First of all, let's get one thing straight. It's in human nature to be conservative, and to be afraid of change. I understand that, believe me. It's no surprise that this kind of scared behavior is very common on this forum, since we are all humans, and automatically react with disappointment once a change has been revealed. Since we are all humans with emotions, we tend to resort to our feelings rather than logic when it comes to posting our reactions on certain changes and other things. Since we are indeed primarily afraid of change, which leads to frustration and fear once a change has been announced, these feelings will dominate most of the posts which are posted on this forum. However, I'm going to try to take a different approach to this.

I believe that every single attempt at change in anything, whether it's political systems, forms of art, architectural style, or something as trivial as gaming, is a good thing in itself. By attempting to change things, we will know whether the change is for the better, or for the worse. If it's for the worse, we change it back, realize not to try that particular change again, and move on. If it's for the better, we keep it, realize that maybe it's a path worth expanding on, and move on. By never attempting to change anything, we will never know if changing something will lead to something better. That is why I am reacting with anticipation whenever I read about something that is being done differently in Skyrim compared to other TES games. Because once the game is out, and I get to try out the game, with all of its changes, I will actually know whether it's for the better or for the worse. Then I will come to this forum, share my opinions, read the opinions of others, discuss our opinions, and ultimately try to figure out what's worth keeping or removing for the next game.

My point is that even though everyone is on some level, some more than others, afraid of change, things are going to change nonetheless, and we must accept this. Things can't stay the way they are forever. Even though some of you would probably like it, the future of TES won't just be copies of Arena, Daggerfall, Morrowind or Oblivion. The game series is evolving, just like everything else in the universe. I do not believe that the work of the fans should be to complain and be annoyed by the changes in the series, especially if they haven't even tried them out yet. I believe our job is to wait in anticipation to try out the game, along with its changes, and then make up our minds. I know some of you will call your complaining "constructive criticism" but I beg to differ. How can you give any kind of criticism for something that you haven't even tried out yet?

I know that you're all afraid, frustrated and/or angry on some level to some or all of the changes. But don't let your feelings get in the way. Think rationally; without change, we will never know if something that hasn't been tried is going to work. This is why I believe that change for the sake of change is a good thing in itself.

Don't fix what isn't broken.

Also, we'll probably get a TES game about twice a decade from now on. Conservatism should be applauded in areas that were working well before. BGS can't afford to radically reinvent a series every instalment when the instalments are spaced so far apart and each takes so much effort to create.

I appreciate your sentiment and would agree with you in many areas, but not here.

@Walle, that sir, deserves a slow clap :clap:

Thank you!

Wholeheartedly agree with you, OP.....

Well, since BGS has basically re-invented pretty much the whole concept of open-world RPG's, I think it's up to them to re-invent it even further. If they make the same game over and over, someone else will make a revolutionary open-world RPG, and BGS will just be another not-so-special gaming company among others.

It's up to them to make these radical changes. Just look at the development of Arena. You can't get more radical than that, and look at the outcome. Pretty awesome if you ask me (and I don't mean just the game Arena, I mean the series as a whole after Arena).

uummm...no we don't. you go ahead and accept it. we don't have to. if someone were 'changing' the government you lived under from a free republic/democracy or whatnot to a dictatorship where the dictator loves to take and [censored] the citizens and rob them of all of their wealth for his own personal enjoyment you'd simply accept that because...well, change is going to come :facepalm:

sorry but that's just idiotic.



HUH? change just for the sake of change? change just so there can be change? :blink:

Wall of text.

Gaming was better ten years ago than it is now.
Because it changed.

C&C TD and RA1 are Better that C&C 3 and RA3
Thats a Fact.
Not an opinion.
Fact.

One man's change isn't what I meant. I meant change to try out better things. For example, one of my examples was the change of architectural style's. By that I don't mean that one dictator makes a house of crap and we should all live in it. What I meant was that even though ancient huts were for the time a good type of housing, by changing them, we ultimately got to the houses we live in today. My point was collective change. Change for others sake. This is the sake with Skyrim. It isn't Todd Howard who's changing these things because he just wants it, but BGS is changing these things as a team because they believe that they will make the game better for others.

Change for the sake of change is good in itself, because that will allow for more change. With change we know if things are better than before.

That's your opinion. Gaming has changed however, because the majority believes it's better than ten years ago. With that I conclude that the collective truth is that gaming has evolved in a better direction. One human alone has no saying in this however, since everything is being done for the majority.

Source?

Or is that just your opinion?

I, for one, know it by heart that it is better....

You know when you read one word so much it stops having meaning..........

Joking aside, the OP has a point. And arguing that a dictator is a bad change from a democracy is completely right - however linking it back to the op's statement is a non-sequitur.

There you go folks! we have a majority! :rolleyes:

simply pointing out you cannot make general statements without supporting it. it may very well be a majority that think so. i don't know. personally i still play games from 10 years ago more than i do more modern games so :shrug:

you guys are so freaking delusional.


Exactly what has changed?

Skills do the exact same thing they did since Arena, Perks are now Manual, its still in the universe of TES (duh) and you still run around and chop/blast/shoot things so tell me exactly what is so revolutionary and worth commenting on change for the sake of change? its a new TES game, new story new setting awesome, so what the hell are you going on about? oh what because things like Merged armor and Less weapon types that people don't like your trying to justify? oh really? nice try.

Stop talking with your blinders on, its another game and the changes arent drastic most of them are annoying as hell.

not really. just trying to point out that while he thinks change is good that's great but there are also those who don't. there are instances where 'subtle change' completely ruined things. want a gaming example? try dragon age and dragon age 2 if you haven't. tell me that change was good.

soo, you'd rather them keep the Game the same? stale, stagnant game series are worse imo than ones that change each installment. you would rather Just play TES IV: skyrim? I Dont wanna come off as an ass, im actually curious as to your opinion.

Then if you don't want to come off as one why make such a useless remark? is it so hard to expect improvement across the board? is it so wrong to expect a game dev company to improve what was exploitable at worst and expand on what was fine at best without giving dumbassed statements like Spears "not in the Traditional sense" or "these skills were superflous"


is it? no body wants a Carbon copy of past games, they want the best of Past games to live on in future cannotations and the worst to be improved as a foundation to the new tings that game brings.....

Change for the sake of change, and change in an attempt to make it better, are two different things. The former means changing something for no reason other than because you want to change it. It's not to make it better, it's not to make it worse, it's just because you don't want it to be the same.

Change for the sake of it has almost always resulted badly with regard to game development, as it messes with people's expectations. As you say, people like to be conservative and don't like change, so you need a reason to change something other than "because I want to", if you want people to accept it.

Actually I'd say change was pretty disastrous in some ways from Morrowind to Oblivion. As I only have minimal experience with Daggerfall I can't really judge from that to Morrowind, but much of what was Morrowind was born of both huge technological advances as well as limitations (expanding onto the consoles). Oblivion to Skyrim is the first time BGS has been working with the same hardware from one project to the next. That means that a much larger proportion of improvement between the games is going to come from design rather than graphics. On the face of it that might mean that BGS should strike out and do something as different as possible in the hopes of lucking out and making a game that pleases fans of their old games and draws in a huge new audience.

But that isn't going to happen.

Frankly in a time like this when a developer can't rely on massive technological jumps to make their game astounding I think they should focus on refining what works best in previous instalments and only switching things out that didn't work.

There's a developer I can cite who try to overload each instalment with change and innovation and it's lead to nothing but buggy, unfinished, half baked products: Lionhead. The Fable series has been destroyed by change for the sake of it.

bringing up dragon age proves the Op's point, they changed things and hopefully realised that was not the right change to bring, knowing that they can move in a different direction without thinking 'what if we had made it more action orientated? And taken away the races origin stories and places/characters to focus on an individual story more in depth'

And arguing against an exaggerated form of somebody else's argument to prove a point is a powerful form of sophism and unfortunately a fallacy-ridden method we all use far to often.

No, I'd rather change and innovation were managed properly such that games like Fable 3 aren't made.

OP is condoning rampant change to all parts of the game just because it's change. I think that point escaped some people.

Well maybe TES would be better as a linear action game with minimal RPG elements. That sure would be streamlined? Oh, "that's not TES" you say?

okay, the part that seems to be going over your head is this; take dragon age/dragon age2...what did that change do to that franchise? think part 3 will be near as successful as 1? with what happened in part 2 i think most gamers will not jump on board but take a wait and see what others have to say about it approach. if they can't get it back on track what is the future for it? we don't want that to happen here.

Ok I'm gonna' use C&C for my example.
The orginal sets the standerd in any series.
C&C 1 set the standerd for C&C.
RA 1 comes out next year and it made some changes.
But it did not change what made C&C 1 good.
it kept the core gameplay but changed what was needed.
C&C TS kept the core gameplay but changed what was needed.
C&C 4 Changed everything to attract a more casual player and now that abomination to C&C sits in a dark,lonley corner of gaming HELL! bliviongate: