Skyrim is Generic says Konrad. T

[vivaxardas2015]

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...

Well, bro, any attempt to argue from a position of authority on an anonymous forum is a bit lame. I have no idea who you are, and an attempt to add weight to a post by claiming that you are "studying game design and narratology", but without any illustration, just does not work. It would be nice if you illustrate by examples why Skyrim "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".

Obviously Skyrim does not have that many choices to begin with in the major quests. You can choose a side in a conflict, and here you'll change a lot. In other quests you do not really choose anything except following a certain quest-line to its completion or not. Well, you can choose to spare some characters, like Cicero, and that's it. But Skyrim was never presented as a game about choices. It did not make any attempt to have a TW1-2 story. These games are just way too different, different like boxing and archery. You can't blame archery for the absence of possibility of hitting an opponent, or boxing - for inability to throw things. As I see it, these games inhabit their own niches, two sub-genres of RPG.

It is terribly lame that in TW2 you can get, for example, into Henselt's tent and start looting while he is just standing there like an idiot, that you hear the same dialogue again and again, that the locations are empty of any life but some scripted birds and monsters, and so on. So as I see it, in TW 1-2 there is no world at all, just some stage sets. And by my lights it is perfectly fine, for it is perfectly adequate for the game's story, which is the only point of interest in TW1-2 for me. Sure as hell I did not play them for the world, because by my lights, they have none at all. I do not blame TW1-2 for not having a world, and I do not blame Skyrim for not having a story with many choices like in TW1-2. Sure, it would be nice to have a game that has both, but it is a lot of work. Whether CDPR can pull it off, we'll see next year.

 

[johnduds]

WHen I think of generic in skyrim this is what I think of.

-story elements, some are good but there are also so many side quests that some of them have to be generic. They should have done less but more complex side quests
-a lot of the weapons did not look good some did tho, this is the first bethesda game where I thought they hardly put thought into some of the weapons features (even some of the legendary weapons are just reskins)
-characters are just not fun to be around, the voice acting is terrible at times
-combat, oh combat don't even get me started on it, seriously terrible animations and no variety, they think adding 2 more features to combat (dual wielding and bashing) is enough to keep someone satisfied through 300 hrs of gameplay let alone even 75 hrs. NO.

If they don't add more layers to the combat then I won't be buying the next elder scrolls that's my big beef, the funny thing is too even mods can't fix the combat.

 

[m4x1u]

guys, don't feed the troll

 

[Sken]

I enjoyed Skyrim when I played it, for most of the 150 hrs spent on it, it's main strength is the exploration aspect.

I enjoyed the Witcher 2 when I played it both times, even more the second time, picking up on a lot of the smaller things and choosing the alternate path to get the different story elements.

I tried starting Skyrim for a second time to play as a different character, I could not make it past 10 hours. It exposed the game as lacking, particularly since the initial wonder of the large open world was gone, things all of a sudden felt bland.

Now, whether this is called generic, lack of depth, lack of replayability, I don't know. It certainly doesn't have the lasting impact on me the Witcher games did.

Now the CDPR boys have their opinions of Skyrim, what they enjoyed, and what they felt was generic or forgettable. Nothing wrong with that, the game is not perfect, but recognizing and stating areas for improvement can only make their next game better. I'm sure Bethesda will agree with their comments, most fans on Skyrim forums are saying the same.

Am I looking forward to the next Elders Scrolls or Fallout game? Hell yes! Bethesda can only build and improve on the foundation of Skyrim, just as CDPR will take it's learnings to deliver and even better Witcher game in the Witcher 3.

 

[johnduds]

Most of Skyrims weapons were so bad looking I just wanted to point out how many swords TW2 has, sure TW2 has mainly one hand swords and alot of times its the hilt that was modified but still they actually put effort into the weapons.

http://witcher.wikia.com/wiki/Steel_swords_in_The_Witcher_2

http://witcher.wikia.com/wiki/Silver_swords_in_The_Witcher_2

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

I'm not sure what the original poster was trying to say. The way I see it - The Witcher series are true RPGs which value the story and experience. They are made with roleplayrs and those who value the fantasy genre in mind. Skyrim is made with mass market approach in mind. Feel the difference.

 

[thelostdunmer.651]

Skyrim is a good game although they botched much of its contents and the story-telling really sucks. But I have one thing to say and this is important, CDPR needs to kick the dog out before anyone can say that TW3 is a magnificent game. A real gem that can surpass even the likes of Dragon Age Origins. If they can do that without sacrificing content, graphics, and story-telling then hands-down I will award CDPR the most coveted fan award ever, I'll go nuts telling people on the Metrorail how good TW3 is, and that's a promise!

Until then, CDPR or anyone who has connections with them should stop claiming that TW3 will surpass Skyrim and Dragon Age Origins.

 

[dreambled]

I'm not sure what the original poster was trying to say. The way I see it - The Witcher series are true RPGs which value the story and experience. They are made with roleplayrs and those who value the fantasy genre in mind. Skyrim is made with mass market approach in mind. Feel the difference.

I always find these type of comments odd. What is a true RPG? Do you mean like a table top RPG? If that's the case, the Witcher already fails in one category: you don't get to create and play as your own character, whereas Skyrim does.

 

[dragonbird]

OK everyone, it looks as though the OP isn't intending to come back and debate this, so I'm locking this one down.

There have been some interesting points raised about the definition of generic, linearity and what it means in an RPG. Feel free to discuss in a different thread.