Skyrim

+
Never played the first two, but GTA V I played a bit of before I stopped playing due to lack of interest. The campaign was anything but linear from what I did see. I kept getting shuffled between campaigns of the characters, and it definitely didn't feel linear. The gameplay is sandbox and the mission designed around that. So yea, I'd consider it non-linear. What, do you guys reserve these terms for games you don't like or something? One of the main points they advertised was that you could play their main mission in whatever order you wanted as the missions came, and that's excluding the side stuff along the way. The game does not hold your hand. You do what the hell you want.

A linear game is Halo, call of duty, deadspace, gears of war, Star wars the force unleashed, prince of persia the warrior within. Practically any fighting game and lots of japanese games. Some have less linear straight forward sections, but for the most part, you're progressing forward consecutively each time.
 
Last edited:
I don't think you got what I meant, and it seems like you don't get the idea behind linear systems (or equations apparently). It's not about choosing components, it's about the dynamics of a system and how factors affect the outcome. This may not be the definition you want but it is the most accurate and general definition of linearity you will ever find.

the principle relies on the idea of you satisfying two properties, but those two properties won't be satisfied unless I myself recreate the same function. I.E. I complete two quests in the same manner and it means the same thing for me.

The function also relies on me adding the same variables each time to even be satisfied, when that factor is completely reliant on me in Skyrim. In an equation, you have a set amount of variables you MUST add.

Linear systems satisfy these properties, you don't have to try. It has nothing to do with recreating scenarios or hand picking values. Let me clarify: the '=' operator states both sides are identical. The general form f(xA) = xf(A) implies it holds for any values of x and A. What this represents in terms of system dynamics is that regardless of the order of factors, the system can be separated into smaller components which can be solved separately without affecting any given system state involving them. That is whether you perform a, then b then c is the same as b, then c then a and c then a then b. Linear dynamics. Of course this involves the same system components, like it would involve the same quests in a game like Skyrim. What we're saying is, precisely, that their order doesn't change anything. In other words, you have a set of tasks waiting to be done that have the same effect regardless of "how" you approach them. Ultimately as you solve more quests the game converges to a state shared by all players, like say reaching the final level in a linear corridor shooter (the only remaining variable being your initial choice of PC, which in games like Oblivion also becomes irrelevant as you can master all talents).

I'm sorry if I added too much noise. This is elementary math, and the single most general definition of linearity.
 
I got it exactly and I'm not repeating myself. I already explained why you can't apply this thinking to Skyrim, so that's that as far as I'm concerned. You're free to harp on about Skyrim being linear as long as you wish.

And just for inference in case you missed my edit, this is the biggest point that discredits using this definition of linearity to describe Skyrim:



There's not an equation in the world that you can pick and choose which variables to add. You must use each one. In Skyrim, I can pick and choose, so if I looked at it like an equation, which you couldn't, then I could control the end product. Which brings me back to saying just because you CAN play Skyrim linearly, doesn't mean it is in fact linear.

If I apply your equation to Skyrim, all it proves is that Skyrim has linearity to it. Like most games do, even ones like Witcher not considered linear. That's a wrap, really. Forgetting of course, that this isn't the method people use to look at games, and this is just all nit picky bs.

And just to make it extra crystal clear what it is that I'm saying, the fact that in Skyrim, I can choose to add the variables that would satisfy those principles of linearity, or not.... means that this property cannot apply to the game as a whole, because that definition of linearity is applied to mathematical equations, and Skyrim does not function like an equation due to the very thing I said made it non linear in the first place. Choice of variable application. Aka, how, when and if I decide to play a quest. Because again, equations do not come with choice. They come with rules, rules that must be followed, and variables that must be applied within the equation.

We're done here.

And the single most general definition... would be the one in the dictionary... not a math equation. The one I already shared.
 
Last edited:
And I explained why you can but go ahead and ignore everything I said :) Your idea of hand picking values is incorrect, that is not how math works.

This is why it is so hard to have discussions here, there are only one sided arguments.
 
Am I the only one getting this strange feeling that any game that could be a "threat" to the Witcher is automatically "bad"?
 
You literally ignored both the dictionary, the wiki describing how people describe "linear games", and I'm ignoring you? Lol. I just explained why the math doesn't apply to a damn gameplay description. And this is not math, this is not an equation.

You're pulling out math to supersede the english language. I'm not the one handpicking anything here. Seriously, some of you are so dead set on hating this game, that you'll go through comical levels to shit on it. It's silly as hell.
 
Am I the only one getting this strange feeling that any game that could be a "threat" to the Witcher is automatically "bad"?

Nope, I see it too. Some people on this site have fear levels in the irrational. How the hell do you ignore both the dictionary and an actual description on linearity as it applies to games? The math doesn't even apply simply because of choice, which a math equation in its variables does not have. Flawed from the start. You can't argue around that.
 
Am I the only one getting this strange feeling that any game that could be a "threat" to the Witcher is automatically "bad"?

Most of the people in this thread who have pointed out flaws with Skyrim do not consider The Witcher games to be the ultimate games of all time. People are stating valid reasons and opinions instead of saying "just because". I don't think Skyrim is a threat to anything just as The Witcher games are not a threat to anything.
 
Nope, I see it too. Some people on this site have fear levels in the irrational. How the hell do you ignore both the dictionary and an actual description on linearity as it applies to games? The math doesn't even apply simply because of choice, which a math equation in its variables does not have. Flawed from the start. You can't argue around that.

Well this kind of "hate" is not new to the Witcher. Once upon a time there was a german developer called Pirahna Bytes who made the amazing Gothic RPG series and in 2006, when Oblivion had just been released they developed and released Gothic 3, which had been in development for four years. On the Gothic fansite there was a kind of rivalry not unlike the BioWare vs CDPR one. They thought Gothic 3 was going to be the RPG to end all RPGs including the "infidel" Oblivion. They were wrong, at release the game caved in due the developer's overambition and a huge shitstorm ensued which was amplified tenfold due to the hype. That is why having a balanced and sober view on any game is important.
 
The linearity of Skyrim's individual missions is something we've already admitted to. Veleda and I have both said it. Pretty sure Cormacolindor did too.

It's something that I do not like but also mentioned its a consequence of being able to effect the lore of the game, whereas a less linear game in individual missions like Fallout New Vegas does not let you effect the lore. Just the way its set up. Though Skyrim has improved in that regard compared to the past as the civil war has shown.

We mentioned this. We're not stubbornly claiming the game has no flaws. We're simply not conforming to this Skyrim shitfest going on here trying to tag it with every anti rpg tag people can think of just to try and dismiss something people on these boards don't like. Skyrim has linearity, just as Witcher does. It does not make it a linear game. Why that's so hard to admit, I don't know.
 
Moderator: This is the only time the moderators will caution this thread before we again delete posts and expel recalcitrant members.

DO NOT WRITE ANYTHING THAT ASCRIBES ANYTHING TO ANOTHER MEMBER, OF ANYTHING LIKE FEAR OR LACK OF RATIONALITY OR IGNORANCE OR DELIBERATELY IGNORING WHAT YOU THINK ARE VALID ARGUMENTS.

If you think this means you, it does mean you, and you are directed to take note and cease.
 
Like I said before I think the TES series would actually benefit from a smaller more condensed world, with more meaningful content. I bring Gothic 2 NOTR as an example yet again. In many ways the game is very similar to TES with one major difference: the world is smaller. This is both an advantage and a disadvantage; on one hand you don't have the vast world of TES but on the other hand each little detail you place is important. Skyrim, due to its size has the inevitable problem of content dillution. You simply can't have the quality of a smaller game everywhere with such a big world. It also presents some gameplay problems because the bigger the world is, the more dungeons there are and the more loot there is. The more loot there is the harder it is to make it balanced AND interesting.
 
There's enough games out there like that already. Even with all Skyrim's problems, and even if the quality of the quests and story would improve from more focus, I love the exploration and sense of adventure. I wouldn't change it for anything. I'd rather they simply do their best to improve it despite the challenge of a large world.
 
Most of the people in this thread who have pointed out flaws with Skyrim do not consider The Witcher games to be the ultimate games of all time. People are stating valid reasons and opinions instead of saying "just because". I don't think Skyrim is a threat to anything just as The Witcher games are not a threat to anything.

Speak for yourself man... Skyrim has been a major threat to my free time these last few years, just like the last 2 Witcher games and TW3 will pose the same threat.
 
Last edited:
Like I said before I think the TES series would actually benefit from a smaller more condensed world, with more meaningful content. I bring Gothic 2 NOTR as an example yet again. In many ways the game is very similar to TES with one major difference: the world is smaller. This is both an advantage and a disadvantage; on one hand you don't have the vast world of TES but on the other hand each little detail you place is important. Skyrim, due to its size has the inevitable problem of content dillution. You simply can't have the quality of a smaller game everywhere with such a big world. It also presents some gameplay problems because the bigger the world is, the more dungeons there are and the more loot there is. The more loot there is the harder it is to make it balanced AND interesting.

Gothic 2 was one of my favorite RPG's for the longest time! I still have quite a few fond memories of it. It had a real sense of excitement and adventure that I never got in any of TES games since in all of TES games there is auto leveling which greatly reduced the excitement of adventuring. I still remember the first time I stumbled upon a shadowbeast in a dark cave when I was very low level and getting torn to bits. I also remember the first time I heard a loud BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! and a moment later I see a troll come charging out of the trees after me. I agree that Skyrim would be enhanced if they took such an approach; quality over quantity.
 
I don't think it would be enhanced. Like I said, both approaches have unique advantages and disadvantages. I was not saying that the world should be as small as G2's but smaller, maybe half as big as Skyrim. Besides, quantity has a quality of its own. Which one is better is purely subjective.
 
I deeply miss Gothic 2 - best melee EVER-, am still bitter about Gothic 3, liked Skyrim a lot and consider people who don't think Witcher 1 and 2 to be the best games EVAR to be heretics. H-e-r-e-t-i-c-s. (Tzeentch-loving heretics. Obviously, Nurgle is the One True God. How can you not..anyway). Witcher great.

Well, except the swamp bits. Ugh. Oh and that Geralt guy - what a cliche!

Also interested in why Fallout New Vegas can't affect the lore of Fallout because the missions were open-ended? Did you not play F1 and F2? There are multiple endings - for sequels the developers just pick one. That's cool.

Skyrim's linearity issue for me was more in-game, viz: "Hey, have you ever thought of joining the Mage's Guild?" Uh-huh. I run it now, have for awhile, saved the world with magic, fought Dragons with said magic, do you guards even HAVE GOOGLE NEWS?!
 
I don't think it would be enhanced. Like I said, both approaches have unique advantages and disadvantages. I was not saying that the world should be as small as G2's but smaller, maybe half as big as Skyrim. Besides, quantity has a quality of its own. Which one is better is purely subjective.

Of course. Besides, can't have people being too agreeable in this thread, right? Don't wanna break the tone ;)

All joking aside, I can appreciate the good qualities of Skyrim. Sadly, they just weren't compelling enough for me to enjoy the game due to the negatives being overwhelming. I was somewhat irritated with Morrowind and thought "surely Oblivion will be better!". Nope. So then I'm thinking "third times a charm (not third game in the series but the third I played); Skyrim is definitely going to improve upon the weak areas!". Nope. All they did was focus on quantity instead of quality (their biggest weak point in my opinion). Adding vast amounts of mediocrity doesn't magically transform mediocrity into high quality. This is the main reason I avoid MMO's... they have enough generic questing to make your eyes bleed.
 
Last edited:
Well, except the swamp bits. Ugh. Oh and that Geralt guy - what a cliche!

Also interested in why Fallout New Vegas can't affect the lore of Fallout because the missions were open-ended? Did you not play F1 and F2? There are multiple endings - for sequels the developers just pick one. That's cool.

Look at Fallout New Vegas and how many endings there are to that. How are they supposed to show in lore the fate of the city without declaring one ending canon? They can't. That's what I'm talking about.

edit: Though FNV established a canon ending for 2, so who knows, they might do it again. I doubt it though since they never did so with Fallout 3. But they might, when enough years pass that they don't think their fanbase will care.

But that's something I don't want. Establishing canon endings. Makes your favorite playthroughs invalid.
 
Last edited:
Edit: Just wanted to add that we are commenting on the actual video game, the product that Bethesda developed, published and sells. The game YOU personally get out is dependent on your expectations and your style, you make the RPG with your personal approach using the video game as a tool. Choosing to avoid certain tasks because they do not match your character is fine but that is part of the game YOU create, where game, story and characters are in your head. The game Bethesda made is one where everything goes and your actions do not matter. It is a sandbox, that's what they do. We might as well approach GTA with these same standards and "role play" the hell out of it.
The game Bethesda made is the one that allows me to play it as I want without being forced to go here, do that.

Also interested in why Fallout New Vegas can't affect the lore of Fallout because the missions were open-ended? Did you not play F1 and F2? There are multiple endings - for sequels the developers just pick one. That's cool.
That also makes choices irrelevant. Each approach is different, but Bethesda's approach is to leave enough ambiguity that (almost) every player's unique playthrough remains their own.

since in all of TES games there is auto leveling which greatly reduced the excitement of adventuring.
There's no auto leveling. If you mean leveled creatures, Skyrim has a mixed system. Oblivion did have leveled enemies.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom