Change for the sake of change : V - Skyrim

» Thu Jul 28, 2011 8:58 am

Kids, Marriage
Nothing good can come from any one of them other than realizing that they are bad and fixing them now, or in the future.

:rofl:

But seriously now, there is nothing you can do about the changes, other than complaining. But even I admit that complaining can be fun.

» Thu Jul 28, 2011 6:37 am

:facepalm: :facepalm:

I really can't belive that I have to answer this question.

Oblivion - GPS Compass, Level Scaling, re-writing lore to fit the game, Oblivion Gates, Overpriced DLC, "Essential" NPC's, poor in-game economy

Skyrim - Removal of Classes and Atrributes, possible removal of spell making, GPS Compass, "Essential NPC's, Kids, Marriage

These are things just off the top of my head that constitute bad changes. Nothing good can come from any one of them other than realizing that they are bad and fixing them now, or in the future.

Those changes are bad in your opinion, in my opinion, they're good.

» Thu Jul 28, 2011 12:29 pm

Change for the sake of change isn't good. That's a fallacy. One thats thrown around here a lot and is laughably ignorant.

» Thu Jul 28, 2011 5:32 am

I agree with slow, but subtle change. Which is pretty much exactly what Bethesda is doing, Skyrim is still a TES game, but some of the features have been tweaked or scrapped and added some new things.

» Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:10 am

We can't risk change, it's because of change that gaming has become progressively worse, whilst change is extremely good in some cases on the WHOLE it has infact ruined gaming and only adolescent children who have never experiences games such as Baldurs gate and Daggerfall and morrowind and the original Deus Ex could argue against this.

» Thu Jul 28, 2011 6:25 am

We can't risk change, it's because of change that gaming has become progressively worse, whilst change is extremely good in some cases on the WHOLE it has infact ruined gaming and only adolescent children who have never experiences games such as Baldurs gate and Daggerfall and morrowind and the original Deus Ex could argue against this.

This. When your changing to appeal to the lowest common denominator, its sickening.

» Thu Jul 28, 2011 5:34 am

:facepalm: :facepalm:

I really can't belive that I have to answer this question.

Oblivion - GPS Compass, Level Scaling, re-writing lore to fit the game, Oblivion Gates, Overpriced DLC, "Essential" NPC's, poor in-game economy

Skyrim - Removal of Classes and Atrributes, possible removal of spell making, GPS Compass, "Essential NPC's, Kids, Marriage

These are things just off the top of my head that constitute bad changes. Nothing good can come from any one of them other than realizing that they are bad and fixing them now, or in the future.

Thanks for not answering my question...

We can't risk change, it's because of change that gaming has become progressively worse, whilst change is extremely good in some cases on the WHOLE it has infact ruined gaming and only adolescent children who have never experiences games such as Baldurs gate and Daggerfall and morrowind and the original Deus Ex could argue against this.

Oh hey, I've played all of those, yet I don't spread such rubbish.

... great another showcase for ignorance, nostalgia...

» Thu Jul 28, 2011 6:27 am

And how would they do it without any major change?

I'm not mainly talking about the "cool new feature", but the "fixing all the flaws of Oblivion" part!

No, that's bad fix for a problem...

Make up your mind.

» Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:31 am

The OP is correct. Change is a good thing, always. It is never bad. It is what is changed, how it is changed, and what becomes of the change that can be bad. In this there is an inherent flaw in his argument. While change is good -unconditionally so- change for the sake of change is not necessarily good.
At this moment, and with respect to the field of video games, this is true. All developers and all producers should be attempting to change everything, because no game has ever been perfect, and no game ever will be perfect.
The limit is only practicality, or what is reasonably possible in our real world. As far as practicality goes, change for the sake of change is always going to be good in this field, because it is not possible for a game to ever achieve real perfection.

» Thu Jul 28, 2011 8:11 am

While change is good -unconditionally so- change for the sake of change is not necessarily good.

So..... change is unconditionally good except under certain conditions?

I think I've gotten a couple of weeks worth of facepalms out of this thread alone........

» Thu Jul 28, 2011 6:29 pm

The OP isn't advocating changing everything, but the reevaluation of every aspect of gameplay, and championing the practice of not being afraid to make changes to imperfect systems even if those changes have the possibility of ending up worse than the way it was before. In this, I think Bethesda has done a great job. In fact, it sounds exactly like the policy that Todd has described them as using in interviews, so BRAVO BGS!

» Thu Jul 28, 2011 9:18 am

You can't compare those games to a RPG. Call of Duty is a straight-forward action shooter, Madden is a football game. There is not much you can do with these types of games.

I would dispute that. Just because it's hard for us to imagine COD or Madden being significantly different doesn't mean that they couldn't be. That's just a failure of imagination on our part--and a sign that they've polished their respective formulas very effectively, such that fans can't imagine it being any other way. I'm not necessarily disparaging them for that--it's a sign of their success. But you end up buying and playing the same game, over and over, and they don't really have the potential to fire the imagination the way a series like ES can. At least in my opinion--I guess that's why I'm more of an ES fan than a COD fan. (And I have zero interest in sports games.)

» Thu Jul 28, 2011 6:02 pm

I agree with some experimenting to see what's more fun. But your final verdict is flawed: change for the sake of change means changing something regardless if it makes it better or worse. Then accepting the change, to the point that, say you and everyone else doesn't like the change after it's been made, because you changed it for the sake of change, if you could go back, you would still have changed it for the sake of change alone. You are describing changing something, and seeing if you like it better or worse so you can slowly and surely change it more towards what you like. What you mean is: Change for the sake of Experimentation.

» Thu Jul 28, 2011 6:48 am

Make up your mind.

I never said it was minor change...

but it definitely wasn't a change for the sake of change...

» Thu Jul 28, 2011 12:15 pm

Change is not controlled by reason. To believe such is naive.

It is for videogames and developers who wish to make good games.

» Thu Jul 28, 2011 11:10 am

I agree with some experimenting to see what's more fun. But your final verdict is flawed: change for the sake of change means changing something regardless if it makes it better or worse. Then accepting the change, to the point that, say you and everyone else doesn't like the change after it's been made, because you changed it for the sake of change, if you could go back, you would still have changed it for the sake of change alone. You are describing changing something, and seeing if you like it better or worse so you can slowly and surely change it more towards what you like. What you mean is: Change for the sake of Experimentation.

The OP isn't advocating changing everything, but the reevaluation of every aspect of gameplay, and championing the practice of not being afraid to make changes to imperfect systems even if those changes have the possibility of ending up worse than the way it was before.

» Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:22 pm

I don't really get it... but I think people are missing the point of the original post.

-snip-
Nobody- knows if the change will be "good" or not until it's made. Plenty of folks will CLAIM they know it's bad... but this isn't fact. It's -inference-. And that doesn't dictate the reality of things.
-snip-

There's no such thing as a BAD change. There are popular changes... and unpopular changes.

The sooner one comes to realize that their own opinion is effectively meaningless... and that the only scale upon which opinion matters is consensus... the sooner one comes to understand the reality of things: this topic was never about change for the sake of change. It was never about your opinions on change, and why it is good or bad. It was an existential moment... in which someone stated aloud the reality of all things... that change is going to happen, and that humans are naturally resistant to it. Our world is dynamic... and there's not always a reason for the change... but that dynamic force is as much a part of nature as it is a part of our society. It can be no more good or bad than the wind, or rain, or the sun.

Change is either unpopular, or popular. Experimentation, innovation, creativity and imagination... all of these things stem from change... and if you think there wasn't someone, somewhere, telling all those people who first discovered those things that -you- love... that it was a stupid idea, and that they hated it, and that it was worthless... and asked 'Why fix what isn't broken'... you would be mistaken.

So if the developers came out and said that there are no more races in Skyrim, and that Tamriel is now entirely populated by SMURFS. Then that wouldn't necessarily be a bad change... just an unpopular one? I mean, with the release of the new movie, it is entirely possible that Skyrim would sell just fine if it was nothing but a smurf game. And as peoples opinions are meaningless, everyone should just roll with the change and be happy with it.

» Thu Jul 28, 2011 2:48 pm

So if the developers came out and said that there are no more races in Skyrim, and that Tamriel is now entirely populated by SMURFS. Then that wouldn't necessarily be a bad change... just an unpopular one? I mean, with the release of the new movie, it is entirely possible that Skyrim would sell just fine if it was nothing but a smurf game. And as peoples opinions are meaningless, everyone should just roll with the change and be happy with it.

There's nothing like gross exaggeration to try to get a point across folks. There isn't a single change that I don't like and I feel that every change is for the better. Until I play it and find out otherwise, I wouldn't feel right saying anything else.

» Thu Jul 28, 2011 7:13 am

The OP isn't advocating changing everything, but the reevaluation of every aspect of gameplay, and championing the practice of not being afraid to make changes to imperfect systems even if those changes have the possibility of ending up worse than the way it was before.

Exactly. I agree with you completely. There's the possibility it could be worse, but also that it could be better. We're going to experiment, because that will allow us to find out what changes we will want to keep and which ones we won't. But for the sake of change would invalidate any final judgments about better/worse.

» Thu Jul 28, 2011 9:42 am

you had me untill you said that change was good in an of itself.
As a human being who is afraid of change, quite correct, but also as a human being who is frankly intelligent (Yes. I know) I feel I must point out that change for the sake of change (in my lifetime, in the things I have been involved in) is never any good though.
In my personal experience 'streamlining' means 'less' and 'efficiency' means 'less'.
And all those other 'words' are always, without any exception I have personally experienced a way to make 'less' seem not as bad.
If its education, the workplace, literally everthing.
less is less no matter how you sugarcoat it.

Because in my 35 years or so on this planet I have learned, as you have, that people are afraid of change.
But I have also learned you can get the masses to swallow right everything, everything, if you convince them its jam really.
Its less, but -woohoo- count your blessings.

» Thu Jul 28, 2011 10:30 am

So if the developers came out and said that there are no more races in Skyrim, and that Tamriel is now entirely populated by SMURFS. Then that wouldn't necessarily be a bad change... just an unpopular one? I mean, with the release of the new movie, it is entirely possible that Skyrim would sell just fine if it was nothing but a smurf game. And as peoples opinions are meaningless, everyone should just roll with the change and be happy with it.

The Smurfs part is the bad component of that change, not the fact that they tried to change the races options in the game. Wouldn't it be nice if there were more varied and interesting races, or if some of the included races were made playable? If the answer is yes to either of those questions, or if you are not 100% satisfied with everything to do with races and options for their appearances in the games thus far then you must also agree that the devs. wouldn't be wrong to try and change those things for the better... You just have to trust that they have smart, creative people making those changes and expect that they won't try some crap like a Smurf race, or removing all the fan favorites.

» Thu Jul 28, 2011 11:19 am

The OP isn't advocating changing everything, but the reevaluation of every aspect of gameplay, and championing the practice of not being afraid to make changes to imperfect systems even if those changes have the possibility of ending up worse than the way it was before.

As I said... put the gun to your head, pull the trigger. Click. Ok, now let's change something... turn the drum one slot, put the gun to your head. Let's not be afraid of change, even if it might kill you, right?

» Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:45 pm

As I said... put the gun to your head, pull the trigger. Click. Ok, now let's change something... turn the drum one slot, put the gun to your head. Let's not be afraid of change, even if it might kill you, right?

If you aren't happy with the way things are then doing something to fix it is always the right action. Perhaps trying to affect a change in your life through the use of a gun is not the right answer, but something is.

Edit: plus, if you had a gun to your head originally, and were pulling the trigger, you better be damn sure that some kind of change is the right answer...

» Thu Jul 28, 2011 10:46 am

At this moment, and with respect to the field of video games, this is true. All developers and all producers should be attempting to change everything, because no game has ever been perfect, and no game ever will be perfect.
The limit is only practicality, or what is reasonably possible in our real world. As far as practicality goes, change for the sake of change is always going to be good in this field, because it is not possible for a game to ever achieve real perfection.

My advice: Don't start a business which amounts to generating sales of some kind of product you produce. Customers don't take lightly to not having the slightest idea what they can expect from you. If your first product is great and then you change everything and the second product is crap, chances are you'll never get a third chance, and if you do, it won't sell.

If you aren't happy with the way things are then doing something to fix it is always the right action. Perhaps trying to affect a change in your life through the use of a gun is not the right answer, but something is.

Edit: plus, if you had a gun to your head originally, and were pulling the trigger, you better be damn sure that some kind of change is the right answer...

when you are doing business, you always have a gun at your head. It's called bankruptcy. And if you aren't happy with the way things are, but things are selling great, you should be veeeeeery careful with your attempts to fix things, because what counts in the end is not if you are happy but the customers. It's great if you can idfentify with your product, but if you're the only one, chances are that won't exactly fill your fridge.

» Thu Jul 28, 2011 8:54 am

As I said... put the gun to your head, pull the trigger. Click. Ok, now let's change something... turn the drum one slot, put the gun to your head. Let's not be afraid of change, even if it might kill you, right?

I think (hope) the OP and supporters of the phrase understand that in principle, certain potential changes can already be (rightly) deemed undesirable before they are implemented, that is, with thought experiment not physical experiment. I think (hope) they're trying to say that people shouldn't be afraid of change because it is change.