http://kotaku.com/5863376/what-skyrim-could-learn-from-skyward-sword. I agree with this 100%

Bethesda games have a surprising habit of turning the extraordinarily epic into the run-of-the-mill. Becoming a God-like being? No big deal, just bash through a couple dungeons and it's yours. Fighting colossal ancient dragons? Sure, ain't no thing. In fact, here's 56 of them. Have fun.

I don't know how to fix this paradox at all. On the one hand, Skyrim is an enormous open world where I can do tons of things in any order I like, almost. However, on the other, this freedom to roam around and do what I like actually tends to create an unorganized, repetitive mess. Every battle I fight has to be scaled to my character, either that or I run into artificial restrictions on where I can and can't go, or what I can and can't do.

So which is better? The constantly on-the-edge-of-your-seat battles that are just barely within reach in games like Zelda, or the vast, open terrain where I can go anywhere I like an know that I won't find anything that's above my head there of Skyrim?

Hard to say.

I don't understand how Mr. Fahey can compare the two. Apples and Oranges. Skyrim IS epic, on a very frequent scale. But it's a huge, living breathing world, where not everything is always epic, and more often it's mundane. It's the hidden gems you're looking for?

Don't get me wrong, skyward sword (like all LoZ games) will be awesome. But it's not an open-world RPG. A game like this isn't meant to be perma-epic, it's just meant to be awesome, something I personally think it does very well.

They're two entirely different types of games. Besides, the things mentioned in that article about dozens of dragons I have never encountered. After 110 hours I've met maybe 20 total, more than fine.

And I'm not getting into a heated Zelda vs. Skyrim debate, seeing as my GF is currently addicted to Zelda it might jump over to real life!

I just saw the title of the article was comparing Skyrim to Skyward Sword and had to close the tab.

I love Zelda. I love it to death. But Skyward Sword shattered everything I knew and loved about Zelda. Nothing should follow Skyward Sword's example. NOTHING.

Why does one have to be better? In having BOTH games, you get to have two different experiences. Win win.

Why do I picture you crying and slamming your fist onto the desk as you repeat the worth "nothing" over and over?

I think the Zelda creators have wanted it to go in an "anime" direction for a long time. It seems to me like they've always wanted it to be cutsie and cartoonish, it's just that the former platforms (n64 really) couldn't do that effect well. OoT and MM came out and set the bar for Zelda games, but they were perceived as dark and serious, when I'm not convinced that's what the creators ever intended. Wind Waker was a rude shock to the sterotypical Zelda game, to the effect that I almost didn't ever buy it. I scooped it up a few years ago in a bargain bin though. It was meh. I think twilight Princess really marked the defining moment though. In their darkest and most serious game of the series to date, they did everything they could to maintain that lighthearted bounce that is common to cartoons.

My point is, though, to ignore all that. Zelda is a linear RPG and Skyrim is an Open RPG. Linear RPGs allow the developer to ensure that everything you face is challenging and unique. Open RPGs mean that the developer has to be sure that everything you face is adjusted in such a way that you can get through.

The frustrating thing about the linear game is that you might see a lake on the horizon, but you can't go there even if you wanted to, not yet. The frustrating thing about Open RPGs is that you might see the lake on the horizon and head down to visit, but you won't find anything you haven't already seen.

So that's the debate I think.

You can have freedom to roam with non-scaled encounters. Morrowind, for the most part, succeeded in this. Yes, you started seeing some high level stuff more often, was a bit of level scaling, but nothing compared to Oblivion or Skyrim.

The key is giving the player the knowledge in the game required to avoid deaths that feel "unfair". In Morrowind, you were told by quest givers and other NPCs what areas were dangerous, what creatures to watch out for, etc. etc. When you died in that daedric ruin, that was your fault for wandering in there at level 4 with no good gear and a pitiful weapon skill.

There's a bit of this in Skyrim. It's pretty obvious you're not going to want to start a fight with a giant early on. But, for some reason, dragons are no problem while scaled bandits can be a nightmare.


There's the aspect of challenge fading as you out level everything, but I think it's worth letting that happen. Eventually you should be restarting and trying new characters, I can't see it being too much fun just running around killing things once you've done all the quests you wanted to do. Plus, there are ways to keep providing some challenge, select things could still be scaled up and the most dangerous areas you hopefully saved for last could hold some serious bad guys. IMO they're just not using enough finesse with scaling, they apply it to too many things.

There are definitely ways to define epic encounters in an open world. However if you spent 80% of the time programming the graphics 15% of the time fixing bugs and 5% of the time thinking about game balance, you end up with Skyrim: a game with great graphics and lots of wasted potential.

The sad thing is that this means that Bethesda obviously can no longer create great games anymore like the used to in the past. However their marketing seems to get better at least.

Pssst!
Morrowind was Scaled too!

Just saying.



Also, the [censored] does scaling have to do with the topic?

I said that in the post dude.

And it has everything to do with this topic.

Games are very different IMO, too different to compare. LOZ you are/will be a hero skyrim you don't have to be and some never will, more open ended and an RPG. LOZ is adventure/puzzle.


I wish skyward sword was available for PC, because I would await a retexture then play it I love LOZ, but the wind waker cartoon style is not something I can endorse. I loved twilight princess.

How so, im curious? sooo many people feel its the best LOZ ever, but they may now know what LOZ is supposed to be...

He is so wrong. I don't play TES for epic battles, that's never been the strongest side of the series. The memorable moments are not fights - at least not always - there is so much more to TES. Watching the sunset on the Bitter Coast, traversing harsh and frozen wastelands, shooting a hawk down with one arrow, reading "Palla" for the first time... This is what I remember. This is why I love Bethesda's games.
If I want to battle "a giant living magma monster", I'll play Skyward Sword. If I want to immerse into a living, so amazingly real world, I'll play Skyrim.

In fact, all-present epicness would ruin the game for me.

I couldn't agree more, but considering the vast majority of the posts on this forum concerning balance and smithing/enchanting abuse it seems most modern day gamers do not care for that as much as they used to.
It feels as if Skyrim is played as an action game rather than an RPG, both when reading the forums and when reading professional reviews.

Aside from some major changes to the continuous style of the lore, the ever-present hand-holding (honestly, do you really need the buttons on-screen the entire duration of the game?), and the ass backwards save system? They touted it as the "most challenging LoZ ever" but it's quite possibly the easiest game I have ever played. I know Nintendo targets younger players, but the game feels like it was made for infants.

The original LOZ is what got me started on the RPG genre back when I was 5; so it's kind of a big deal to me.

You know, I might actually need that in a LOZ game hahaha.
Whenever I play LOZ (mostly OOC) my IQ suddenly plummits to about 40 and I fail at doing the most basic tasks. To give you an example as to how bad it really is - I got stuck, multiple times, in the freaking deku tree.

Or it's just because the game has a lot of combat while also having a lot of problems with the combat. I can only speak for myself I suppose, but most of my complaints have been about the combat and the PC UI/controls because that's where the most, and most significant, problems are. Doesn't mean I don't appreciate it's other aspects, I'd be doing more complaining if I didn't.

Well, for the Too-Much-Dragons problem, i'm pretty sure i've seen somewhere a mod for that.

The original poster has hit the one area where I don't think a computer RPG will ever be able to touch a pen and paper RPG - which is the ability to provide a game that is both challenging at every point and also provides complete freedom to the player.

As the original poster points out, freedom in an open RPG requires some type of power scaling (or a figurative limit on freedom, such as low level characters don't head into the area with the deathclaws type of thing) while the linear RPGs everything is perfectly scaled for tension but you have no freedom. Both types of games are lots of fun, but neither can deliver the thrills of the other.

Only a RPG world created by another human and realized through game mechanics that can change instantly on the fly based on the emotions of the people playing the game can capture both tension of a linear RPG and the freedom of a non-linear RPG..... and computers can't do that yet, while your dungeon master can.

Excellent point on the issue of open vs. linear RPGS, original poster.... really got me thinkiing!

Ehl oh Ehl..

Only 40 hours of play-time and this person feels they have a solid grasp on the game? HAH! I've put twice that many hours into Skyrim and have only experience maybe 1/4 of its content.

I have fond, FOND memories of Zelda: OoT & Majoras Mask, back in my days, but just because this author want's to be bedazzled with new content/encounters/enemy types every 60 minutes of play time doesn't mean one game is better than another. Temper your short attention span please. Difficult encounters are just as great at level 50 as they were at level 12.

Skyrim continues to amaze & bedazzle me long after I normally lose any semblance of interest in standard games nowadays.

Yep. I'll definitely agree that the entirety of the Elder Scrolls series are lacking in the unique encounter department. The game would gain a lot by presenting some Zeldaesque or Dark Soulesque unique monsters and boss fights you will only ever see and fight once.

In a game like Zelda or Dark Souls, every boss will be unique, with it's own attack patterns and weaknesses. In Oblivion or Skyrim, every boss will be a Bandit Chief, or a Draugr Deathlord, or a Dragon, and named or not, they all fight the same. Oh, sure, these are epic foes, and fighting them remains compelling, but by the tenth time you kill one, they kind of have lost their wow factor...

I tend to agree with this. I think that even in an open world RPG, the game can benefit from a boss that you only encounter once. You can still scale the thing, but it is very nice to see unique enemies. For instance,

Even that one isn't that unique though, I mean, it's still essentially the same boss fight we see all over the place. But it was a little bit different and it stood out to me. More of the "well that's unusual" moments are what I think Skyrim should strive for, and fewer of the "oh here we go again" moments.

There are in fact a lot of unique enemies and other npcs you will only encounter once in the game. You just gotta play the game more man. I'll give you a few That I've encountered: