No, I won't. I'm just not expecting Skyrim to be more unique than the Shivering Isles. I'm expecting to love TES V, I just don't expect anything specific. If I can't be disappointed, than I can play TES V without comparing it to previous games. If I don't compare it to previous games, I won't be criticizing TES V for not being like previous games. Are Morrowind fans who are disappointed with Oblivion disappointed with it because they expected specific things of it, or because they had no expectations? By having no expectations, I can actually play TES V instead of complain about how it isn't like previous games. Of course I'm expecting to like TES V more than Shivering Isles. Shivering Isles is just an expansion. It has a great setting, but little to do. Also I can't complete the main quest of the Shivering Isles with my favorite character, a knight who worships the Nine, for role-playing purposes. Shivering Isles is unique, but it doesn't cater to my favorite type of character. I'm assuming there will be a greater focus on Aedric beings in TES V than there is in Oblivion, and that is what I want. Is that a realistic expectation?


Also, I don't have a problem with people liking Morrowind more, but when people claim it is a non-canon, casual game for action junkies, I get upset.

It's not required for the environment to be amazing in order for the general setting to be interesting, nor does a unique environment necessarily create an interesting atmosphere. Morrowind had more geographical variety than Oblivion, but for the most part it was not really exotic. Giant mushrooms were about the most unusual thing, and once I was used to them I didn't look at them as much more than funny-looking trees. Heck, your average Mario game has an environment far more unique and bizarre than Shivering Isles (pardon me while I shoot out of a giant mystery pipe and land on a cloud with eyes), but those games focus on gameplay and pay little to no attention to the lore or setting. No one complains about how boring and cliche TES is compared to Super Mario. Skyrim can easily be as interesting as Shivering Isles, I think; they just have to do a good job of it.

Well, in an interview back in January, Todd (or Peter) said that one of the things they wanted to bring back was the detailed culture that was in Morrowind.


http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?/topic/649962-shivering-isles-fan-interview/

Point "not-snipped:" I know you're making a joke, I feel compelled to say it, Arena was like proto-lore and isn't considered the definition of the lore because the things that came after were more interesting, Vvardenfell from Morrowind is cooler than Vvardenfell from Arena. The difference being Oblivion's Cyrodiil wasn't as cool or interesting as the one described in books found in the previous games (or, hilariously, the same book as it appears in Oblivion).

As for the snipped point, with the whole criticisms thing, I also agree that it's right to be criticized but not right to declare it non-canon because whoever doesn't like it as much as older ones. It's kind of the same issue with the book now, whether or not people like it, or even just the execution of it, the events in it still would have happened.

I also agree that it isn't a piece of trash, despite my "ooh, edjy" joke about RPGs a few pages ago. I mean, it is a great sandbox and all that, but the criticism I have is that you can experience 100% of what the sandbox has to offer in any individual playthrough, and it's never any different. Oh sure, you can experience more or less of it, but no two playthroughs can have you do the same quest or questline differently. One example:

You want to RP a "good" character. Instead of having relatively good and bad ways to complete the quests, you do the Main Quest, KotN, the Fighter's Guild and the Mages Guild. To be "evil," you do the theives guild and dark brotherhood, the latter of which contains within it the slaughter of your sanctuary as the only means of continuing. Jumping back a few years to Morrowind, in the Fighter's Guild there is two seperate quest paths, in the Mages Guild there is a violent and noviolent way to rise to Arch-Mage, there are violent and non-violent ways to resolve many quests, etc. The latter is Role Playing, the former is not (at least not as much).


I think they can top themselves with Skyrim. First, even if Cyrodiil had been lore-OK Nibeneans at least are just Altmer-lite. So this would be the first primarily human province since the lore as we know it was codified, and if the Aldudugga is anything to go by it'll be awesome in it's Nordic equivalent to the fleshing out Morrowind and the Dunmer received in TESIII.

I also agree that Cyrodiil had the highest potential, but that's basically all "should-haves, what-ifs and if-onlys" now. We just need to hope the vast potential of the other provinces is fulfilled.


Point A: It was Todd in the Kotaku interview, I believe, linked in the "when and if" thread.

Point B: Nice, I forgot about the interview.

QFT

And i would personaly much prefer a Bloodmoon like scenery over a Shivering Isles scenery... not that i expect a game in Skyrim to be just another Bloodmoon.

Cirodyll is cannon, but too small to be center of an empire. Its does feel smaller than Vivec. And the province. is not cannon, it has absolutely nothing to do with previous descriptions found in easrlyer games.
AS for action junkie, unfortunatly it is, were the skill not so scrapped off combat equation that they are meaningless, it wouldn t. But as it is (without mod) its just what you don t like people says.
No lore, No plot, Hand held gameplay, no witts, no choices, no challenge.
I understand you get upset, but truth is what upset people most. People always get biffier when someone splash the icy truth on their faces. Well i know i do, because against the truth you are helpless.

too bad he decided to stop when they had only the console version completed then.



ah, the key to a great game, but which i suspect will not be applied to TES 5.
but who knows, maybe Todd "Fantasy for me is a knight riding around on a horse and killing things" Howard will have been sacked from development by then and a good game can be made.

You believe Todd Howard is in the way of a good game? And what's wrong with knights riding around on horses killing things?

need to read the whole quote mang.

and i dunno, he is "kinda" influential in game design.

also, if you think fantasy is about that you should atleast HAVE mounted combat available in your games then.



ah, i see.

They kinda failed to deliver on that didn't they?

yeah, his been "kinda" influential with morrowind as well, the most deviant game from the stereotyped horse riding knight. Pretty sure he was "kinda" influental in daggerfall too.



I think fantasy is a lot of things, I'm guess todd does to, but if you have to distill it down than I guess you can pretty much call it riding around killing things as a knight, the fact that typical fantasy is about knights, sorcerers and/or dragons, but not confined to that only.



I'm very interested in what exactly it is you can see from that.

Nothing about it, but maybe your game then is "Mount and blade". I suppose we dont wan t TES V being a mount and blade generic.
Well, at least i don t.

Yeahhe is so influent that he sacked morrowind design staff during oblivion development, if i am not mistaken.
And we got what we got.

Maybe like me he is very scekpical about Xbox public.
Maybe like me he recognise like me that the downfall of PC games is in good part due to "consolization".

But maybe not. Maybe its just me.

The province of Cyrodiil is canon because Bethesda made it the way it is. No, Oblivion is not an action junkie's game.
1. There is a plot, but I never care for the plot in any Elder Scrolls game. That's not what Elder Scrolls games are about. The Final Fantasy series easily has much better plots than TES series, but it lacks what TES series provides, freedom.
2. There is lore. When one is new to the series, all lore in Oblivion is new to them.
3. Hand-held gameplay? I'll agree with that one, except nothing prepares a person for a level 40 goblin warlord.
4. Morrowind had only a few more choices than Oblivion. In Oblivion, there are choices. One must choose what they want to be and what they want to do. There are more choices in Oblivion than there are in most other games. The game isn't a linear, point A to point B game. There are choices, and when someone actually role-plays, they have to make choices.
5. No challenge? Level-scaling would like to disagree with you. It doesn't make things easier for me, it makes them harder. Again, I will refer to a level 40 goblin warlord. Go fight one, or two(at one time) and continue saying "no challenge". At least in Morrowind, I could level up like I do in any other RPG, by killing more enemies weaker than me. I could actually get to a point where I am easily a killing machine in Morrowind. In Oblivion, that is not the case. As soon as I level up, some new, powerful creature starts spawning, or existing creatures get more difficult. Goblins always become more powerful.

You claim to speak the truth, but what you claim are the typical criticisms of someone who can't get over Morrowind's greatness. Oblivion has its flaws, but it is canon and it is not a game for action junkies. Final Fantasy XII's combat is more fun than Oblivion's. Oblivion's combat isn't fun and it doesn't cater to action junkies. Against the truth, no one is helpless. Both sides of this argument are still arguing. Which side is truthful? Why is your opinion an absolute truth? If what you speak is really the truth and I am actually helpless, then why can I still defend Oblivion?

Be careful assuming you know the truth, especially when you force it on others.

So that somehow means he had nothing to do with Morrowind, or it's DLC, or daggerfall?



Killing people from a silt strider actually sounds pretty fun. Mounted combat sounds like fun, at least I see no reason why I should not be able to do it. It wasn't in Oblivion, so I'm not sure what the quote actually has to do with anything. Daggerfall already had the Horses, so mounted combat doesn't really sound like such a stretch. You seem to think the world ends if it would come to that.



the same way white pride is skeptical about black people? I'm just trying to find out what exactly he or you think you can see from the fact that I have an xbox and play Oblivion and morrowind on it.

Haaaa but it is my truth, truth is always relative anyway. If not clear what i said about oblivion is how i see it compared to MW.

Yes and no, one thing is giving free reign, another is firing for moneys sake, because you want to dumb down your product believing it will apply to a broader audience.


The only way you could kill people on the back of a silk strider is with long range. Don t you remember the size of those ?
I dont have anything agaisnt horse combat. I just hope it got robbed the first dungeon you enter, or will you pocket it ? will you feed it ? Will the AI be able to kill it it as mean of self defense or mainly an attack trying to prejudice you ? (Which is the most logical way to defend itself from a mounted attacker) like, cutting its front legs ? Or fill it with arrows ? Will you damage yourself if it falls under you at full speed ? Its not a question of having it or not. Althought it would be nice if included, i dont think its worth the work to do it right. There are other games specializing in it. There are easyer ways to make the game more interesting and appealing.



Nothng to it, its just empirical observation.
1) Consolers complained about Morrowind control complexity -> We got a dumbed down game, we lost control over keys because of joypads.
2) Consolers complained about history complexity, being unclear -> We got a dumbed down " I am quake marine i will save the world" story from the moment one.
3) Consolers complained about combat -> We got a combat system more animated (thumbs up) where PC skills are irrelevent (awesomely patetic for a RPG) and finger skills is paramount over anything else.
4) Consolers complained about ineficient weaponry -> They got removed instead of left or reworked. Because consolers aren t (or weren t) used to RPG just ARPG mostly anime. We got a game much more near a SFPS than RPG.
5) Consolers complained about skills -> we got a decrease in skills, and the absurdly pathetic minigames because consolers being used to ARPG weren t willing to invest in secondary skills, all goes to mighty combat.
6) Consoles have fewer options than PC has, althought this may have changed a bit, this STILL limit game possibilities. AS console is becoming (has become)proeminent target market, we see a great decrease in games complexity and mind appeal.
7) Consolers complained about too much missions being lost to it -> We got an empty world full of meaningless, no side plots, no subplots, no important discoveries, just hack and slash dungeons filled with weapoonry and gold, exactly as most Japonese ARPG, prevailing in console games, i don t want to play Diablo on FP, i don t think it is hard to see the paralelism on Oblivion and D2 for example. When you start to look that way you see how low oblivion got compared to Morrowind.
I could go on, but i think you can get my point, It may still be elitist, but those are facts. Anyway Bethesda is no exception, the whole market is going down that drain. Hell!! Even D1 had more lore than D2 !!! Mass Effect 2 is a pale game compared to Mass Effect 1, in RPG term of course.

Ah, so when you said the truth, you actually meant comepletely subjective opinion, well it's good we got that established. This also makes your other post make more sense. You should just have said that instead of trying to pass it off as the actual truth.

+ 100 :thumbsup:

As far as i dont give facts you can consider like that.

Character stats mainly determine success or failure when playing a roleplaying game; player skill mainly determines success or failure when playing a first-person shooter. Kovacius made the point that Morrowind employed a primarily roleplaying mechanic (character stats); Oblivion employed a primarily first-person shooter mechanic (player skill).

I think Kovacius overstates the case when he says that newer Oblivion fans are mostly hack and slash players, but it's undeniable that we have more than we used to. Over the years I've encountered more and more forum posters saying that they have never roleplayed or that they are thinking about roleplaying for the first time. Worse, there are posters on these forums who will ridicule you for roleplaying. We didn't used to have much of that before Oblivion.

that explains alot too, but basically i was wondering why i had to explain that to you, but then i noticed XBOX and i knew why.

but i will add this too since white pride came up on the menu.

http://i40.tinypic.com/sv2f4w.jpg

I'd like to take the opportunity to point some things out to those who feel Todd Howard is equivalent to Bethesda creating soul-less control-twitching simplified games.

Todd Howard was lead designer and one of the original concept-drafters for Morrowind. Head honcho. Caller of shots. Maker of decisions. Would you say that Todd's leading influence in that game ruined it?
Also, a huge portion of the people who worked there for Daggerfall and Morrowind are still working there now. Those that aren't either still work on commission (MK) or they left of their own volition for other things (Rolston, Tedders). There were no mass firings, and if anyone wishes to assert otherwise, then they need to provide some evidence for it.

Yes, there was indeed a fundamental shift in design mentality at Bethesda after Morrowind's release. And there will likely be another fundamental shift as time goes on. Whether it be for better of for worse is impossible to say. And while Todd does indeed hold claim to his "fantasy" quote, it does not mean he is incapable of reverting to the design mentalities he held previously, nor that Todd has forever been and forever will be the corrupter of the Elder Scrolls universe.

Give the man credit where his credit is due.