Dutch cover story: Interesting Info : V - Skyrim

» Mon May 09, 2011 4:29 am

i don't think anyone ever made a detailed post listing all the stuff in the GI magazine that wasn't included in the website articles. So this is new information for me, at least.

» Mon May 09, 2011 4:19 pm

About the HUD: No screenshots feature any kind of HUD.

About Low Fantasy: Let me quote the entire passage:

"Oblivion was for sure not over-the-top in terms of its style, but Skyrim should be considered low fantasy even more than its predecessor. Much of the locations look realistic, and could easily exist in our own world."

The magazine also describes how the game starts, but I don't want to spoil that for you.

» Mon May 09, 2011 11:21 am

Dungeons are locked at their level once you have been there? What does that mean?

Reading books in 3d? What?

» Mon May 09, 2011 11:56 am

I don't know if their description of low fantasy is entirely correct, but anyhow...

» Mon May 09, 2011 3:29 pm

Can we get some confirmation on some of these things? The world size quote is really bothering me. Someone hit up the twitter

» Mon May 09, 2011 11:04 am

Oh mother-

Same size as Oblivion, that tiny map? Sure Just Cause 2 was too big by far. But every other open world game is now bigger than Oblivion. GTA4 was 11 kilometers and was a single city. Heck the latest Assassin's Creed was twice that size and was built in one year

I think I give up for this being Game of the Year for me already. This just isn't the ambitious, "let's step up to the competition" game I was hoping for. The graphics are still beat by a game that came out last year (Red Dead), the map is small, the game world is still separated into outdoors/indoors, they've continued the art of "streamlining" the skills/stats when it should have been expanded. I was hoping for something crazy, something overly ambitious and difficult. The same feeling I got when I was watching videos of Morrowind in highschool and was blown away. This game just feels, safe. In their comfort zone and not particularly new.

I'll still buy it. But I guess I can stick to be excited by Deus Ex 3 and L.A. Noire, it's always funner to have a game that's trying to push into a new area or seems crazy to pull off. Skyrim isn't either of those.

It sounds so safe I'm falling asleep while reading. I hope it'll make sense in the end, because it doesn't at all at the moment. I fail to detect any ambition there.

» Mon May 09, 2011 12:44 pm

The Dutch Power Unlimited dropped in my mailbox today. Highlights of the 4-page article:

Just two questions:

How many pages are there?
Are there any new screenshots/images?

Thanks for sharing us the information btw :thumbsup:

» Mon May 09, 2011 9:32 am

The descriptions of the pictures sound like the pictures that were in the GI magazine article. Did you ever see those images?

@BootySweat: There were a couple of threads on this forum that detailed the information in the GI magazine article. Search for a thread called something like "What we know so far".

» Mon May 09, 2011 3:34 pm

Oh mother-

Same size as Oblivion, that tiny map? Sure Just Cause 2 was too big by far. But every other open world game is now bigger than Oblivion. GTA4 was 11 kilometers and was a single city. Heck the latest Assassin's Creed was twice that size and was built in one year

I think I give up for this being Game of the Year for me already. This just isn't the ambitious, "let's step up to the competition" game I was hoping for. The graphics are still beat by a game that came out last year (Red Dead), the map is small, the game world is still separated into outdoors/indoors, they've continued the art of "streamlining" the skills/stats when it should have been expanded. I was hoping for something crazy, something overly ambitious and difficult. The same feeling I got when I was watching videos of Morrowind in highschool and was blown away. This game just feels, safe. In their comfort zone and not particularly new.

I'll still buy it. But I guess I can stick to be excited by Deus Ex 3 and L.A. Noire, it's always funner to have a game that's trying to push into a new area or seems crazy to pull off. Skyrim isn't either of those.

I agree, this is really starting to feel like an Oblivion 2.0 now. It's like the only things they are adding are really tiny features that don't change the base game very much at all, and keeping in a lot of the things that made Oblivion bland.

Oh well, I'm hoping my mind will be changed once I see some gameplay videos, or more info comes out.

» Mon May 09, 2011 7:52 pm

Oh mother-

Same size as Oblivion, that tiny map? Sure Just Cause 2 was too big by far. But every other open world game is now bigger than Oblivion. GTA4 was 11 kilometers and was a single city. Heck the latest Assassin's Creed was twice that size and was built in one year

I think I give up for this being Game of the Year for me already. This just isn't the ambitious, "let's step up to the competition" game I was hoping for. The graphics are still beat by a game that came out last year (Red Dead), the map is small, the game world is still separated into outdoors/indoors, they've continued the art of "streamlining" the skills/stats when it should have been expanded. I was hoping for something crazy, something overly ambitious and difficult. The same feeling I got when I was watching videos of Morrowind in highschool and was blown away. This game just feels, safe. In their comfort zone and not particularly new.

I'll still buy it. But I guess I can stick to be excited by Deus Ex 3 and L.A. Noire, it's always funner to have a game that's trying to push into a new area or seems crazy to pull off. Skyrim isn't either of those.

It's funny how in all of that you never mentioned writing, art, and combat. Do you really judge games just by their technical features? Not saying they don't matter just that you're jumping to conclusions.

Personaly, my initail reaction is exactly what hlvr said.

» Mon May 09, 2011 7:51 pm

Dungeons are locked at their level once you have been there? What does that mean?

This is the same as FO3, as has been described previously:

http://www.thedragonborn.com/game-details/tes-v-skyrim-level-scaling-a-fallout-3-based-explanation/
Sleign:

All items have the same set stats, and all non-human enemies have the same HP and stats across all levels. Quest rewards are always the same… NPCs are scaled in their equipment.

Random spawns out in the world are scaled (stronger enemies appear at higher levels), but weak enemies aren’t written out of the system, just become less common. Unlike Oblivion where imps and boars become impossible to find at higher levels, a single spawn at lower levels can have enemies spawning in pairs at higher levels.

After you enter an enclosed area, all enemies will be set to your level there for the rest of the game. You can’t keep coming back to the same ruin to get better stuff as you level. Stronger enemies exist in the world at the start of the game. You’re usually given enough warning if you don’t want to fight anything too strong.

The Fallout system was created from Oblivion’s but Fallout was a testing ground for tweaking level-scaling from too easy from almost no level-scaling (Morrowind) to too much level-scaling (Oblivion).

» Mon May 09, 2011 9:13 pm

About the HUD: No screenshots feature any kind of HUD.

About Low Fantasy: Let me quote the entire passage:

"Oblivion was for sure not over-the-top in terms of its style, but Skyrim should be considered low fantasy even more than its predecessor. Much of the locations look realistic, and could easily exist in our own world."

The magazine also describes how the game starts, but I don't want to spoil that for you.

So it does sound like they just mean aesthetically. They didn't specify that the lore, story, or culture felt overly familiar or earthly. Just the aesthetics.

Also, if you place anything you say in [*spoiler][/*spoiler] tags without the asterisks, no one will be able to see it unless they click on a button that says "spoiler."

» Mon May 09, 2011 9:23 pm

Oh mother-

Same size as Oblivion, that tiny map? Sure Just Cause 2 was too big by far. But every other open world game is now bigger than Oblivion. GTA4 was 11 kilometers and was a single city. Heck the latest Assassin's Creed was twice that size and was built in one year

I think I give up for this being Game of the Year for me already. This just isn't the ambitious, "let's step up to the competition" game I was hoping for. The graphics are still beat by a game that came out last year (Red Dead), the map is small, the game world is still separated into outdoors/indoors, they've continued the art of "streamlining" the skills/stats when it should have been expanded. I was hoping for something crazy, something overly ambitious and difficult. The same feeling I got when I was watching videos of Morrowind in highschool and was blown away. This game just feels, safe. In their comfort zone and not particularly new.

I'll still buy it. But I guess I can stick to be excited by Deus Ex 3 and L.A. Noire, it's always funner to have a game that's trying to push into a new area or seems crazy to pull off. Skyrim isn't either of those.

Not to talk about Crysis 2. A more advanced engine than Crysis and Cryket assures that it'll provide better graphics with an actual gain of performance.

I kinda agree with you. Same world size as Oblivion has really dissapointed me. I just hoped to get lost in the inmenisities of Skyrim' mountains.

» Mon May 09, 2011 9:25 am

About the HUD: No screenshots feature any kind of HUD.

About Low Fantasy: Let me quote the entire passage:

"Oblivion was for sure not over-the-top in terms of its style, but Skyrim should be considered low fantasy even more than its predecessor. Much of the locations look realistic, and could easily exist in our own world."

The magazine also describes how the game starts, but I don't want to spoil that for you.

That sounds a lot like the article in GI due to the rugged atmosphere in Skyrim. At no time did the article say the graphics were low, just the scenary (forests, mountains, streams, etc..., no wimpy open fields like Oblivion)

» Mon May 09, 2011 4:02 pm

hmm.. a bit disappointed with the size and the reminder of the scaled dungeons. about the low fantasy: we already knew this. we knew its gonna be mountains and forests that could exist in the real world. i have no problem with that

» Mon May 09, 2011 1:39 pm

Dungeons are locked at their level once you have been there? What does that mean?

Reading books in 3d? What?

That Dungeons stay at the level you first visited them. So if you are level 5, and you enter dungeon A, than Dungeon A will always remain level 5, even if you are level 20. It doesn't imply that all dungeons are level-generated though.

About reading in 3D: My guess is that we don't 'open up' the book, and read it, but that we explore the 3D image of the book in the inventory screen, and can turn the page with a special button.

» Mon May 09, 2011 4:17 pm

Dungeons are locked at their level once you have been there? What does that mean?

Reading books in 3d? What?

That means that when you come back later, the dungeon won't spawn with higher level mobs than the first time you visited it.

Books in Oblivion were part of the GUI. It sound like they are now allowing you to read the book while it lays on the table, or you will see yourself picking up the book and reading it in your hands.

» Mon May 09, 2011 1:02 pm

About Low Fantasy: Let me quote the entire passage:

"Oblivion was for sure not over-the-top in terms of its style, but Skyrim should be considered low fantasy even more than its predecessor. Much of the locations look realistic, and could easily exist in our own world."

:drool: :drool: :drool: :drool:

Wow, that is perhaps the best news I've heard so far! I was really hoping for a more realistic style of art direction! Sounds like it will be darker and more brutal than Oblivion. Also, sounds like it will be absolutely nothing like Shivering Isles, which I didn't like so much.

The magazine also describes how the game starts, but I don't want to spoil that for you.

please spoil it for us!

» Mon May 09, 2011 5:57 pm

It's funny how in all of that you never mentioned writing, art, and combat. Do you really judge games just by their technical features? Not saying they don't matter just that you're jumping to conclusions.

Personaly, my initail reaction is exactly what hlvr said.

The art and combat from what we know may be better, but by the info we have been given it looks like they dident try and up the experiance as a whole at all. If the world is the same sizer as the last game then theres not enough room to make the mountains skyrim is known for credible at all. It would be so cramped with the mountains and all the dungions it wouldent even feel fun exploring since if you walk for 30 seconds you run into something els.

» Mon May 09, 2011 8:06 pm

The magazine also describes how the game starts, but I don't want to spoil that for you.

Please post this, just use spoiler tags

» Mon May 09, 2011 4:53 pm

If the dungeons are varied in style, the world could be half as big as Oblivion and yet twice as interesting. Size does not equal value. Think of how many nearly identical caves you went through in Oblivion.

» Mon May 09, 2011 2:01 pm

The art and combat from what we know may be better, but by the info we have been given it looks like they dident try and up the experiance as a whole at all. If the world is the same sizer as the last game then theres not enough room to make the mountains skyrim is known for credible at all. It would be so cramped with the mountains and all the dungions it wouldent even feel fun exploring since if you walk for 30 seconds you run into something els.

Morrowind was smaller but still managed to feel bigger than Oblivion. You have a point about the size/number of dungeons ratio I think, but let's not overeact.

» Mon May 09, 2011 8:55 am

Glad to hear it's as big as Oblivion. With more variety, it will likely feel larger the same way Morrowind does.

» Mon May 09, 2011 7:18 am

Skyrim is actually smaller than Cyrodiil on the map, so the fact that it's about the same size as Oblivion's map is pretty lucky.
Fast travel is still optional. Nothing is forcing you to use it.
Skyrim won't be as vibrant as Morrowind because its mostly tundra and ice and snow. Not a lot of room for crazy flora. But there WILL be more interesting beasts, which is good. Probably not a whole lot of "Oh hey I saw that animal when I visited my local mountain." (for those of us who live near mountains

)

But I'm a bit disappointed with the 20 hour main quest... I wonder how accurate that is. But there should be another 30 hours at least of side content accessible for ANY character, no matter what kind of character they play. I think this will be true because they say the game can generate quests based on your play style.

As long as I get a 50+ hour game I'll be happy. Dragon Age took me over 55 hours for ONE playthrough, and it wasn't even a free roam game. Now I expect no less.

» Mon May 09, 2011 6:35 am

Morrowind was smaller but still managed to feel bigger than Oblivion. You have a point about the size/number of dungeons ratio I think, but let's not overeact.

Thats because you walked slower then a snail. Unless they made you walk slower Im pretty sure you will be running into cave after cave over and over again within about a min of eachother.