Skyrim is Soulless

Post » Thu Dec 15, 2011 5:09 am

Couldn't agree more with the article actually. Nothing in Skyrim responds to you. Nothing you do changes anything. The whole world feels static and hollow. It doesn't hold a candle to NV in the role playing department. It's pretty. I'll give it that.


This. I'm not saying there should be massive questlines associated with every single NPC, but it's 2011 and Bethesda don't seem to have progressed (much) beyond the complete apathy of Oblivion's NPC's.
User avatar
Charlotte Buckley
 
Posts: 3532
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 11:29 am

Post » Thu Dec 15, 2011 11:46 am

Skyrim IS soulless. It's fun, and there's a lot to do, but there really is nothing which genuinely makes you care about what is going on, or gives you any real indication that anyone else cares either.

The point he made is totally valid.
User avatar
Wayne W
 
Posts: 3482
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2007 5:49 am

Post » Thu Dec 15, 2011 2:11 pm

This. I'm not saying there should be massive questlines associated with every single NPC, but it's 2011 and Bethesda don't seem to have progressed (much) beyond the complete apathy of Oblivion's NPC's.


But you risk (in development of a game) just creating a system where the game (in a world as big as Skyrim) would randomly generate NPC dialogue that would be rather pointless, kinda like how the Companions constantly want you to go take care of a saber tooth cat in someone's house. It might not end up being that repetitive, but it sure would have that feel, knowing that the NPC you are interacting with is really just a random generator...every bit as soulless.

You can only create so many questlines in a game, and Skyrim has a TON. People keep asking for the moon AND the stars......not going to happen.
User avatar
Emily Shackleton
 
Posts: 3535
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 12:36 am

Post » Thu Dec 15, 2011 4:24 am

Yeah, I remember her.. she was meant to be just an interesting tidbit to yet another fort, but instead he's expecting to discuss nuclear proliferation with her.

Skyrim isn't soulless. It contains a bunch of stories

I fondly recall chasing the White Stag without result in the driving snow in the mountains south of Falkreath...I almost passed out from the rush of myth-like story I was living...

I fondly recall entering a bandit lair only to see that it had just been attacked by a nest of Falmer, only to clear them out myself, and then upon exiting, seeing the Bandit leader and two underlings walk through the front door exclaiming "What happened here??", and getting in the toughest fight I'd had up to that point. Me and the bandit leader fought for a full 5 minutes trading blows and trying to get an angle. There was also a bandit locked (himself) in a small room who kept saying he wasn't coming out.....

There is also Blackreach, which if you don't pause for just a moment to soak in the first view of, you aren't human.



:foodndrink:

I can't keep reiterating this enough: if you're complaining about NPC's not acknowledging the way you've changed the world, you haven't played Morrowind or Oblivion.

If you can't utilize the game world and create your own rich tapestry out of what you're given, you've lost your imagination and you don't know what roleplay really is.
User avatar
anna ley
 
Posts: 3382
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2006 2:04 am

Post » Thu Dec 15, 2011 7:41 am

Making a living, reactive world is easy. Just remove all story and replace it with logical interaction.
This is easy to realize, and the developers are definitely capable.
Too bad hero stories are valued so much more for advertising and sales.

Look to tech demos, indie, and mods for competent and honest game design.


Also, Roleplay is about imagination. Imagination is about infinite possiblities. Roleplay is about being freely able to create whatever characters or situations you want, spawning them in as you wish in any area. Roleplay is leaving Skyrim empty so you can spawn-in your own imagined characters to fill in. If you're gonna talk about Roleplay, be honest. Don't pretend that playing pretend can be an unfinished job. Roleplay as your imagination sees fit.
User avatar
Stephy Beck
 
Posts: 3492
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2007 12:33 pm

Post » Thu Dec 15, 2011 3:12 am

Making a living, reactive world is easy. Just remove all story and replace it with logical interaction.
This is easy to realize, and the developers are definitely capable.
Too bad hero stories are valued so much more for advertising and sales.

Look to tech demos, indie, and mods for competent and honest game design.


This game came out earlier this year: it's called Sims: Medieval edition.

If you're not playing a TES game for the lore and story(which means ultimately enjoying the quests), there's something wrong with you :)
User avatar
Alexandra Louise Taylor
 
Posts: 3449
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 1:48 pm

Post » Thu Dec 15, 2011 7:21 am

In a game as huge as Skyrim, writing in all these "if/then" scripted conversations and events would take years. The game was already in development for five years, how long does he want to wait for a game?


Obsidian did a much better job when it came to implementing reactivity in the game world and they had a fraction of Skyrim's development time. It's not a question of time, it's a question of creativity and the drive to make a game that feels real. A static game world that pretty much ignores what the player does, forcing them to pretend that they matter and imagine making an impact, is the complete opposite of a roleplaying game.

And while we're on the subject of reactivity, you do realize that it'd be a simple matter of adding a few more lines together with a check to see if the variable"FortGreymoorCleared" is set to true, in order to have said hag react to the fact that the player just slaughtered everyone around her. Then add a second check, for the variable "FortGreymoorOwner", to see if it's taken by Imperials or Stormcloaks and add further reactivity. The Gamebryo tools already supported this in New Vegas. Why wasn't this functionality used?

In fact, why wasn't the entire plethora of tools available to craft a living, breathing world used to make a living, breathing world? When compared to New Vegas, where decisions truly matter and the world reacts to them, Skyrim feels static and lifeless, like a theme park.

This is where ROLEPLAYING comes in. As someone so eloquently posted above, Agnis is resigned to her fate, as being the fort's caregiver for whomever takes it. This is her lot in life and she's accepted it.

That is called role playing- creating a scenario from the scripted event you are given.

This guy has no imagination and expects the game to write the story for him- that's not roleplaying, that's just going from point A to point B and doing what the game tells you to do.


Christ. Roleplaying is NOT the same as play pretend. When you have to pretend that you've made a difference and imagine stuff to make the world feel real, that means that the developer has failed to create a roleplaying game. Roleplaying is creating an unique character and playing him out (in accordance with the background chosen, skillset, their views) in a dynamic world that reacts to your choices as you make them. Western RPGs come from the pen-and-paper background, where the Game Master continuously reacts to the players' actions and changes the adventure in response to their actions. This is why a game is supposed to react to the player and his choices, not expect the player to take on the role of Game Master for himself.

The reviewer is not the problem. You are the problem, when you state that (basically) it's wrong to expect the developers to create a good story and it's good to have to write it yourself.
User avatar
Matt Gammond
 
Posts: 3410
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 2:38 pm

Post » Thu Dec 15, 2011 12:56 am

Skyrim IS soulless. It's fun, and there's a lot to do, but there really is nothing which genuinely makes you care about what is going on, or gives you any real indication that anyone else cares either.

The point he made is totally valid.


Really? I guess I'm a little more invested than you. I made it to Riften and talked to a lot of people there before seeking out the Thieves' guild. I couldn't go through with the quest they gave me- they wanted me to blackmail, shake down, and threaten the NPC's I'd just talked to. When I started to do it, the first NPC chided me and made me feel so bad I had to stop.

I don't understand how none of the quests, not a single one, haven't affected how you play the game, or your immersion within it.
User avatar
mimi_lys
 
Posts: 3514
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 11:17 am

Post » Thu Dec 15, 2011 9:19 am

In a time when games are so much more cinematic than they used to be, roleplaying games included, its really hard to connect or feel anything for stiffly animated robot characters that have less than 10 lines of dialogue.

Its made worst in Skyrim because our dialogue choices are almost fully gone.

I love this game, I'm 175 hours in.

But I do feel this game lacks soul when it comes to stories, quests and npcs.

Thankfully, its still a really fun game to explore and adventure in.

But I think its a serious step back in terms of story and npc interaction. Huge step back.
User avatar
Tracy Byworth
 
Posts: 3403
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 10:09 pm

Post » Wed Dec 14, 2011 11:24 pm

Christ. Roleplaying is NOT the same as play pretend. When you have to pretend that you've made a difference and imagine stuff to make the world feel real, that means that the developer has failed to create a roleplaying game. Roleplaying is creating an unique character and playing him out (in accordance with the background chosen, skillset, their views) in a dynamic world that reacts to your choices as you make them. Western RPGs come from the pen-and-paper background, where the Game Master continuously reacts to the players' actions and changes the adventure in response to their actions. This is why a game is supposed to react to the player and his choices, not expect the player to take on the role of Game Master for himself.

The reviewer is not the problem. You are the problem, when you state that (basically) it's wrong to expect the developers to create a good story and it's good to have to write it yourself.


:tops:
User avatar
Jennie Skeletons
 
Posts: 3452
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 8:21 am

Post » Thu Dec 15, 2011 4:42 am

Someone made this anology some time ago here in this forum, I think it was one of the cleverest I've ever seen and fits perfectly with this thread.

Skyrim is like Lego. Some people will open the Lego box, follow the manual step by step, build whatever it's meant to build and when it's finished they will put it in the shelf and never touch it again.

Other people will do those very same steps but also try to build different things with those same pieces and the fun will last much longer.

And another group of people might actually never open the manual and just let their imagination flow.

Skyrim is like that. The tools and pieces are there. The "manuals" are the questlines. They are there for those with little or no imagination. But imaginative people will know how to use those tools and build new adventures over and over again making the fun last much longer.
User avatar
Big Homie
 
Posts: 3479
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 3:31 pm

Post » Wed Dec 14, 2011 11:33 pm

After reading, my mind is changed: I agree. As great as Skyrim is, as detailed, expansive, and unique it is, it still feels very much like a world that doesn't care for my accomplishments within it.

except for, you know, the NPCs that actually greet you in new ways as you progress through the game and finish more quests ("so you're the one casts those illusions...impressive," mentioning that they know about how you killed the glenmoor witches, consoling you after
Spoiler
kodlak's
death, etc, etc).
expectations just a liiiittle bit high, much?
User avatar
Jesus Lopez
 
Posts: 3508
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 10:16 pm

Post » Thu Dec 15, 2011 7:43 am

Agnis is
Spoiler
just there to be killed for a Dark Brotherhood quest


Really though Skyrim does okay for reactions to the players deeds, to expect every NPC to have unique responses based on player action is absurd.


Excactly. She has a purpose, same as clearing the fort is also for the Imperials.

If every piece of this game reacted the way you wanted it to when you first encountered it, then much of the games later content would be messed up.
User avatar
Richus Dude
 
Posts: 3381
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 1:17 am

Post » Thu Dec 15, 2011 9:27 am

I hardly think the writer was talking about one single NPC in Skyrim...he was talking about the majority, if not all of the NPC's in Skyrim....do you assume they're all nuts? Bit of a stretch for the imagination.


Here is just one example of my interaction with a random NPC.

Found a random NPC complaining about bandits overrunning a mine (which starts up a misc quest). So I wander over to the mine (a good minute or two walk away) and proceed to clear out the mine. Walk back and talk to the NPC again and he thanks me. Then him and his buddy(or buddies) proceed to walk away from there temporary camp and walk back to the mine. They finish relocating (I walk with the just to make sure nothing attack them taking about 5 or so minutes to get there) then the NPC quest givers dialog changes. Now he owns the mine (and is more than happy to tell me about it) and will buy ore from me that I mine for him. I follow him inside the mine and hear him start muttering its so good to be back here, its just like I remember it.

There is a lot of depth given in a lot of random places, you just have to find it. Its just little touches like this that help me just love this game :)
User avatar
Kate Schofield
 
Posts: 3556
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2006 11:58 am

Post » Thu Dec 15, 2011 2:41 am

In a time when games are so much more cinematic than they used to be, roleplaying games included, its really hard to connect or feel anything for stiffly animated robot characters that have less than 10 lines of dialogue.

Its made worst in Skyrim because our dialogue choices are almost fully gone.

I love this game, I'm 175 hours in.

But I do feel this game lacks soul when it comes to stories, quests and npcs.

Thankfully, its still a really fun game to explore and adventure in.

But I think its a serious step back in terms of story and npc interaction. Huge step back.


It's so strange, but I feel the exact opposite. I despise those cinematic games where I feel like I'm less in control and actually playing than watching a movie. Even in those games, the dialogue I WANTED was never there. I feel much more connected with characters in a world where you can use your imagination than other linear games that force your development and hold your hand. I don't want or need to be the center of attention or have my ego stroked like so many other games out there. That feels fake. THAT feels robotic.
User avatar
N3T4
 
Posts: 3428
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 8:36 pm

Post » Thu Dec 15, 2011 5:34 am

Here is just one example of my interaction with a random NPC.

Found a random NPC complaining about bandits overrunning a mine (which starts up a misc quest). So I wander over to the mine (a good minute or two walk away) and proceed to clear out the mine. Walk back and talk to the NPC again and he thanks me. Then him and his buddy(or buddies) proceed to walk away from there temporary camp and walk back to the mine. They finish relocating (I walk with the just to make sure nothing attack them taking about 5 or so minutes to get there) then the NPC quest givers dialog changes. Now he owns the mine (and is more than happy to tell me about it) and will buy ore from me that I mine for him. I follow him inside the mine and hear him start muttering its so good to be back here, its just like I remember it.

There is a lot of depth given in a lot of random places, you just have to find it. Its just little touches like this make help me just love this game :)


Nobody said that Skyrim is completely devoid of such instances of reactivity. Question is, why are they limited to meaningless, completely optional sidequests, instead of being an integral part of the core game experience? Y'know, instead of having reactivity (which isn't equal to depth, by the way) hidden in obscure places, have it occupy the front row and have eg. Whiterun's citizens react with more than one liners to the battle of Whiterun?
User avatar
Schel[Anne]FTL
 
Posts: 3384
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:53 pm

Post » Thu Dec 15, 2011 12:54 am

Really? I guess I'm a little more invested than you. I made it to Riften and talked to a lot of people there before seeking out the Thieves' guild. I couldn't go through with the quest they gave me- they wanted me to blackmail, shake down, and threaten the NPC's I'd just talked to. When I started to do it, the first NPC chided me and made me feel so bad I had to stop.

I don't understand how none of the quests, not a single one, haven't affected how you play the game, or your immersion within it.

The thing is, you clearly invest yourself further emotionally than me, or indeed many other people who play these games; 'real' role players aren't the majority even on this board, let alone the population outside of it.

The story of Skyrim doesn't entrall me or get me making real moral decisions; occasionally I won't do something because it doesn't fit with my character, but it's because I'm forcibly inducing an experience, not because the game actually makes me care about anything, or convinces me that anything really matters. Like I said, it's fun, but it's just soulless.

Fallout: New Vegas was much better in this respect.
User avatar
Andrew Tarango
 
Posts: 3454
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 10:07 am

Post » Thu Dec 15, 2011 10:36 am

Obsidian did a much better job when it came to implementing reactivity in the game world and they had a fraction of Skyrim's development time. It's not a question of time, it's a question of creativity and the drive to make a game that feels real. A static game world that pretty much ignores what the player does, forcing them to pretend that they matter and imagine making an impact, is the complete opposite of a roleplaying game.

A fraction of the time, a fraction of the world? Skyrim is huge, not just in physicality but in scope. They wrote a language for it, for god's sake. The micromanagement level of this game is insane. I can't believe you're not acknowledging that when comparing it to other games.


And while we're on the subject of reactivity, you do realize that it'd be a simple matter of adding a few more lines together with a check to see if the variable"FortGreymoorCleared" is set to true, in order to have said hag react to the fact that the player just slaughtered everyone around her. Then add a second check, for the variable "FortGreymoorOwner", to see if it's taken by Imperials or Stormcloaks and add further reactivity. The Gamebryo tools already supported this in New Vegas. Why wasn't this functionality used?

Maybe because, as was already pointed out twice...she's already used in a quest?

Yeah.

Let's illustrate further your scripting theory- who said the fort was taken by anyone? My character could have cleared out that fort and I don't belong to either of those factions. Oops, there's another string you have to create. What if there's a thieves' guild quest that involves that fort? Better create yet another scripted reaction. Also, we must ensure these reactions don't interfere with one another because the player has the opportunity to join every faction in the game.


In fact, why wasn't the entire plethora of tools available to craft a living, breathing world used to make a living, breathing world? When compared to New Vegas, where decisions truly matter and the world reacts to them, Skyrim feels static and lifeless, like a theme park.

Already wrote a response to that, thanks for skipping over it. If you care to know, just scroll up.



Christ. Roleplaying is NOT the same as play pretend. When you have to pretend that you've made a difference and imagine stuff to make the world feel real, that means that the developer has failed to create a roleplaying game.
You are again failing to acknowledge the openness of this game and illustrate how ignorant you are to the consequences and challenges of creating content for a game world wherein players are given ultimate freedom with very few boundaries. Every choice having consequences, when the players are given exponentially unending choices, would be a scripting nightmare. There are already huge bugs created in the game world NOW, can you even imagine the complications from giving every NPC scripted consequence? Are you kidding?

Roleplaying is creating an unique character and playing him out (in accordance with the background chosen, skillset, their views) in a dynamic world that reacts to your choices as you make them. Western RPGs come from the pen-and-paper background, where the Game Master continuously reacts to the players' actions and changes the adventure in response to their actions. This is why a game is supposed to react to the player and his choices, not expect the player to take on the role of Game Master for himself.

Your anology doesn't fit- a truer comparison would be if your GM couldn't make it that day and wrote a campaign with some notes on which direction to take it if you made certain choices. Even being your friend and knowing your playstyle, he could not have predicted each and every choice you could make, so you're going to have to ROLEPLAY to excuse some missing data.

In the end, this is a computer program. It's not unlimited, it's not omnipotent.


The reviewer is not the problem. You are the problem, when you state that (basically) it's wrong to expect the developers to create a good story and it's good to have to write it yourself.

And you are blowing everything out of proportion- all I said was if you have a problem with an NPC not reacting to a particular set of circumstances, roleplay a reason for it. That's not rewriting the game, it's explaining behavior.

God, I would hate to play a tabletop game with you. You're the player who kicks his chair and swears at other players when they come up with some unorthodox method of getting around an obstacle. "IT'S NOT IN THE GAME GUIDE RWARRRR"

Chill out.


User avatar
Marnesia Steele
 
Posts: 3398
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 10:11 pm

Post » Thu Dec 15, 2011 12:12 pm

Nothing in Skyrim responds to you. Nothing you do changes anything.


Grossly simplifying statements to exaggerate a problem isn't constructive. There are plenty of ways NPCs respond to the player, it's just that there needs to be more. Saying "nothing responds" just makes you sound like a kid "Aw mom I never get to play on the computer" when in fact the kid gets to play it everyday.

The forum is being filled with these daily "Bethesda didn't beta test AT ALL" type blanket statements. Really? Might as well follow that claim with "Todd has 3 nipbles." because it's about as helpful to the serious criticism at hand.
User avatar
Emma Pennington
 
Posts: 3346
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 8:41 am

Post » Thu Dec 15, 2011 1:00 pm

It this guys opinion so I can't knock him.

But he says "Everyone is so impressed with Skyrim, but I can't help thinking about another open-world role-playing game published by Bethesda last year, Fallout: New Vegas. By the time I had logged as many hours into New Vegas as I have in Skyrim, I felt like I had big decisions to make that were really going to change the world of New Vegas."

Let me start by saying I LOVE NV......I am a Beth Fan-Boy but anyway



NV is not as open world as Skyrim, and NV only gives you a feeling like that but you don't see the end result anyway. He should try playing the main quest ( I happen to like it even though some have called it junk) to see if that makes him feel if "He has big decisions to make that were really going to change the world of Skyrim, an or Tamriel "

Cut the guy a break it's just his opinion, no matter how wrong he maybe :biggrin: ....JK , we all will have differing points of opinion on any game even Skyrim, no matter how great it is (for me)

just my .02 caps



hmmm.. now if NV was actually done by Bethesda... (It was only published by them. It was made by Obsidian, some of the people that made Fallout 1 and Fallout 2)
User avatar
Lisa Robb
 
Posts: 3542
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2006 9:13 pm

Post » Thu Dec 15, 2011 10:19 am

Being that the definition of a soul is fairly ephemeral, and the author fails to define it, im going to define it within the scope of his intention. The soul, that he refers to, im guessing is by and large the characters. Skyrim does alot of things, but its characters in general are fairly puppet like. that is the nature of making something this huge with the plethora of options given to you. Would I say that Skyrim has as much soul, within his definition, as say ME? (ME haters back off, you can put in any other game that you think has good characters, this is just an example.) No, im afraid Skyrim doesnt. however when a game like ME shines is in this aspect. Skyrim builds soul not just through characters, but environment. there are books to read, filled with characters and drama. there are situations where u find an alchemist hut with his notes and further down the road you find his skeleton with a handful of flowers (whatever). THATS soul as well, and Skyrim can boast gobs of it and way more than any other game.
I would love if in the future Skyrim could bolster its capacity to render some full blooded characters, with unique animations and voice acting etc. It would create moments in the game that felt more unique, where you might have ppl that you really care about alot more. all that is great.

but to go around making the accusation this guy is making, he clearly isnt seeing the other half of the game. not too surprising, western dramas have been character driven for a long time. ppl define most of the scope of a drama by its characters. however Skyrim takes a leaf out of something different, and if you cant see that you are mistaking the tree for the forest.
User avatar
sas
 
Posts: 3435
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 8:40 am

Post » Thu Dec 15, 2011 7:01 am

Not really sure why people are disagreeing with the review, it's blatantly true. It just comes down to whether you let it bother you or not. In my case, it doesn't really bother me. As someone above said, all games have limitations in certain areas. It just would of been nice to flesh out this particular area a bit.

User avatar
Susan Elizabeth
 
Posts: 3420
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:35 pm

Post » Thu Dec 15, 2011 7:22 am

Skyrim IS soulless. It's fun, and there's a lot to do, but there really is nothing which genuinely makes you care about what is going on, or gives you any real indication that anyone else cares either.

The point he made is totally valid.


Sorry, I just don't agree from my experiences of the game.
User avatar
natalie mccormick
 
Posts: 3415
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:36 am

Post » Thu Dec 15, 2011 11:33 am

It's so strange, but I feel the exact opposite. I despise those cinematic games where I feel like I'm less in control and actually playing than watching a movie. Even in those games, the dialogue I WANTED was never there. I feel much more connected with characters in a world where you can use your imagination than other linear games that force your development and hold your hand. I don't want or need to be the center of attention or have my ego stroked like so many other games out there. That feels fake. THAT feels robotic.


I'm a very visual creature. I do agree that its more fun to be in control than to watch cutscenes. But I find characters in a game like Mass Effect, like the Witcher 2, feel more alive. Their voice, their faces, their movements all have personality. I understand what you mean though. You feel more on rails. I could agree with that. Honestly, I might have a better opinion of the game, at least visually, if animations weren't so stiff and wierd. As the author of the article in the first post, its starting to be tough to swallow brooms appearing out of thin air 2011.

I think what makes the game feel so soulless, what keeps tearing me right out of immersion and reminding me I'm playing a game (a clunky one at that), is the limited dialogue characters throw at you. Guards in every city say the same thing. Things that should be unique flavour to a single character. And that dialogue doesn't chain well.

I just saved Skyrim from dragons. One guard'll clamour "YOu're the Dragonborn! You saved us all." The one right next to him'll say, "Get away, sneak thief!"

A companion will greet me as "You are a friend I value greatly!" and then says "Pheh, what could a whelp like you possible teach me?!"

Its too all over the place. Its not thought out and not believeable.

But I do RP more. I use my imagination. I'm often saying aloud things my character would say, things that will explain what I'm doing next. GF thinks I'm wierd too. :P

In conclusion, I think Bethesda would do well to cut back on silly stuff like this. Stop with the stupid endless greetings, and put more effort in your dialogue trees. In fleshing out more specific npcs.

In my opinion, it would be fine to have tons of "cannon fodder" npcs. à la Assassin's Creed. Just npcs there to crowd the streets. And then you have your specific, fleshed out npcs.

Take whiterun, keep all the NPCs it has now, all the quest givers, and then add the crowds. Have the important characters greet you, give them visual presence.
User avatar
Maria Leon
 
Posts: 3413
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 12:39 am

Post » Thu Dec 15, 2011 8:01 am

I assume you didn't even bother reading the credits. I will highlight the keyword for you: Freelancer No gaming website can be trusted because there is always bias, one way or another. I merely featured an article written by someone beyond Escapist's staff.


That "someone" wouldn't be you, by any chance? :mellow:
User avatar
[ becca ]
 
Posts: 3514
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 12:59 pm

PreviousNext

Return to V - Skyrim