game that you like just because it differs from your own experience and opinion about a game. You are have all the right to belief he is wrong and dislike his opinion, but it's still just opinions.
Finally you have portrayed yourself and your point really badly in this topic, so I urge you if you want to be taken seriously to further construct and edit your post so you can be addressed as a levelheaded adult sharing his concerns about Konrads opinions.. I assume this post was important as I believe you registered solely to post this but you haven't covered anything about what Konrad actually thought about Skyrim in this post or addressed anything else except that you believe TW is equally (or more) generic than Skyrim because of it's lack of customization... Something I will argue is wrong, as customization and it's lack thereof doesn't equal generic.
Then to the topic, you've mainly addressed customization options... This has no correlation with a game being generic or not. Generic is a term which is used in video games when the setting the game takes place in, would differ little from any other settings. So for example to clarify, a generic fantasy game could just as equally be played in a sci-fi world or in modern settings and the game itself wouldn't differ in any major elements to the normal settings. This is 100% accurate to Elder scrolls and also the Fallout franchise. You could initially take the world of Fallout 3 and Skyrim and switch settings and we would have a Skyrim with guns or a apocalypse Fallout world with swords and magic and you'd feel no different except on your own image on the world (if you for example are a fan of fantasy or not). This is however a bit more problematic in The Witcher because there's so much things that are defined and thoroughly thought of. The characters and their relationship to the world and other characters, the intrigue in the world and the reasons why. Because you doesn't feel invested with any other character in either Fallout or the Elder scrolls franchise or it's world (it's about you and you alone) the whole notion about it's settings is more nostalgia and personal feelings towards a genre, not what the actual world brings forth.
As for customization, it is also not a defined measurement on whether a game is more or less generic or better or worse for that matter either if they have more customizations options. In fact this have never been a rule in any other games (Mass Effect, Journey, etc) so I don't see how you can define a game being generic or not solely because of their customization options or lack thereof. In terms of Journey for example, many people argue that it's probably one of the most in depth games on the market (which have effected many people on a high emotional level), yet that game lack any sort of customization at all. Also Dear Esther didn't have any modding tools, customization with races, profiles etc. and the majority wouldn't call these games as generic just because of that notion. If you feel however that because a game lacks customization feel free to say why but I find that viewpoint to be extremely ignorant and simple minded as you've pretty much condemned any game which doesn't compete in terms of customization to a game like Skyrim as generic solely because of a design choice from the developers.
Moving on you addressed dialogue, while you are correct that no game (as of this date) can address any possible outcome in dialogue it's objectively easy to see the major difference on these two games. Just as Dragon Age Origin contained text equally to 9 novels I feel that even you can clearly see the difference in dialogue between Skyrim and Witcher. This is of course TW focus on the story and the depth of the world while Skyrim focus more on having a huge world to explore and the story you create for yourself. While you are correct that the outcome in the general dialogue with an NPC will not differ that drastically between the games (although this again is only partly accurate, as the difference between dialogues in TW can have major significance), the big difference here is not the dialogue options but more what they mean. A conversation in Skyrim can feel extremely bland (which is something I assume Konrad was going for in his post) and offers no real knowledge of the character or their relationship to you or the world they are in. In the Witcher you really feel what racism is about, what makes people happy, what makes them sad, what goals and ambitions people have... This is the importance with dialogue, that you feel immersed with the characters, just not having small talk with someone about the weather (a satire to segregate the difference between Skyrim and TW. In no shape or form do I believe they talk solely about the weather in Skyrim).
The point that TW isn't known for having a huge world is complete bonkers. You are initially saying that game A shouldn't develop and add more features and content because it became famous of lacking these features. If that's the mindset we should have we are both subconsciously and consciously damaging the gaming market where games shouldn't try to explore or add something new because it feels alienated to our beliefs.
You sort of contradict yourself with first saying TW is known for having rich dialogue then neglect this as a weakness and a reason on why it is generic because you will have the same conversation the second playtime. Again I already addressed the importance on dialogues so there's nothing more to add.
To a conclusion, I again addressed it was his opinion about a game and you have not addressed anything in the topic except one word. This was in no way slander, in fact if you read the post to it's fully you see that they have great respect for the game and enjoyed it... And I believe you could make so much more of this topic if you carefully sat down, went through what Konrad said and what the post took up and then objectively addressed this as a potential issue rather than (what it seems like) allowing your personal feelings towards a game get the better out of you.
First things first, nothing in the post said that Konrad called the game linear. In fact linear is a completely different thing so we can dismiss the "generic, linear" which you said and all claims about TW franchise being "generic" because it's linear.Karimloo said:
I will also point out that you didn't address anything that Konrad said in the post except the one word "generic" and you have chosen to disregard or argue anything actual in the post which Konrad brought up. I will though say that in the post Konrad didn't address anything that can come as a surprise about Skyrim. The game itself feels very bland and there's little you as a player can do to change the world or to get immersed in the story. Skyrim is a great game for exploration and customization, but that's all things that you as a played do to add weight and depth, not the game itself. The game gives you a sandbox and then you are free to do and craft a story for yourself.
Also why are you so concern on what Konrad thinks of Skyrim? It's his opinion about the game, why can't you accept his opinion about a game that you like just because it differs from your own experience and opinion about a game. You are have all the right to belief he is wrong and dislike his opinion, but it's still just opinions.
Finally you have portrayed yourself and your point really badly in this topic, so I urge you if you want to be taken seriously to further construct and edit your post so you can be addressed as a levelheaded adult sharing his concerns about Konrads opinions.. I assume this post was important as I believe you registered solely to post this but you haven't covered anything about what Konrad actually thought about Skyrim in this post or addressed anything else except that you believe TW is equally (or more) generic than Skyrim because of it's lack of customization... Something I will argue is wrong, as customization and it's lack thereof doesn't equal generic.
Then to the topic, you've mainly addressed customization options... This has no correlation with a game being generic or not. Generic is a term which is used in video games when the setting the game takes place in, would differ little from any other settings. So for example to clarify, a generic fantasy game could just as equally be played in a sci-fi world or in modern settings and the game itself wouldn't differ in any major elements to the normal settings. This is 100% accurate to Elder scrolls and also the Fallout franchise. You could initially take the world of Fallout 3 and Skyrim and switch settings and we would have a Skyrim with guns or a apocalypse Fallout world with swords and magic and you'd feel no different except on your own image on the world (if you for example are a fan of fantasy or not). This is however a bit more problematic in The Witcher because there's so much things that are defined and thoroughly thought of. The characters and their relationship to the world and other characters, the intrigue in the world and the reasons why. Because you doesn't feel invested with any other character in either Fallout or the Elder scrolls franchise or it's world (it's about you and you alone) the whole notion about it's settings is more nostalgia and personal feelings towards a genre, not what the actual world brings forth.
As for customization, it is also not a defined measurement on whether a game is more or less generic or better or worse for that matter either if they have more customizations options. In fact this have never been a rule in any other games (Mass Effect, Journey, etc) so I don't see how you can define a game being generic or not solely because of their customization options or lack thereof. In terms of Journey for example, many people argue that it's probably one of the most in depth games on the market (which have effected many people on a high emotional level), yet that game lack any sort of customization at all. Also Dear Esther didn't have any modding tools, customization with races, profiles etc. and the majority wouldn't call these games as generic just because of that notion. If you feel however that because a game lacks customization feel free to say why but I find that viewpoint to be extremely ignorant and simple minded as you've pretty much condemned any game which doesn't compete in terms of customization to a game like Skyrim as generic solely because of a design choice from the developers.
Moving on you addressed dialogue, while you are correct that no game (as of this date) can address any possible outcome in dialogue it's objectively easy to see the major difference on these two games. Just as Dragon Age Origin contained text equally to 9 novels I feel that even you can clearly see the difference in dialogue between Skyrim and Witcher. This is of course TW focus on the story and the depth of the world while Skyrim focus more on having a huge world to explore and the story you create for yourself. While you are correct that the outcome in the general dialogue with an NPC will not differ that drastically between the games (although this again is only partly accurate, as the difference between dialogues in TW can have major significance), the big difference here is not the dialogue options but more what they mean. A conversation in Skyrim can feel extremely bland (which is something I assume Konrad was going for in his post) and offers no real knowledge of the character or their relationship to you or the world they are in. In the Witcher you really feel what racism is about, what makes people happy, what makes them sad, what goals and ambitions people have... This is the importance with dialogue, that you feel immersed with the characters, just not having small talk with someone about the weather (a satire to segregate the difference between Skyrim and TW. In no shape or form do I believe they talk solely about the weather in Skyrim).
The point that TW isn't known for having a huge world is complete bonkers. You are initially saying that game A shouldn't develop and add more features and content because it became famous of lacking these features. If that's the mindset we should have we are both subconsciously and consciously damaging the gaming market where games shouldn't try to explore or add something new because it feels alienated to our beliefs.
You sort of contradict yourself with first saying TW is known for having rich dialogue then neglect this as a weakness and a reason on why it is generic because you will have the same conversation the second playtime. Again I already addressed the importance on dialogues so there's nothing more to add.
To a conclusion, I again addressed it was his opinion about a game and you have not addressed anything in the topic except one word. This was in no way slander, in fact if you read the post to it's fully you see that they have great respect for the game and enjoyed it... And I believe you could make so much more of this topic if you carefully sat down, went through what Konrad said and what the post took up and then objectively addressed this as a potential issue rather than (what it seems like) allowing your personal feelings towards a game get the better out of you.
It's likely you responded to a troll, but I enjoyed your cogent arguments.Juuuhan said:
Please avoid directing insults like "troll" to other members, respect their opinion as politely as you can.
I have no intention to defend RED's here because there is no reason for it since they did not slander Skyrim in any way, only pointed out it's weak spots in their opinion. One could even say they shouldn't compare Skyrim and The Witcher because each has focus on different things but hey, they are gamers too, so why not.
I loved Skyrim for what it is, huge sandbox you get thrown in to and given option to do what you want in it. I didn't hate it for weak storytelling, boring fetch quests or weak characters because I wasn't expecting much on that field in the first place. In short, I got what I came for.
Which can't be said for some games where I expect good, consistent, intelligent story and it fails to deliver because they shift their focus on entirely different things.(Let's not name other franchises here).
I'll just add this here since they said what they said: we now have even higher expectations for The Witcher 3, don't disappoint.
I loved Skyrim for what it is, huge sandbox you get thrown in to and given option to do what you want in it. I didn't hate it for weak storytelling, boring fetch quests or weak characters because I wasn't expecting much on that field in the first place. In short, I got what I came for.
Which can't be said for some games where I expect good, consistent, intelligent story and it fails to deliver because they shift their focus on entirely different things.(Let's not name other franchises here).
I'll just add this here since they said what they said: we now have even higher expectations for The Witcher 3, don't disappoint.
As far as I can tell they praise skyrim and look up to it. Though the way they see it, they are strong in the aspects that skyrim lacks. However while the developers of Skyrim are experienced on open world games, CDPR isn't. They're trying to learn from it and take good aspects of the open world games and try to improve on them. That's my vision.
nothing could be worse than skyrim, so i don't think there's any chance of disappointment.
what's this to do with linearity of a game, or it being generic?Karimloo said:
what's this to do with linearity of a game, or it being generic? (besides, tw1/2 gave you plent of options in both gear and play style, even though that didn't make the game any more non-linear)Karimloo said:
lol?Karimloo said:
why on earth would you want that in a game? it's like saying, HL2 sucks, I can't have the model of Megatron from Transformers instead the one of Dog. />
secondchildren said:
I'd like to point out that the OP has only made one post on the forum and that was the OP one. Since then he hasn't made any other post and his first post was certainly baiting people for a certain reaction.
How is that not trolling?
Anyway there's quite a viciousness here in this thread.
Why fanboys don't like other peoples opinion?!
If the producers think that Skyrim was generical (I think the same) it's ther own opinion, for christ sakes!
If the producers think that Skyrim was generical (I think the same) it's ther own opinion, for christ sakes!
Oh boy, I feel I should quote a previous post of mine from another thread.
Just chill bro. Skyrim is very badly designed. Accept it. That doesn't mean you can't love it. I've invested over 200 hours into it and I've analysed it, since I'm studying game design and narratology, and honestly it's lacking in both regards. It goes beyond being just a badly designed game, it's badly designed for TES game in general. It just doesn't do a good job of reinforcing the open world backdrop and elevate the mood and consequences of your choices in a turmoiled Tamriel that's suffering from a recent war. I appreciate it for other things but let's not delude ourselves, it's generic as fuck. Morrowind however, wasn't and it seems that since that game, Bethesda just doesn't care anymore...
Just chill bro. Skyrim is very badly designed. Accept it. That doesn't mean you can't love it. I've invested over 200 hours into it and I've analysed it, since I'm studying game design and narratology, and honestly it's lacking in both regards. It goes beyond being just a badly designed game, it's badly designed for TES game in general. It just doesn't do a good job of reinforcing the open world backdrop and elevate the mood and consequences of your choices in a turmoiled Tamriel that's suffering from a recent war. I appreciate it for other things but let's not delude ourselves, it's generic as fuck. Morrowind however, wasn't and it seems that since that game, Bethesda just doesn't care anymore...
Okay see, i can really feel identified with this lolWichat said:The only thing I expect form CDPR is games which makes me feel deputamadre. I can't be clearer in English/>/> .
I agree in 100%secondchildren said:
Back to topic... Skyrim is generic... deal with it.
In fact last fight was so stripped of emotion that I wanted to go back to my work instead play it any longer. "Someone" can destroy the world if I will fail?!... whatever, I don't care.
Still I think it's a good game, but its npcs... I don't have words to describe them.
I look for them to make games that are wicked pisserWichat said:The only thing I expect form CDPR is games which makes me feel deputamadre. I can't be clearer in English
I love how the meaning of slang can vary greatly depending on where you are.
To the point, I have put many hours into Skyrim, it's great fun. There are times I enjoy Skyrim precisely becuause it's generic. I can completly ignore the main or any quest and still play for hours and enjoy it. People who have called it a hiking sim aren't that far off, but it's still fun. That said, the quests, story, and characters range from almost interesting to boring me to tears after a while.
I don't need bother expressing how great the story and characters in TW2 were, awesome!
The world in The Witcher 2 in interesting, brilliant, beautiful... there's just so freaking little of it. I really wanted some elbow room. I love the character of Geralt, I love the world he lives in, I love the characters around him. The only thing I missed was the ability to just do f@#k all once in awhile and have it still be interesting.
That's why I'm most excited about the open world aspect of Witcher 3. Picture the The Witcher 2 with the space between Flotsam, Vergen, and Loc Muine filled in and walkable with some shit to do along the way. I hope they place some cool stuff in out of the way places like Gothic 1 and Gothic 2 did.
- Status