This aspect of this forum always reminds me of political forums and partisans, and I don't think that's a coincidence.

We all define ourselves in particular ways. Among the ways in which people define themselves is a reference to their support for an external organization or idea or pastime. It's a thing that they consider to be a mark of distinction - they are liberals or conservatives or Christians or atheists or otakus or juggalos or....... Bethesda fans. And since that allegiance serves as part of their self-perception, and they have the fundamental need to believe that they possess self-worth, they have to believe that that allegiance contributes to their self-worth. And the corollary to that is that any implication that the thing with which they've aligned themselves is in any way less deserving of their support than they believe it to be cannot be tolerated. That's the source of the often otherwise inexplicable hostility that you see here (and anywhere else where fans gather) at any criticism of the thing of which they are fans. Such criticism, since it undermines the purported value of the thing the fandom of which serves as a part of their self perception, is not simply an assault on the game or the developer, but on them personally. Since they derive some sense of their own value from associating themselves with the perceived value of the thing in question, anything that might serve to devalue the thing in question serves to devalue them.

And that's why they tend to respond to every single criticism, no matter what it might be, and respond to argue with it, no matter the logical contortions and flawed arguments they might have to rely on to do so. It's not really based on anolyzing something, coming to a conclusion, then expressing that conclusion, but instead on presuming the value of a thing first, investing themselves into a belief in that value, then defending their belief in that value. And they're so often hostile about it because, since they've invested themselves into that thing, they see any assault on the thing in question to be an assault on them personally. And they tend to grow increasingly hostile as they lose ground in an argument, simply because that brings them closer to the point at which they might have to reassess their own self-identification, and that's something they simply don't want to do.

Look up cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias for much more information on the dynamics of all of that.

To the specific question in the title of the thread - what it would take would vary from one person to another, but here's an odd thing about that - if Beth were to go beyond the point of whatever it would take to overcome the reflexive support of a particular fan, that fan would then become one of the harshest critics. It would be seen as a betrayal - here they've invested so much of themselves into supporting and defending Beth - into being there for them through thick and thin - and then Beth went and stabbed them in the back.

And in that context, one might look at the registration dates of many of the harshest critics here and wonder how they came to be so harsh in their criticisms............

And note - if one has defined oneself as a Beth critic - all of the above still tends to hold true, with the only difference being that it's the value and justification of being a Beth critic that must be defended at all costs. And that's why the ugliest battles are always between the "[censored]" and the "haters." Each side has an emotional investment in their view - each side has adopted that view as part of their self-identity - so each side takes it personally.

I'm not "not concerned" about the lore of The Elder Scrolls. I just think that this, in particular, is a particularly stupid piece of lore, inherited from D&D, that we're better of jettisoning anyway. I don't know how medieval European monks (which Tamriel's monks are clearly depicted as, with tonsures and habits) got conflated with one particular monastery in China that happened to use martial arts as a form of defense, but it's a bizarre equivocation that thoroughly bugs me. There's really no plausible reason for it in Tamriel.

@Faulgor Hopefully the E3 demo will turn you :teehee: and hopefully Bethesda learned from thier mistake with Oblivion. Does anyone remember if Todd showed features that didn't make it to the game in the Fallout 3 demo?

spellcasting while holding a shield and a weapon was lame and something for a Disney princess type of game. being able to create exploit spells and gear was also annoying because in a good game i shouldnt have to force my self NOT to do something so as not to ruin the game. ill miss attributes but to be honest i can live without them. my only concern is that if you decide to heavily invest in either magic or stamina that you dont become a power attack or spell machine gun with infinite ammo. im mad that they arent .

I like not having classes.

Perks will probably work out.

I'm hoping children will work out.

I'm hoping no attributes will work out.

I'm not happy about no hand to hand.

I'm not happy about no spears.

I'm pissed off about... nothing. So I'll still stand by Bethesda. Though, if they do something that really pisses me off... I'll go nuts.

@tes96: That's generally what most people mean. Though it's not just being made simpler because it was too complicated, they mean it's being made simpler even though it's not to complicated, just to please more casual gamers. I think that's a good definition for streamlining.

Oh, for the sake of Sanguine, Akatosh, Dibella and Azura. . . :rolleyes: :facepalm:

Do you realize that every time you enact a Thuum, or Dragon Shout, while holding a sword and shield, you are. . . wait for it. . . CASTING A SPELL WHILST HOLDING A SWORD AND SHIELD!!! So if that makes it Disney, get ready for Cinderella IV ( I won't get into how Disney's fairy tale movies are just their watered down takes on ancient stories that often included not only more sixual innuendo and violence, but also, at times, even more over the top magic).

And that foolish exploiting magic argument. .. It's called being a powerful Wizard!!! Being able to actually back up your claim of being a Master of powerful sorcery and Thaumaturgery ( a word which by definition means the working of MIRACLES) rather than having a title with no teeth and a batch of worthless stats that won't even allow you to hold your own against a goblin chieftan, because unless you are also either a health tank to rival any warrior since He-Man, or else a damned good tap dancer, you don't have a spell in your arsenal that is going to down him before he can down you.

I guess Dumbledore was exploiting the story and his abilities by defeating several Deatheaters with a single spell. Surely he should have realized that any spells that allow one wizard, no matter how talented, to defeat more than three other magicians at once, are clearly Overpowered. Someone should tell Darth Vader that effectively using the force against a dozen rebel commanders is a cheat. Except, wait a minute, isn't a powerful being SUPPOSED TO BE ABLE TO OVERPOWER PERSONS AND THINGS WHO ARE LESS POWERFUL THAN THEMSELVES??? And what the hell is the point of leveling in this type of RPG game if you are never going to become more powerful than the average bear, Bandit or Bosmer?????

You don't want to play a vastly powerful character? All the ES games offered you that option. For them to steal away the options of legions of other players in order to make it impossible for any player who wants to remain weak to ever become powerful due to a lack of self control on their part is offensively innane.

When they completely abandoned the lore out in the dustbin or when they removed the relativism of it. That's the deal breaker to me.

Not challenging your statement but when did they "abandon the lore out in the dustbin"

Not challenging your statement but when did they "abandon the lore out in the dustbin"

In my case, if I ever reach a point in an RPG where I am an all-powerful demi-god arch mage, or incredibly wealthy to the extent where I can easily afford the most expensive magic items in the land without a care in the world....

the game instantly becomes boring to me...

because I'm no longer progressing, no longer trying to accumulate wealth, no longer struggling to figure out how to beat tough enemies.

I have no problem with the concept of fixed leveling (no level scaling), especially because I like encountering really tough enemies at lower level, but there would still need to be some super badass enemies somewhere in the world that can still kick my ass at level 100.

And there would still need to be some outrageously expensive powerful magic items that I have to work hard to save up for.

What sense does it make putting H2H under one handed when using one hand weapons allow for another shield/spell in the other? Same for two handed which is two hands on one weapon...

Sure we will still be able to punch but it will be as it stands now from the info, useless as running and jumping was in Fallout3, not helpful, can't be improved or changed by the characters actions : training, and is there for aesthetics..