27 skills where you can master them all and be exactly like everyone else is way more complex then eighteen skills with more than fifty perks for customization... /sarcasm

So basically, people are judging it based on the fact that it's being streamlined? I don't think Streamlining is necessarily bad, I though that Mass Effect 2 was a vastly superior game to the first despite the fact it was heavily streamlined.

It's over 9000 man!

That said, if the "simplifications" give a massive boost to performance, then I'm all cool with it.

So when they remove things it's always bad but when they add things it's even worse...

:dead:

I give up. This is general elitist close minded [censored]ting... They changed it, it svcks now. More people can play it, we cannot allow it!
There are... nothing I could say... Reason is long gone from this place...

Lets pretend for a second that I agree that Bethesda is "ruining" the games. They are their games. They thought of them, they make them, they own the franchise. They owe us nothing. If I don't like the game, I won't buy it.


Wherein "gmimmicks" means "any new feature that I don't like." How is marriage a gimmick? It makes the world more immersive and allows a deeper level of interaction with an NPCs than just clicking Rumors and hoping he offers a quest. Shouts are lore, and have been since Redguard; omitting them would mess with lore, and lore is a HUGE part of TES (much bigger than how many armor slots we get).

You know, no matter what we say, Bethesda is going to do it the way they want to do it. Usually that means catering to players who want it easier and to try to bring in the Action / Adventure players.

I too do not like some of the simplification. The attribute removal is my biggest complaint. But it doesn't matter what I think due to my first point and someone will come along and defend the simplification.

I usually play my games on the hardest settings even if it takes me forever to finish. I do not look at Walk-throughs of games on the internet. All because I want a sense of accomplishment I couldn't get while being guided through or finding a game too easy.

So here is to hoping Skyirm is challenging despite its simplification of no attributes and mage like dragon shouts for warriors.

This.

BGS owns the franchise and they can do whatever they damn well want with it. They could technically make The Elder Scrolls into a Testris game if they wanted. Should They? That is debatable but it all comes down to you, the consumer.

Minor streamlining is fine, if it's limited to just making things like the UI feel better. Anything more than that has the potential to destroy an RPG.

And as good as Mass Effect 2 was, it was basically a story-driven third-person shooter with very few RPG elements. I hate the idea of Bethesda ever going down the same route as Bioware have.


Removing core elements that worked so well for games like Morrowind is very bad. I mean, why do it? why. TES fans love Morrowind for a good reason. The only core gameplay changes they really should be making are to flaws (like the poor character models from previous TES games, voice-acting, NPCs / creature AI, levelling system, etc. etc.).

Adding gimmicky stuff is also bad - like finisher moves. Yes, Morrowind / Oblivion's combat could've been a lot better... but throwing fancy finisher moves in really isn't the answer.

I don't understand what's so great about being able to do everything well after a few minutes of playing the game. The feeling of "hey, I'm getting better at this!" is what keeps me playing, not the fact that I am able to kill and do everything at level 1.
What accessability should mean is that you find everything you need to know quite naturally, which is mainly achieved through the interface. Morrowind did a very good job at that.

Lol yeah, because marriage makes it an action game. makes sense...

Ok, marriage ADDS DEPTH, but of course, people are too blind to see it. Everyone complains about lack of RP possibility, but when they actually add something that ADDS to the RP possibilities, then it suddenly becomes a gimmick. seriously, just because 2 awful games had it, doesnn't mean it's necessarily a gimmick. otherwise, we souldn'th ave swords, axes, characters, graphics, text, voice... hell, not even game

Shouts aren't gimmicks, it's SOMETHING NEW. That means Beth aren't just making a new environment for the same damn game. Which is something I definitely thank them for. I don't want Morrowind 2, I don't want Morrowind, and I don't even want Daggerfall 2. If they didn't add any "gimmicks" then people would complain that TES is becoming like COD, in that it would be the exact same game with a new name and a new map

And how do you know the quests won't be hard? how do you know the quest marker won't be toggle-able? and how do you know it will be easy?

And you know what? this time, there are different levels for zones. what does this mean? you want a challenge, go fight level 45 enemies at level 1!
They actually got rid of the "go anywhere at the start" mentality. but of course, that's hand holding. that makes the game a crapload easier.

Seriously, if you want to complain, at least associate things that fit together. if anything, I'm sure Skyrim will be harder than Oblivion. Then again, I didn't say it would. I said it seemed to be that way for me. see what I did there? I made a difference between an opinion and a fact.

And stop criticizing the mainstream please. Dumb [censored]s are a limited audience you know. most people have a head and know how to use it.

And yeah, the genre doesn't matter. It's the game itself that matters. Enjoy being an elitist that enjoys almost nothing, while I keep enjoying almost everything I get

While I agree there, Mass Effect is and always has been a story driven game with emphasis on character development, like most BioWare games have been. All Mass Effect 2 did was improve the combat and UI while leaving the important bits as they were.

Of course, Dragon Age 2 is a perfect example of streamlining gone to far, but there is no evidence to support that BGS has gone this far with it.

We got to pick our class, our look, our backstory. We got to upgrade out character and our team members. We got to make choices that affected the storyline and our interactions with people. Just because it wasn't like the original Fallout or something doesn't mean it wasn't an RPG.

Quite honestly, I don't give a poop whether something is an "RPG," a "Action RPG," or an "Action Game with RPG Elements" as long as the game is fun. We're in 2011 people - games are evolving and mixing genres, and I personally think its a good thing. Segregation doesn't help anyone.

Yeah I agree. I can relate to this because I see it exacly the same as people who argue oven which sub-genre of metal a band falls under, you can argue all you want but as long as the music is good, who gives a toss?

Of course they aren't only enjoyable, but why would it be bad for something to be easy to play? Had morrowind been a worse game with a proper tutorial? I think not.



But why is it bad for that effort to be lower? We are simply talking about getting to know the game, not about the games difficulty. Games can be incredibly easy to learn but very difficult to master.



You still lowered the barrier of entry for someone else, or else why would they need help? If you really believe that people should just put in the effort, then you should have told them to [censored] off, and deal with it, or just play a more casual game.

Go play Baldur's Gate I and II, then play Mass Effect 2 immediately after and you'll understand just how much Bioware threw RPG elements out of the window.

Don't get me wrong - I have nothing against mixed genres... in fact I enjoyed Mass Effect 2 a lot for what it was. The thing is, when I play TES I expect a really complex RPG, because it's supposed to be an RPG franchise. They should stay true to that. If they want to make something much more casual with other elements thrown in like Mass Effect 2, good luck to them - but they should do that with a new franchise, or at the very least a TES spin-off.

What core elements are gone?

Fully explorable open world? Still in.
First person perspective? Still in.
Varied character development, being able to play any mix of Warrior, mage and thief? Still in.
Unique Lore and background? Still in.

These are the core elements, they tend to be pretty vague for a reason.

EDIT:

Played both, and loved the story, the choices and the fact that I'm part of it in both of them.

Liked the system in both games as well, and they're obviously different, seeing how they're a really different genre altogether.
You cannot use the same things that worked in BG in ME because BG is not a shooter.

Why is that bad? what definition of gimmicky do you even apply here? How is it gimmicky?

The way I see it, everyone who's complaining would rather Bethesda make Morrowind again and again with a different questlines. I'm glad Bethesda doesn't just puke out the same game every time, that's when they're trying to get money and "ruin the saga". I won't lie, Oblivion was simplified from Morrowind, but only an acceptable amount. Some would disagree with me, but whatever I had fun playing every game in the series because they were all at least a little different from each other. Bethesda is taking Elder Scrolls in a slightly new direction, making a few adjustments because they feel it will work out. I feel like it will work out too, and if it doesn't I know I can trust Bethesda to make it right in Elder Scrolls VI. Thank god Bethesda does what they want not what everyone on the forums want or else we'd be getting Morrowind over and over with a different paint job each time.

Morrowind had "a proper tutorial." It just didn't hand everything to you at the beginning of the game . . . you actually had to figure out some things on your own.


It is much better for a series like TES to be very difficult, than too easy. You can ALWAYS find help for the hard parts.

My WHOLE point is that playing TES should require some effort . . . ESPECIALLY if you are new to the series.
A steep learning curve improves a RPG.
Flattening out the curve diminishes the RPG (removing the effort of gamers).

I created my site to give back to the community . . . not to insult gamers who were new to TES.
And I repeat: Finding help from my Morrowind Journal took a LOT of effort. I didn't just hand out the answers. It was more like finding clues.

BUT THERE'S LESS ARMOR SLOTS
I find it really funny how Dragon Age II had more armor slots than Oblivion, yet Oblivion is clearly a better game. Which is impossible, because Dragon Age II clearly was much more customizable and enjoyable than Oblivion, do to it's superior armor slots.

I found MW to be a rather bland and boring experience with outright laughable combat mechanics for the few hours I was able to force myself to play it. Guess I'm not a TES fan. :rolleyes:



I assume "anything I don't like = gimmicky" is the definition being used.

My whole point was that just because Baldur's Gate was a more 'hardcoe' RPG doesn't mean that Mass Effect 2 wasn't an RPG at all. Just because http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6a/Mona_Lisa.jpg/396px-Mona_Lisa.jpg doesn't mean http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/Honfleur_-_Le_peintre_du_vieux_port.jpg at all.

A better example would be a different style of painting.

Like a realistic and an expressionist paining...

I don't understand this, you say if they want to make something more casual with other elements thrown in, they should make a separate franchise.

But right above, you give a suggestion of going baldur's gate, to mass effect, which are two difference franchises, to show how bioware threw out rpg elements...

There's nothing stating that skyrim wont be an rpg, in fact it will probably be the most rpg TES since daggerfall, and TES has never been solely rpg, it has always been a mixture of sandbox/action/rpg.

Is there any such thing as a "pure" rpg? because I don't think there is, Dungeons and Dragons is the only possible exception.