i'm sorry, have i offended you? and, for the record, i was asking questions, i didn't attack him.

to be honest, i think it is too much to expect for improvement across the board. you want the perfect game. you want a game that has everything from past games that works well, all in one. the reality is that isn't going to ever happen. devs need to take chances with games, make decisions, otherwise things will stagnate, and the games won't be any fun. do you honestly expect a series that's lasted 20-something years to stay relevant without changing anything? with just saying 'oh, well i mean they liked that, so lets just keep that the way it is'. you ever, for even a second, think that maybe, just maybe, Bethesda knows what they're doing? and maybe, just maybe, their goal is to make a great game that a great number of people will enjoy for a long time? games wouldn't survive without people taking chances and creating new things that people enjoy. If BGS doesn't do it, then some other company will, and then what? TES is left in the dust because they are too worried about not changing anything. it's actually quite ignorant to believe devs could keep every possible positive in a game and improve on it time and time again. if that was possible, we'd have a lot of perfect games.

I'd just like to clarify that while some decisions I don't agree with, I think BGS are doing the right amount of changing stuff for Skyrim. Not too much, not too little.

What I disagree with is OP's call for change across the board for the sake of it in the hopes of lucking out. That kind of carelessness destroys franchises.

Fable. Bloody. 3.

I didnt say you attacked him either, in fact nothing in my post suggests I was offended, merely picking up on your statement, you said you did not want to come off as an ass and yet you make such a silly remark. No sorry I do not think bethesda is infallible and can never make mistakes especially when they go on alot about experimenting and actually admit that it doesnt work out all the time, like for say Level scaling, the single most rampant undercut of Oblivion that causes hundreds of players to powergame because if they don't the almight scaling will make their characters unplayable, sorry its not ignorant to believe one can keep the good and add on better, just look at C&C before their last 2 installments, it is Ignorant to believe that game devs selling out their games is a good thing for anyone but their pockets, TES shouldnt even be concerned about anyone else or trying to be like anything else its its own freaking animal and exactly what chances are they taking? For the better I mean not for lining thier pockets.

Aw you Silly Billy with your ad-hoc arguments. You do realize that the above is a fallacy right? You cannot in good conscience compare government change to video-game change.

For one thing, ::whispers:: video games are make believe ::end whispering::

Plus we are talking about a technology moving forward. OP is correct. When something based on technology stays stagnant, it fails. Every single time.

^ Exactly the exaggerated comparison fallacy



True we do not want that to happen, but you are redirecting this argument to how successful the franchise will be after these changes - focusing on the op for a moment, bad changes are useful to refine what makes the franchise good, I hope part 3 will be a refinement and changed/improved 1, their failure with the changes to 2 should realise this hope and get it 'back on track'
(If we take a look at the success of an RPG franchise - there are very few about, and with a clever release date during a dry patch of game release, DA 3 would most likely be able to sell well) - This is of course irrelevant to the subject of change

Change for the sake of change is wasted purpose. There should be a need or other intentional purpose driving the need for it. I worked at a resturaunt years ago and we had many regulars that came in. The chef that created the place moved on to other things and we got a brand new chef whose first order of business was to change about half the items on our menu. Many of the things that were top sellers. In a month we had half the business we used to have because her change wasn't as good as the top sellers. The owner forced her to go back to the original menu and she got all offended and quit. Another example, I don't think artists should cover another artists song unless they say something new with it in terms of how it is performed. Most song covers are just half assed boring renditions that don't even come close to the original.

Change should be embraced when something can be improved upon and made better, leaving the core pieces that are already strong alone. Going back to song covers (for which most are rubbish) there are few that I find better than the original. And that is a good example of change. The combat from Morrowind to Oblivion is another example of change where it wasn't for the sake of change but for the sake of making something better.

To be completely honest here, i read maybe 30% of the OP's post, mainly because i saw it going in a direction similar to what you just stated. I don't believe change just for the sake of doing something differently is a good thing, save for a few topics. I also don't think BGS is changing TES just for the sake of changing it. I think they have a general goal they want to accomplish, its not like they're just sitting in a room going, 'okay everybody, what are we going to alter this time? lets just throw every feature we have into a hat, pull out twenty, and alter their mechanics drastically! ready, go!'. I'm sure Bethesda has a vision they want for this game, and I'm sure the changes they have made were made for a reason. I totally understand where most people are coming from, as i don't agree with everything they've changed myself.* that being said, I have faith in Bethesda to create a great game, regardless of the changes that they make. Yes, the game is becoming a lot less complex, on the surface. They're making it more accessible to the average gamer, something a lot of people, especially on this forum, frown upon. But really, what does it matter if the depth of a game is hidden, as long as its still there?

What i think people are missing about Skyrim is that the changes they are making to TES formula aren't as drastic as some people make them out to be. The game is still going to be 'do what you want, when you want, where you want, how you want', its just going to have a decidedly different flavor as opposed to, say, Oblivion, or Morrowind.


* I do recognize that there are some features that are being altered or taken out completely that will, in fact, hurt the game. Spellmaking, well, thats all i can think of, actually. but we have to realize there were reasons things have been taken out. i don't agree with the decision, but i will deal with it.

well then. you and I, sir, have no disagreement there. again i must admit i didn't read the entire OP lol.

Your thread title and argument seems very 2008 electionish. :thumbsup:

Change should only happen for a good damn reason.

That is all.

The OP is right in a general sense. If a series doesn't change, it becomes stagnant (as many have already said). Consider Call of Doodie. One thing I've noticed about this forum is that it only takes about 1.5 pages before all the same arguments begin to reappear. Some people like the changes, others don't. Those who don't like the changes can do very little about it besides bellyache, finger-wag, prophesy the impending apocalypse triggered by changes to the series, or create their own mods, which is the better alternative that many PC gamers seem to be leaning towards. After all, what would Bethesda know about designing a game?

They might have seen the trend in the industry, looked at the massive profits Zynga and CoD and Angry Birds and the Wii generate and thought "there's a market there".

Then they might simplify a franchise to appeal to this market, wilfully ignoring the fact that this hasn't worked with the Kinect or Move.

Then they might ruin a good thing by trying to tap into a new market.

BGS might be great designers, but they might not be great market anolysts.

well i apologize, i mistook the tone of your previous post as defensive.

do you believe BGS is selling out this game in the hopes of cashing in? if so, I must respectfully disagree. From what I can tell, BGS is doing its best to bring in a new wave of TES fans. if they think changing features, or making them less confusing will help that, then that's what they are going to do. I don't believe TES V will be dumbed down or streamlined nearly as much as people think. maybe from a hardcoe RP'ers perspective, but not from a gamer perspective. There are, undoubtedly, things i wish they didn't change, things i wish they would have kept, and tried to improve (spellmaking). there are also things i agree with them getting rid of for the sake of making the game a better experience (ridiculous level scaling, attributes (and for the record, I don't believe Bethesda is incapable of making mistakes either)). and there are things I'm happy they've implemented into this game that hasn't been in past installments (perks). I also don't believe you're ignorant for believing you can keep the good and add on better, i just think it's a little naive to think that keeping the good won't ultimately clash with adding on better. the magic system is a great example... they improved the way magic will be handled (in theory), but a consequence of that is having to get rid of spellmaking. now who's to say magic will or won't be better than past games until we play them? personally, even though I'm upset spellmaking is most likely gone, i think magic system will ultimately be just as enjoyable, even though a positive feature was left in the dust.

what i don't understand is how people get so bent out of shape

But with some changes you just know they're [censored] from either simple logic or previous similar experiences and such changes should never be attempted.

Like every day I eat food. Maybe I should try not eating any food for a week, which I've never done before, just to make a change, because change for the sake of change is a good thing.

I love how tangent this topic has become. Even though you may try to argue that indirectly, your posts are still within the framework of the topic, they are far from it. Seems to me, you're posting just for the sake of arguing, nothing more.

As for the topic, I agree (to an extent) with the whole 'change' in general ideal. Everything changes, the world is consistently evolving as are the life-forms within it. We (in regards to the human race) are in a global transition and have been for a few years now, not just with regard to the economic state of the world, but also with the surplus of technological advances continuously being pushed into the public domain. Naturally, with these advances, game developers are going to try and change things (push the limits, challenge themselves); whether this change is to be considered 'good' or 'bad' can not be foreseen while the change is being made. But, there and again, hindsight is always twenty-twenty (looks at geckoman with disdain <_< ). I think too often, people are unwilling to accept change and therefore create a natural resistance to it, no matter the scale. BSG is never going to make the 'perfect' game, it's simply improbable that any developer -- regardless of their level of talent -- will ever be able to satisfy everyone and on every level of personal expectation. BSG is attempting to create a game that they hope will satisfy as many TES core fans as much as it does new-comers.

Ultimately, change is both inevitable and necessary, whether good or bad. In my personal opinion, an open-minded approach is the best option when considering the worthiness of change. Less focus on the negative will lead to a better life experience. :thumbsup:

I agree with whoever said that sometimes a dev goes to far and ruins their franchise ala Fable 3.

This is nothing more than idle speculation. Anyway, like I posted earlier, most threads only seem to have about 1.5 pages of significance before they devolve into garbage.

it might be speculation but you can't look at a company like BGS and say they are immune to the temptations of market trends. trying to develop a product to appeal to the broadest audience possible instead of sticking to what made it popular in the first place has ruined more than 1 franchise....

Eh...wut? That doesn't make any sense. First you say that change is a good thing on its own and then you say if a feature is 'good' then keep the change for the next game (= no change in the next game). You contradict yourself by saying that. If you keep the 'good' stuff then you admit that change is not always a good thing. So basically you say keep the good stuff and change the bad stuff until it's good. Which is something everyone here agrees with anyway. What is 'good' and what is 'bad' is a matter of personal preference in most cases though - and that is the problem. :shrug:

Ill use C&C as an example.

They keep copy and pasting the same shallow gameplay formula until one day they decide to make a spin off with drastic changes. Its called Generals and it has the biggest competitive scene out of any C&C game and has the longest multiplayer life by far. The C&C developers are trying to get the game out of the shadow of Warcraft and Starcraft. Games that heavily rely on multiplayer really need a competitive scene to last. C&C (with the exception of Generals) simply doesnt have a competitive audience which is why they are trying to change the gameplay without losing the casual fans that they do have which leads to the same old unit spamming, same build order every game, gameplay.

Change can be good and it can be bad, it depends on what changes are happening. Without change we would be playing the same game all the time (see Call of Duty and the majority of the C&C titles). Giving an example of a franchise changing and flopping holds as much water as giving an example of a franchise changing and doing well.

Call of Duty hasnt changed for 4 (coming up 5) games and is the most successful game out there. But what if they never changed the gameplay formula from Call of Duty 3?

P.S. C&C has always been a casual RTS franchise.

You're right, and I don't think many people would argue that Bethesda is immune to market trends. Like I said, only 1.5 pages...oh, just forget it, this is pointless. My first post summed up my thoughts. Good day.

Unless that change is from living to death.

Theres a life experience for you.

THANK YOU!!!!!!!!! I COULDNT HAVE SAID THIS BETTER MYSELF!!!

They keep the gameplay that has worked so well and defined the series with each game save the last few.
They made a spin-off but with drastic changes?
It still has base building.
It still has a tech progression system.
It still has resource gathering.
it still has the use your strengths to overcome you enemys weakness gameplay rather than warcrafts or starcrafts both sides are equal.
C&C always had brilliant LAN multiplayer,Internet was just on the side.
The reason the don't change the core forumula in the majority of C&C titles is because IT WORKS! it defines the game and makes it better than other RTSs.
I'll let someone who cares about COD ansewer that.
P.S. Halo wars is a casual RTS, C&C is not.

If we dont fix what is broken, then we will never progress.