This is a good point.

This discussion is interesting but I'm not getting any wiser about who would go buy the game because of all the simplifications. I mean, the additional gameplay elements in previous games would not have been immediately apparent to a new player - actually the new player has no way of detecting them since he has nothing to compare to. To be honest, except for character leveling I only noticed omission of elements later in the game. It wasn't something that stuck out immediately upon entering the game. I find that rather hard to believe to have been the major sales point. And judging from average forum topic the forums also make for poor advertizing.

I believe the major sales success here was the hype they successfully built. However, now that they sold all those millions of copies, is the average gamer that actually plays this game happier or not about playing it than the same gamer that played previous versions? Will the future create more gamer turnover or less?

And now... a real answer!



Being part of the "over 30" crowd you reference, I remember Ultima 7. In Ultima 7 you could bake bread. Ultima fans thought this was just the most awesome thing ever, and were very disappointed you couldn't bake bread in Ultima 8.

That aside, this increases the number of objects in the game with which you can have a meaningful interaction. When you see a wheat field, you can harvest the wheat. That was present in Morrowind. In morrowind, you could then make a healing potion out of it (or just gnaw on it to restore an HP or two)... but Oblivion takes the immersion one step further by allowing the player to do with wheat what could be done with it in the real world: bake bread. (Note: having not played with the food making system, I don't know if you can actually do this... but I think the logic still holds for cooking and eating what you kill.)



Well, Shouting has been a part of the Lore with regard to Skyrim since Morrowind at least... and quite possibly earlier (not sure if it was mentioned in any Daggerfall books). If they were going to make a game set in Skyrim, they pretty much had to include shouting. They do play fast and loose with the lore... but this was an opportunity that simply could not be passed up.



I'm pretty sure magical standing stones is also part of the "viking homeland" atmosphere they were going for. Unless, of course, you're talking about something else.

And I skip the game balance complaint, which I regard as categorically invalid in a series known for it's game-breaking exploits. All computer games have "god mode"; TES just lets you do it within the game's existing systems. Because it is single player, this is okay.



In-lore, the impression they're giving me is that standard magical practice (which the lore establishes as having originated with the high elf Psijics) is much less developed in Skyrim (where there is a prejudice against spellcasting). Out of lore, I would imagine they wanted to make sure there were things you could do with Shouts that could not be done with magic. Either way, the only effects that are missing that I personally miss (YMMV) are the transportation effects... but gamesas has, from the beginning, been gradually culling transportation effects in an effort to make level design meaningful. (I do not agree with this decision; it's the same thing as balance-breaking potion loops or what have you, which I'm also okay with.) Daggerfall lacked Passwall, which was in Arena. Morrowind lacked a climbing skill. Oblivion lacked levitation and teleportation. Skyrim maintains this decision. So it's not like this is some kind of new sellout tactic for Skyrim.



Not being a heavy magic player, I don't really know what's missing from enchantments and potion effects (though obviously stat raising is out). Having not gotten that far in the game, I don't know how many fewer weapon types there are. I remember iron, steel, silver, elvish, dwarvish, orcish, ebony, glass, and daedric in Morrowind. Oh, and Nordic. And the Akaviri weapons. I'm pretty sure the regular steel weapons are "nordic" in this game... but they also have "ancient nordic". They also have imperial. I haven't seen glass yet... but that was supposed to be a morrowind-only thing anyway (shouldn't have been in Oblivion, IMO). I haven't seen ebony or daedric yet... but that's just because I haven't gotten to that point. So I assume you are referring to weapon categories... but other than crossbows and spears (which were Morrowind, not Oblivion), I'm not noticing anything missing. As to armor, yes we have fewer pieces. I can see how this might upset some people... but I imagine it reduces their workload so they can focus on other areas (and Skyrim does indeed shine in places where Oblivion was utter crap). I'm not personally impacted by this decision.

Plus all t

UI: simplified UI is a GOOD thing, so long as it doesn't also result in reduced functionality, and I detect no reduction of functionality between Oblivion and Skyrim... or even Morrowind, for that matter. The UI SHOULD virtually disappear in the player's mind, leaving him free to experience the game.

Limited quest effects: Again, no reduction from Oblivion (though, having not completed the main quest, I don't know of Skyrim lacks some equivalent to new statues and such). To find a better state there, you have to go back to Morrowind.

Which brings me to your question regarding the reduced depth of questlines, but the greater number of quests overall. Having played around with it, I think I prefer Skyrim to Oblivion in this regard. I find the immersion effect to be greater. Oblivion had some very nice, cinematic, linear quest lines for each of the major guilds... and there was NO interaction between them whatsoever. That was immersion-breaking for me. Skyrim doesn't attempt the same kind of epic feel for the factions, and as a result, my brain doesn't say "WHERE ARE THE INTERACTIONS!!!". It's just that each "guild" isn't saving the world in one completely separate way or another; the guilds are more day-to-day, so it feels more "immersive". I don't feel like I'm playing five completely different games on a coincidentally similar map.

Now, admittedly, I would have preferred they did what they did in Morrowind: nine fully developed factions, all intertwined in alliances and rivalries, with their questlines diverging depending on how the player wanted to influence guild policy with regard to other guilds... the stellar example being the Fighters/Thieves/Camonna Tong story. But to actually free up the resources to do something like that, they'd have probably have had to ditch voice acting. I would't mind that, but I am well aware that probably 75% of their customer base would consider that a deal breaker... so I hold my peace. Additionally, the voice acting does not svck as much as it did in Oblivion.

Now, these are just my speculations; I have no special contact with the developers. However, whatever their reasons, I do believe they have produced a better product than Oblivion. As to Morrowind... well, a man can dream, but nostalgia can only take one so far.

There is a shift of concept. Earlier games had fixed spells, and thus the requirement to make different versions of them as new spells. Now we have more fluid spell types, these then gain in power or function as a result of perks or how they are used. The spell maker doesn't really make sense with the new system - what would be more appropriate would be some kind of perk maker, but since perks are tied to level rather than game world obtained that's a bit trickier to justify.

Do I miss the ability to make some really cool custom spells? Yes. But would I give up the flexibility of the current system for it? No. Equipping wards with one hand while firing out destructive spells with the other is just too fun. Ditto wielding a spell and a sword, or whatever combination of play style that you want.

So what options would I like more of? I'd like to bring back the strengths and weaknesses selections of the daggerfall creation system - I think it would make a good modifier to the race selection, which is otherwise the only fixed point of character generation.

I'd like more and longer craft chain options. They've made a good start in Skyrim, but I'd still like to take the a bit further towards U7, just to give my characters the option of a more day to day existence if I want to play them that way, but even what's in Skyrim is better than the previous TES games.

I miss the political slant to things from Daggerfall - that's almost entirely a consequence of the scales involved though, and I wouldn't want to give up Skyrim's richness, density and attention to detail that such a huge-scaled would entail. Same with boats and having a market for houses.

So while there are some things I'd like more options for or to be taken from previous games, I wouldn't want the consequences of having them, because Skyrim gives me something better in it's place.

There seems to be a large number of people that disagree.



To answer somebody else question - of course I wish for certain things. There has never been a game where I have been 100% satisfied (not really the right phrasing, but it will do). Skyrim is no different. Oblivion was no different. Morrowind was no different. The question: is my longing so great for things absent my enjoyment/satisfaction is greatly reduced?

Or is it a "Hmmm, it would have been nice if this was here but sweet mushroom towers this is awesome and I can live without it" (for me the answer is the latter). Besides Skyrim has some things when playing the previous games I wished for.

In this case some of the things people hold up as examples of "complexity" lost being a bad thing I don't miss - I don't miss the previous style attributes. The new system needs work, but I think it is heading in the right direction and I don't feel my ability to create and play the type of character I want has been lost because it is different. In fact it seems easier to create a unique character and concept - far to many of my Morrowind characters ended up magewarriortheives (after humble beginnings of being unable to stab the broadside of a barn) - and no less fun or engrossing to play them.

I enjoyed spell crafting and would have liked to see it return, but its absence hasn't affected my enjoyment all that much. One of my most played characters is pure mage and they are doing fine - better than fine, as this new system is just fine and I am sure more spells are on the way. Plus I find this absence the weakest link in the "dumbing down for casuals" argument. I don't miss degrading gear either.

I don't miss the encyclopedias known as NPCs from Morrowind. That game was so great, but oh seeing everyone from the mightiest Telvanni wizard lord to the lowliest Seyda Neen commoner provide identical responses to the oh so many topics never ceased to be irksome (especially since after a very few number of conversations people quickly ran out of new things to say and there was no reason to talk to them unless they were quest related).

I do miss the length and variety of quests. I miss factional conflicts. Etc.

I miss being able to decorate my home easier.

I don't miss not being a lone hero if I don't want to be, but I miss from other games not having better companion AI (and conversations).

I do miss Vampire quests, I don't miss being a vampire effectively locking you out of everything else in the game except those quests.

This. I hate to say it, but Bethesda makes design decisions which turn me off to the series more and more with each iteration. Seriously -- they should only be adding content, and never removing it. I would rather have spellmaking than flashy spell graphics. I would rather have longer faction questlines. Also, am I the only one who feels like the whole game is essentially "go to dungeon, kill tons of draughr, kill super draughr, rinse and repeat?"

I understand people are going to complain about some of the trade-offs made. What I don't understand is all the griping, when you know that DLC is the new (mostly the last three to four years) profit driver for console gaming. Skyrim is designed for that. What have they done with the design trade-offs? They've made it as accessible as possible to draw in the non-RPG folks as much as possible. Once those people learn the ropes and get hooked, Bethesda can release DLC that has more complex stuff in it.

I guess this is my way of saying, its coming. Just wait for it. Fallout 3 had loads of stuff, and Skyrim is primed to have similar DLC with more weapons, skills, spells, new areas, quests, etc.

The trade offs and perceived simplifications were to draw in new players and broaden the customer base for the DLC to come.

People who like first person, action oriented RPGs set in a large open world?
People who like games?

The main problem here seems to be a large number of people are comparing Skyrim to other games and finding that it isn't Morrowind 2, or some other game they had imagined personalised to their tastes.
Skyrim is Skyrim. Enjoy it for that or loathe it for that.

Some decisions I disagreed with, the lack of spell variety was more than a bit underwhelming.
Others I liked such as removal of attributes (why are we still using numbers to visibly represent attributes in any computer based RPG in this day and age? Are people that afraid of change? Do people really believe that if the outcome is the same, having visible numbers makes it better?).

Overall I really like the game, moreso than other TES titles I played (which I also enjoyed a great deal). Is it perfect? No, but it keeps me entertained, and when it doesn't I will explore mods (which has, since Morrowind, been the main selling point for me with TES - the construction kit) to try and breath a bit more life into it before eventually stopping and looking for another gaming fix.

Love it or hate it, this is the future.

A new generation is taking over gaming from us older folks, and their tastes are ADHD more to the point.

A generation of twitch shooter playing, WoW guzzling, console heroes that would rather tear a game down for its small number of shortcomings; because they either demand more in an entitled manner, or simply have no idea what any game pre-2008 was like.

I for one welcome my new PC overlords, as everything in the gaming world can and HAS TO evolve. You can either get left behind, or adapt and enjoy.

Nothing on this forum will be more than a pebble against the tsunami of profit margins and corporate fumblings. So, will you still attempt to change others' attitudes about something that is going to happen regardless...or will you change your own attitude and possibly enjoy the games you buy with rediculous amounts of money? :mohawk:

Well said (and I agree entirely on the attributes bit, and other bits to).

Not sure what you're referring to here. Do you mean the Guardian Stones? (Which are basically the same as the Doomstones from Oblivion, so this game mechanic is nothing new?)




Anyway.... I'm a long time gamer. I'm in my 40's, and I've been playing games (tabletop, console, computer, arcade) for thirty years. Of the Bethesda games, I've played Morrowind, Oblivion, and Fallout 3.

I'm enjoying Skyrim, and don't feel that most of their design decisions were either poor or "dumbing down". Most of my annoyances have to do with the style-over-substance UI. And Steam auto-patching bugs into my game. (Oh, and just to respond to the "idiot redneck" part - no, I'm from the northeast and I've got a post-graduate education. No, I don't play CoD.)

------

edit



For certain, incredibly specific and restrictive definintions of "RPG" and "like". :facepalm:

No there are not.

But who am I kidding, this just a stupid console game for stupid people because smart people want MOAR, DON'T CARE WHAT IT IS BUT IT NEEDS MOAR MOOOOORE OF EVERYTHING!:bonk:

I'm in my mid-30s and I am loving it.

Spell effects? I've got enough to do exactly what I need to do.

Potion effects? See my reply to "Spell effects?" just before this line.

[Your_sense_of_elitism] effects? Yeah, I think you get the point here.



The "target audience" you mention? Yeah. It's basically people who want to play a high fantasy video game and have fun.

You can see it everywhere that this game was designed for the consoles. Which is logical considering what the market is like today. The money comes from console games. Console players buy a LOT more games than pc players. In my personal opinion this is barely a rpg game.To me its an adventure game with rpg elements. This works for me. Its not complex at all. Simple dungeon crawling and to me they did that very well. Its a new game and it can still go far with future expansions etc. And who knows maybe this game will become a good rpg instead of an great adventure game, all it needs is an arrow in the knee.

I do get your point,,,they have taken alot out of TES as the games are going on...I'm only 19 going on 20 soon myself, but i've been playing TES since daggerfall, so believe me, i know whats changed. They have added more stuff however...along with taking more out as the games go on...skyrim is more for the simple kids of CoD that will only play the game for 5 hours max (wouldnt be shocked if alot of the sales was infact them, or parents getting the game for christmas). the new UI i HATE with a passion, morrowinds wasnt the best -is dated after all- but it DID work better than this one, was quick and easy to get around, even if it was [censored] ugly. plus i've not been playing this game for near enough 2 weeks even though i do truely really want to, I just wont, everytime I do play, i get broken quests, and not just afew...atleast 4-8 ranging between daedra, guilds, misc. I have enjoyed what I have played however so I'm not! saying its a bad game...just a [censored] rushed broken one..._points to ps3 and the fact that wont likely never be fixed, its a bug with the ENGINE not the game_

steamlining is alright in many respects but over simplification (wich is what i think they have done with Skyrim) destroys imertion.


for a frame of refrance i have put nearly 300 hours in this game so far. with 2 diffrent cherecter builds.

if you look at the last 3 TES games more and more is lost with each title. while their are a few things that i can see others just make me say "what the [censored] are they thinking." first when the when with Oblivian the stripped out many of the options for melee and non magic wielding combat then dis so even further with skyrim while also cutting veriety from magic. now look at cherecter creation. in TES 3 & 4 you could make unique cherecters have ono cherecter of a given race strong while another of the same race is weaker but better at magic. yes it invaulved numbers but these numbers effeted what you could do easily and what was harder to manage. now with TES 5 there is no diffrence between one cherecter of a given race and another of that same race when you start the game.

magic seems gimped and melee option are limited.

now to actualy answer the question of the OP , it is my beleif that someone who has never played an TES title will probly enjoy it but many of those that have will (at least IMO) will find it less enjoyable. it just seems like they added a few shiny bits to a polished turd and hoped it would come out alright in the end. thankfully its not quite that bad but i have real fears that the next TES game will be just that.

i enjoy the game don't get me wrong i just don't see myself putting the time into it i did with Morrowind (1 cherecter with close to 1000 hours) may spend 200 hours or so per cherecter but not much more after that.

So I guess the target audience for this game are twitch shooter teens.

But judging from steam statistics this isn't the case:
The game is most played lately beating by a large margin even BF3 and similar AAA FPS titles. All this from a puny would be RPG.

Just imagine what would happen if this RPG had all the elements that would make it even greater. The pathetic FPSs would be annihilated.