Why I love Skyrim

[CT Phipps]

At my local Kroger, I recently picked up a copy of a PC magazine which had the entirety of the issue devoted to discussing RPGs.

It discussed Ultima, Fallout, Planescape, Fallout 4's failings, The Witcher, and many more cool bits. It even had a history of RPGs.

It also included the Division for some reason.

 

[CerberusGate]

@CT Phipps

I do think Black Angel has a point on you praising Skyrim in aspects where it's EXTREMELY bad or trying to raises points where it's nonexistent (or raising points you're bringing up by reading too deeply into some of its content). You have raised reasonable points every now and then but many times here, you seem to ignore his (or worse, miss the point and redirect the discussion) when he counters your poorer points.

It discussed Ultima, Fallout, Planescape, Fallout 4's failings, The Witcher, and many more cool bits. It even had a history of RPGs.

That sounds like a good read. Then again...

It also included the Division for some reason.

I do hope the magazine was being sarcastic with that though I hear survival mode does allow for a little role-playing (as someone on a more polished version of DayZ). Plus the game uses RPG mechanics in place of proper shooting mechanics (ala Fallout 4 but less pretentious).

 

[CT Phipps]

Stop misrepresenting what I say.

Not trying to.

1. You're arguing that Alduin is a 'good' villain because his appearance gave you this 'sense of urgency', I pointed out he isn't because the game was designed so that players can go around lollygagging. And then you accuse me of wanting "a tightly scripted singular narrative" that prevents player freedom. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying I want the game, when it creates this sense of urgency (like making Alduin seems like a threat to be dealth with ASAP because he can resurrect long-dead Dragons and, therefore, had the capability to destroy settlements), to ACTUALLY reinforce that sense of urgency. If they want to make games where players can lollygag to their heart's content then DON'T create that sense of urgency. To an extent, this means Alduin is a shit villain. I'm giving a comparison to Fallout 1 because FO1 DID time-limit and, therefore, sense of urgency right.

Point taken. I suppose I only liked fighting Alduin because it had the enemy at the end of the game be such a important part of the lore and enemy but he didn't even look like an especially dangerous dragon compared to the other kinds out there. I mean, guy should look like Deathwing or something. At least make him red or something.

So, I concede.

2. I'm NOT saying that "tightly scripted singular narrative" and time-limit (like you thought I am saying) is "essential to a good RPG". I'm saying that in a good RPGs characters ought to have weaknesses, the world has to be reactive towards the character's actions (choices&consequences). Skyrim made it seems like Alduin was a threat that has to be dealt with ASAP, and you know what that means? That means, if the game allow the player to lollygag WITHOUT CONSEQUENCES, that means it's a shit game with a disconnection between narrative and system design, and also NOT an RPG.

I think the game should have thrown some more scenes where Alduin wrecks havoc, so you're right.

You know what's antithetical? Making a game with the narrative hook of a threat that invoke a sense of urgency because if he's not dealt with ASAP, the game would be over, BUT then you design the game in a way so players can go lollygagging.

I think that kind of sense of time progression can be achieved with scripted progression through the story like how the climax of the Civil War in Skyrim isn't part of the Civil War quest chain but the Battle of Whiterun, which is part of the Main Quest.

The reason why the Second Battle of Hoover Dam isn't happening yet is because the entire conflict entered an indefinite state of stalemate between the warring factions. The Courier, through accomplishing a series of important feats, is deemed crucial to any of the factions, that thanks to the Courier's work the conflict can finally be escalated to its conclusion.

Ehh, that doesn't strike me as too different from how I think things should run. Events leading up to the game's accomplishment by tying into player action.

That kind of game is a sand-box type of game, not RPG.

Sandbox RPGs are my favorite. Fallout 3, New Vegas, and Skyrim.

Look at my point above about New Vegas. Before the Courier enter the picture, the Legion has already done MUCH to escalate their conflict with the NCR.

That's good storytelling, like the Thalmor and the Civil War set up. The Blades and Talos.

This is not even a valid argument because New Vegas was NOT made and designed as sandbox type of game.

There's good discussion of the comparison here on Kotaku with fallout 3.

http://kotaku.com/fallout-3-isnt-really-an-rpg-1725444327

There's no such thing as TOO big when discussing ACTUAL open-world games, especially with all the advantages of the new technology we had these days.

How do you figure?

 

[Zerginfestor]

I found Alduin to be such a poorly made villain. If they had him appear waaaaaaaaaaay later on perhaps right after the civil war where most players have done their shit and lollygagging and actually display a serious threat (where if the player doesn't attack him within a week, a settlement will be burned off of the map).

 

[Crni Vuk]

That's what I liked about Morrowind and the way how the villain worked there. It's not like Dagoth Ur was thrown at you the moment you left that ship. The game gave you time to explore the world and get into the story at your own pace, eventually learning something about it on your own. In other words, the game didn't spoon feed you everything.

 

[CerberusGate]

That's what I liked about Morrowind and the way how the villain worked there. It's not like Dagoth Ur was thrown at you the moment you left that ship. The game gave you time to explore the world and get into the story at your own pace, eventually learning something about it on your own. In other words, the game didn't spoon feed you everything.

It helps that the game encourages players to learn on their own. Heck, meeting Caius at low levels actually leads him to encourage you to join a guild and learn more off the land (even giving you money to help you along). You are even given books in game to learn more.

Thanks to that, I still recall most of the basic info for Vvardenfell out of memory alone.

 

[Deleted member 93956]

I like Skyrim, had a ton of fun with mods on it and I'm even developing a small mod for it currently.
But it's not the Best of anything. Combat is bland and uninteresting, even magic, while it's the only approach to hostile situations. NPCs but for that wizard guy in Solstheim are forgettable at best, and it's mechanics are broken. 100 Smithing? For f*cking real? Was it that hard to make a master smith to make your shit instead of crafting a gazillion Iron Daggers?

It's one of those games that are "A Classic" becouse they are popular. It's not the "Best RPG of All Time" on its own merits, it's becouse people say so.

 

[CaptJ]

Wait, you SERIOUSLY think the time limits from the original 2 games were a good idea? You're not joking. I thought it was universally recorded as a bad idea, including by Tim Cain. Time limits in video games are HORRIBLE ideas.

You want to let people be able to explore at their leisure.

Time works differently in those games and Daggerfall than in the newer ES and FO titles. Time moves a slower and it takes days to travel from one town to another in the world map. It encourages people to finish all their business in one town before moving to the next. As long you don't waste too much time traveling from one town and another, you have more than enough time.

No, because that removes PLAYER FREEDOM to explore the world at your leisure. One of the things which makes Skyrim a good game. You don't have to deal with Alduin if you just want to play a thief or a wizard and can ignore that quest if you don't want to play it on your second or third playthrough. Skyrim is a toolbox to make your own fun and journeys--making it more story focused defeats the purpose of having fun your way.

By that logic, why does Skyrim even have a level up system? What kind of toolbox withholds the best toys?

 

[Kohno]

It's like that goddamn awful time limit on finding the Water Chip.

It is not meant to be a nice thing. A great deal of mood disappears from the game if you know the people you were sent in a hurry to find rescue for will forever linger and wait for you to "save" them from... waiting and lingering. It's not a good idea to make a storyline about utmost urgency in the face of peril and then throw the urgency away once the gameplay starts. What was the point of the urgency in the storyline or the storyline as a whole at that point? Nothing.

 

[Hassknecht]

I think there's a divide between those who want a classic game that provides a task, rules, and consequences, and those who want a sandbox/dollhouse to play pretend in.
Classic Roleplaying Games are a set of rules and a game master who builds the world for you. He sets the tasks and he decides the consequences, and the players have to deal with it, living by the rules and doing their best to finish their quest. There's always THAT GUY who powerplays and tries to find loopholes and whatnot, but generally RPGs are about the player, well, roleplaying a character in a world and living by its rules.
More modern games like Skyrim are more like a canvas for the player to project their character on. The player decides everything, and the rules are rather loose, and the story and quests don't really matter. It's less about roleplaying a character in a strange world, but more like dressing up and having fun without any risk or consequence. It's a sandbox that you take your GI Joes into and play with. Or a dollhouse that you dress up your character in. The dollhouse won't tell you that your action figures need to go and find the waterchip or your people die, you have to do that yourself. And when you do it yourself, you can go easy on yourself. Nobody likes stress, and few would have their GI Joes lose in the epic battle for the Kingdom of the Potted Plants in your backyard just because you made a tactical error. Suddenly Deus Ex Machina strikes and air support rides in and saves the day. Thus it becomes a power fantasy, which is kinda boring to people who prefer the classic roleplaying game. There the fun is not in dressing up and being king, but in working the rules to get to your goal.
I'm not really experienced in PnP RPGs. My first group was also my last, and we were all noobs. We played Pathfinder, and my former flatmate was the GM (did a pretty good job, too, I think). We did a basic, pre-made adventure first, and the other guys were all from the more modern school of RPGs. So they spent a long time fucking around before I joined the party, despite the GM telling them that they had only had a limited time (the quest was to find a special ingredient for a sickness that was killing villagers). He had to remind them that people were dying back home, but the guys didn't really care. So in the end half the village died, and the rest of the people were quite pissed that we took so long. They were just not used to urgency and things having consequences.

 

[simtam]

If anyone wants to point out the urgency dissonances in Skyrim, its main story is not a particularly well suited example.

Since we are speaking of GMing, I'm fine with GMs that essentially simulate a self-consistent scenario without restraining player actions beyond the rules of the setting. Part of the scenario is that NPCs have their own motivations, that's why even well-intentioned NPCs may mislead PCs. So if it was a scenario about a game where time-traveling Hitler appeared long after war and went into hiding at some alpine Eyrie, seemingly bent on restoring his regime eventually (if you believe political pamphlets) - then I would expect years before he would become more significant than other contemporary terrorists. Still, some veterans of the world war would hire players to eliminate him ASAP.

Out of many things that could be passed as improvement to Skyrim main quest, the time limit is not of the essence.

And lacking an overhaul that would impose time limits on every quest, I would rather make it a story where the player learns of a few closely related goals to do, and it is the order in which player completes them that matters. So, you still get to defeat Alduin one day, but it bears different weight (and consequences, if any) depending on whether and how player handled that extra stuff.

 

[Walpknut]

Skyrim is great..... for loading a shit load of mods into it until it barely resembles the original game in any way.

 

[CaptJ]

despite the GM telling them that they had only had a limited time (the quest was to find a special ingredient for a sickness that was killing villagers). He had to remind them that people were dying back home, but the guys didn't really care. So in the end half the village died, and the rest of the people were quite pissed that we took so long. They were just not used to urgency and things having consequences.

If they ignore the GM's warning, I doubt that they actually cared about saving the village.

I actually dislike how the time limit worked in FO2. I understand that it would be harder to estimate how long that it would take for the village to starve to death and it is rendered meaningless with the arrival of Enclave but I disliked how getting the GECK triggers the capture by the Enclave just like how I disliked how Necropolis' destruction is triggered by your return. I would have had the player return GECK but report the missing Vault 13 residents or simply imply that you should rescue them. The villagers try to get things to work and ask you find someone who could help or find out what happened to the residents of Vault 13.

 

[Black Angel]

Ehh, that doesn't strike me as too different from how I think things should run. Events leading up to the game's accomplishment by tying into player action.

Nope; you think that EVERYTHING in the game has to revolve around YOU; e.g it HAS to have stuff happens only when YOU enter the picture/being there to 'save the world'. For you, things like NPCs dying because you were lollygagging instead of trying to do stuff you were supposed to do are a no-no.

You accuse the Caesar's Legion sitting with their thumbs up their asses until the Courier came to them, that's absolutely wrong. Read again my points regarding the stuff happened in New Vegas. All in all, New Vegas handled quest and narrative design better than Skyrim regarding on-going conflict in its world.

How do you figure?

You praised Skyrim for inaccurately represent settlements with mere two streets populated by a handful of NPCs, and then turn around to say how the Witcher 3 felt "TOO big". That's absolutely dumb. Granted, the Witcher 3 was released 4 years after Skyrim, Bethesda still doesn't have an excuse to do that stupid shit considering they had the advantage of many years of technological advancement.

In fact, from what I've heard, older open-world games like the Gothic series did whatever TES series did much, MUCH better years before sandbox open-world games starts booming.

One of the RPG Codex member testimony regarding Gothic 1 which came at 2001:

Gothic is awesome. Very underrated among the general public, which is to be expected since it's from a European company and didn't have much marketing/name recognition behind it, but sadly, also underrated here at the Codex. On the top 70 list, it is a mere 26, when in reality, it should be in the top 10 alongside its sequel. It's a bit less polished and smaller than Gothic 2 + NotR, but in return, it has the better atmosphere and gameworld. Being stuck in a prison colony is brilliant, and who can forget walking into the Old Camp for the first time, its giant gates welcoming you into its warm run-down outer slums that look more real and lived-in than any other RPG settlement. The first time you heard a Shadowbeast in the dark woods, ran into an orc (and reloaded), watched some guy piss behind his hut, or several guys sitting around a campfire...

This game showed how to properly do open world RPGs and shamed Bethesda into borrowing many of their ideas (and still failing to implement them properly). It just did so many things so well. It's one of the very few RPGs to implement a decent action combat system. It had amazing exploration because of the combination of open world and unique hand-placed content. Graphics were great for the time, and they made a lot of great decisions, like for example, going for simple, stripped down interiors, which allowed them to seamlessly load them and avoid the constant loading screens of Bethesda games. The faction system was great as well, and to this day, there isn't an RPG that lets you "feel" being a part of some faction in the way that Gothic did. The great NPC scripting that made the world come so alive. One of the first games to have full voice-overs of dialogue, which some people here might criticize, but it added a lot to the atmosphere and "realness" of the world.

If you haven't played it yet, slap yourself and go play it NAO!

If anyone wants to point out the urgency dissonances in Skyrim, its main story is not a particularly well suited example.

How on earth the main story not a particularly well suited example for Skyrim's urgency dissonances?

Out of many things that could be passed as improvement to Skyrim main quest, the time limit is not of the essence.

There are many, MANY solution to this problem. The easiest one would be to just eliminate the sense of urgency all-together by not having Alduin making EPIC ENTRY at the start of the game. Hell, this won't happen if Bethesda get rid of their prisoner fetish (seriously).

A bit more complicated solution would be, since in the ancient days Skyrim was a place where the Dragon worshipers lived, indicated by with the Dragon Priests sleeping in many of the tombs, why not, instead, in the mist of the Civil War, set up some super sekrit cults of the Dragons who bent on seeing Alduin's return, and so they used the chaos of Civil War to achieve their goals? After all, the Civil War felt like another Main Quest. This way, they could also set up a nice moral dilemma so the Dragonborn can either choose solving the Civil War, but then Alduin finally returns and start wreaking havoc, or solve the cults problem but then the Civil War conflict gets escalated.

 

[simtam]

Other quests might serve a better example. I don't know every quest in Skyrim, so maybe there is one about those starving villagers that one of you guys mentioned here. In Mount&Blade it would get hard time limit, in Skyrim it does not. Case closed.

But the main quest? You're shown some dragon in the beginning, and it flies away. It does even speak to the player character (which I imagine could impose some urgency indeed). The single biggest flaw raised so far is that quest when you travel to that Kynesgrove dragon grave. Yes, it could be optional and skipped if the player decides not to go there; returning horn to Greybeards and being recognized as Dragonborn is enough to remove any remains of doubts Delphine had about the player character, and continue the Blades story.

@"solving the Civil War, but then Alduin finally returns and start wreaking havoc"
I like this line of thinking, it's an interesting idea; though I am not very eager to additionally punish players for playing through the civil war questline. They can do it themselves, with that mod that mod that makes random Alduin attacks, enabling it only after finishing civil war.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Actually no, not that I can remember. There is no real 'timed' quest in Skyrim that you could potentially fail because you took your sweet time, you can do everything at your leisure as far as I can tell. Even if the quest-NPCs literaly tell you "HURRY, WE NEED TO GET TO DUNGEON/PLACE/TOWN ABC, RIGHT NOW! OR XYZ WILL GET AWAY!", you can decide to do as much lollygagging as you want, because the said npcs will patiently wait for the player outside the location. Even if takes you months. Quite hilarious in some situation when you think about it ...

I think we should not get to hung up on the "urgency" though, I think no one here expects that all and every quest in Skyrim should have a timer clicking in the background. The problem is just, that a lot of the quests in the game are trying to create some kind of urgency, well because it ads to the drama! And drama is a good thing in quests, right? Even if it is just fake, because you never feel any consequence. However, 90% of the Skyrim quests always use the same blue print. Go there, do this, kill that, collect this, return, rince and repeat. It. Is. Always. The. Fucking. Same.

The best quest in my opinion, was the task you got with the Thalmor breaking into their embassy. Not only could you actually use some thief skills here to great effect, and roleplay a 'little' but it was a quest that created urgency on it's own, without always telling you that you had to do it now, it also required the player to step out of his role as adventurer for a moment and pretend that he was a noble to get access to the embassy. As far as Skyrim quests goes, it was one of the better places. Sadly, it was a rare moment. I don't have a problem with this Sandbox experience, but as some already mentioned Gothic 1 and 2 did it already 2 decades ago, and much better at least as far as the story and quests goes.

By that logic, why does Skyrim even have a level up system? What kind of toolbox withholds the best toys?

The first time I played Skyrim, I played it how it was supposed to be played, and boy was it a snooze fest to level up skills. But each new game, one of the first things I do is to level up every skill and giving my character the best items. Skyrim, is simply way to much of a useless grind in my opinion. I am not spending 5 hours of crafting and enchanting daggers like in some shitty MMO, just to get 100 points in smithing or what ever. Though, the whole level up and combat system of Skyrim is such a shitty system ... the first time I played the game, I had some serious issues for a couple of hours, because it seems no one at Bethesda thought about what happens when you decide to level up mostly alchemy, enchanting, smighting and/or merchantile and other non-combat skills. The whole game doesn't even assume for a moment, that someone would NOT level up combat skills.

I still think that who ever came up with this skill system should be kinda slapped in the face. Or forced to go trough brewing/smithing/crafting 1000 items every day.

 

[Black Angel]

Other quests might serve a better example. I don't know every quest in Skyrim, so maybe there is one about those starving villagers that one of you guys mentioned here. In Mount&Blade it would get hard time limit, in Skyrim it does not. Case closed.

But the main quest? You're shown some dragon in the beginning, and it flies away. It does even speak to the player character (which I imagine could impose some urgency indeed). The single biggest flaw raised so far is that quest when you travel to that Kynesgrove dragon grave. Yes, it could be optional and skipped if the player decides not to go there; returning horn to Greybeards and being recognized as Dragonborn is enough to remove any remains of doubts Delphine had about the player character, and continue the Blades story.

Hold the fuck on. Don't you fucking dare ignoring all the points made as to why the Main Quest is the primary example of Skyrim's urgency dissonance.

Aside from Alduin making the EPIC entry at the very start of the game:

1. Dragons were meant to be awfully powerful mythical creatures. In any consistent fantasy, they possess the power to wipe out entire city in a rather short time.
2. Alduin had the power to resurrect the Dragons, and there's an awfully LOTS of Dragon's grave across Skyrim, some even dotted nearby settlements.
3. That way, the Dragonborn lollygagging while Alduin roams the entirety of Skyrim, means the settlements and holds across Skyrim were put at extreme risk of being wiped out by the Dragons.
4. But NOPE! The entire game design were meant to allow the player to lollygag to their heart's content, especially since point #1 were null because the Dragons were a fucking joke in this game, and point #2 very rarely lead to a conclusion of settlements/holds ACTUALLY wiped out.

So, nope. Case is still open. But like Crni said, let's not get stuck on 'urgency'. The only time where time-limit was done right (that I know of) was Fallout 1, and I still to this day mourn the fact that no game, RPGs especially, tackle on the dilemma of time-limit anymore.

I like this line of thinking, it's an interesting idea; though I am not very eager to additionally punish players for playing through the civil war questline.

I'm not suggesting punishment for 'playing through the civil war questline'. There could be other alternative, such as setting up some McGuffins that's meant for the cult to retrieve and the Dragonborn had to stop them or destroy the McGuffins to prevent or, maybe, make Alduin's return kind of imperfect.

The possibilities are endless. I had some in my mind but a bit lazy to pour it all because I'm getting sleepy.

 

[Walpknut]

Speaking of Hungry villagers, that shit about picking up vegetables and potatoes from someone else's farm and they gladly buying their own crop from you, is that a bug or is that how it was meant to work? Because it's retarded.

 

[CT Phipps]

Nope; you think that EVERYTHING in the game has to revolve around YOU; e.g it HAS to have stuff happens only when YOU enter the picture/being there to 'save the world'. For you, things like NPCs dying because you were lollygagging instead of trying to do stuff you were supposed to do are a no-no.

Yep. Albeit, i do admit it was hilarious in Deus Ex: Human Revolution where all the hostages die if you fart around.

You accuse the Caesar's Legion sitting with their thumbs up their asses until the Courier came to them, that's absolutely wrong. Read again my points regarding the stuff happened in New Vegas. All in all, New Vegas handled quest and narrative design better than Skyrim regarding on-going conflict in its world.

I think narratively the game was structured to feel like stuff is going on but was actually written so the Courier is the fulcrum for everything.

You praised Skyrim for inaccurately represent settlements with mere two streets populated by a handful of NPCs, and then turn around to say how the Witcher 3 felt "TOO big". That's absolutely dumb. Granted, the Witcher 3 was released 4 years after Skyrim, Bethesda still doesn't have an excuse to do that stupid shit considering they had the advantage of many years of technological advancement.

How is it dumb? I am stating that smaller inaccurate villagers are better because you get the feeling of a place while also not having to waste too much time running through pointless scenery. Witcher 3 had minutes of running and riding for no fucking good reason other than to simulate "big." It's better to keep things smaller and more concise.

Hence, yes, too big.

 

[Walpknut]

Oh boy, now you are saying the Skyrim map is better than Witcher 3's? I usually don't hold the "smaller than it should" thing against open world games but that is just retarded.