[Gaming] Elder Scrolls 5 - Dawnguard is HERE!

[fade]

Okay, I've given this game a really good, patient run. The game is entertaining in spurts, but I can't really call it game of the decade or anything like that. I can't play more than an hour without getting bored to tears.

Pros:
- beautiful expansive world
- customizable classes
- sandbox

Cons:
- Bethesdaitis. Symptoms include a failure to absorb the player into the world. It never really feels like my character is actually there. It feels like
he or she is a disembodied separate thing. Which reminds me that I'm a player, not a character. Dialogue tone and wording from the PC are all over the place, ranging from svelte to thuggish. There's something with the way Bethesda does audio in their games that contributes to this as well. It's like it's all far away and floaty.
- Repetitive. I've played worse, but after 45 levels or so, it's kind of the same stuff over and over.
- No real sense of accomplishment. I think this goes with the Bethesdaitis, too, but it was significant enough to separate. I don't really feel like I'm accomplishing anything. It's like... you're the archmage--so flippin' what? It makes virtually zero difference to the game world. Theives guildmaster? Woopdeedoo. No one in the game gives a rats ass.
- All the characters are bad. I mean morally. Nearly everyone has some bad aspect to their characters. Tamriel is a crap world with no bright spots. I kind of feel like this is to make you feel better about gutting anyone you want. Want to join the Dark Brotherhood, but you're playing a "good" character? No problem! All the sack-heads are douches, and one of them is downright evil and practically begs you to kill him or he'll kill you. Etc, etc.
- Load times. It has gotten to the point where I'd rather just quit sometimes than wait for another freaking load screen.

 

[Hailey Knight]

a failure to absorb this individual player into the world.

Fixed.

Since you're labeling things Bethesdaitis, that suggests you're aware of what Bethesda games entail and that what you disliked is an aspect of them. Why did you think it would be any different? I can understand if someone was a fan and they ended up not caring for Skyrim (it has lots of freedom, but your choices in how to do quests are more limited than, for example, Fallout 3), but to dislike Bethesda games and then play a Bethesda game ... seems weird.

I say this from the perspective of someone who doesn't try too hard to force myself to like a game, regardless of how others feel about it. In my view, games are for fun and if I'm not having fun, I'm wasting my time. I'll give it the benefit of a doubt, but that benefit doesn't extend for 45 levels' worth. So I'm not sure why you beat your head against the wall, unless your perspective differs greatly from mine.

tldr: Ignore objective good or bad, sometimes a game just isn't for me, and that can be the case with you too. If Skyrim wasn't for you, why play so much of it?

 

[GasBandit]

What's really struck me about Skyrim is how much worse the bugs seem to have gotten. I played and beat the game back even before the first patch came out, and really I had very little trouble. I recently... acquired... the legendary edition, and the thing is rife with stuck loading screens, glitches, and sometimes outright crashes.

 

[Eriol]

What's really struck me about Skyrim is how much worse the bugs seem to have gotten. I played and beat the game back even before the first patch came out, and really I had very little trouble. I recently... acquired... the legendary edition, and the thing is rife with stuck loading screens, glitches, and sometimes outright crashes.

You obviously never played Daggerfall. Skyrim doesn't even compare.

 

[Ravenpoe]

What's really struck me about Skyrim is how much worse the bugs seem to have gotten. I played and beat the game back even before the first patch came out, and really I had very little trouble. I recently... acquired... the legendary edition, and the thing is rife with stuck loading screens, glitches, and sometimes outright crashes.

I've played tons and tons of skyrim and never had any problems. I've heard others, of course, that didn't. Maybe it's a specific hardware configuration that causes it?

 

[fade]

Fixed.

Since you're labeling things Bethesdaitis, that suggests you're aware of what Bethesda games entail and that what you disliked is an aspect of them. Why did you think it would be any different? I can understand if someone was a fan and they ended up not caring for Skyrim (it has lots of freedom, but your choices in how to do quests are more limited than, for example, Fallout 3), but to dislike Bethesda games and then play a Bethesda game ... seems weird.

I say this from the perspective of someone who doesn't try too hard to force myself to like a game, regardless of how others feel about it. In my view, games are for fun and if I'm not having fun, I'm wasting my time. I'll give it the benefit of a doubt, but that benefit doesn't extend for 45 levels' worth. So I'm not sure why you beat your head against the wall, unless your perspective differs greatly from mine.

tldr: Ignore objective good or bad, sometimes a game just isn't for me, and that can be the case with you too. If Skyrim wasn't for you, why play so much of it?

You don't need to "fix" it... the fact that it was an opinion was sort of implied by the fact that this post was, well, my opinion.

I think you've overinterpreted my post as some kind of hatred. Why must it be that I was beating my head against the wall? I did say the game was enjoyable in spurts. I didn't say I hated it, I just said I didn't think it lived up to the hype (which of course was my opinion). I also never said I disliked Bethesda games--I pointed out an aspect of them I don't like that is uniquely Bethesda. I thoroughly loved Fallout 3, but it still suffered from what I "affectionately" called Bethesdaitis. I certainly wouldn't have played for 45 levels if I hated it!

 

[Jay]

Yawn...

 

[ScytheRexx]

This thread back up here reminded me that I have both Dawnguard and Dragonborn and have not played either. All my mods I used getting messed up after my first playthrough made me have to start over, and for some reason I am just not really interested in that.

 

[Espy]

I think Fade is right with a lot of his critique. My favorite thing about Skyrim was when I was alone and exploring. The moment I entered a city things... changed. It just wasn't as "real" as the rest of the game. And don't even get me started on how nothing changes when you do huge things, you know, like SAVE THE WORLD.

But really, it's a great game, I can't wait to see what the next non-mmorperger game they make is like.

 

[Frank]

It's limited by it's near decade old engine. They better be working on something new.

 

[Hailey Knight]

I think Fade is right with a lot of his critique. My favorite thing about Skyrim was when I was alone and exploring. The moment I entered a city things... changed. It just wasn't as "real" as the rest of the game. And don't even get me started on how nothing changes when you do huge things, you know, like SAVE THE WORLD.

But really, it's a great game, I can't wait to see what the next non-mmorperger game they make is like.

Same; I loved exploring and that was the most fun. Lacking direction is the best part of Skyrim.

Thing is, I can't get that in a satisfying way in spurts, to the point that I don't play Skyrim unless I've got at least a 3-hour chunk.

 

[Gilgamesh]

I'll be 100% honest, without the mods that I used, I would have agreed with Fade on most parts and it definitely would have been a 3/5 star game for me.

With mods though? It's 5/5 10/10 perfection on the gaming experience.

 

[Frank]

Even with mods, the best of creative content mods, it's still limited by it's archaic ass game engine.

 

[Gilgamesh]

Even with mods, the best of creative content mods, it's still limited by it's archaic ass game engine.

I disagree. There are mods that fix pretty much all the complaints I've seen written here thus far.

 

[Necronic]

I don't see how you can blame much beyond graphics on the game engine.

Also yeah, you have to use mod's to really get the most out of a Bethesda game. Or any game really.

ed: Wait, how is it a decades old engine? http://www.pcgamer.com/2010/12/12/c...lls-v-skyrim-will-use-an-entirely-new-engine/

Is it just a rebranded old engine?

 

[Frank]

I don't see how you can blame much beyond graphics on the game engine.

Also yeah, you have to use mod's to really get the most out of a Bethesda game. Or any game really.

It also limits the set pieces. You can tell they want to do something epic, but you end up with the defending Whiterun section with 4 guys against the overwhelming enemy army of 6 dudes.

 

[Jay]

As much as I loved Skyrim and probably will play next year again with all the dlcs and remod the shit out of it with a new PC, the engine is weak and no matter the mods you use will make it perfect The creation engine was new but failed to be significantly better than the previous version in regards to reliability.

It's a Bethesda game and they are truly solid games, with suspect storylines but amazing world integration (nothing beats the feeling of adventuring in Fallout 3 and Skyrim in particular - though I agree with shitty NPC integration to the world). But their Q/A is probably amongst the weakest of the industry.

I long for a game where you're part of the world and react to it rather than the other way around as things remain static until you show up then repeat the same lines.

"you should join the mages guild"

"dude, I'm the fucking archmage."

 

[Gilgamesh]

@Frank - Funny, because I've used mods that create armies vs armies.

@Jay - Contradictory statement that no mods will fix the engine that is weak and then complain about the dialogue issues, when both are fixable through mods.

 

[GasBandit]

I don't see how you can blame much beyond graphics on the game engine.

Also yeah, you have to use mod's to really get the most out of a Bethesda game. Or any game really.

ed: Wait, how is it a decades old engine? http://www.pcgamer.com/2010/12/12/c...lls-v-skyrim-will-use-an-entirely-new-engine/

Is it just a rebranded old engine?

Yeah, despite claims that it will use an "entirely new" engine, it was just a modified Gamebryo engine with some customized code to extend it.

 

[Necronic]

Ah ok. Well I don't see a problem with a modified engine really. You could similarly argue that the Unreal engine is just an old modified engine.

Dont get me wrong, the engine has problems, but a lot of what I'm seeing here are adressed by mods. Mods for this game are incredible.

 

[GasBandit]

Ah ok. Well I don't see a problem with a modified engine really. You could similarly argue that the Unreal engine is just an old modified engine.

Dont get me wrong, the engine has problems, but a lot of what I'm seeing here are adressed by mods. Mods for this game are incredible.

The mods seem to exacerbate my problems. But it could be because I'm still playing on XP and running into the memory limit.

And yeah, Unreal Engine 3 IS 7 years old, and really showing its age.

 

[Frank]

You can have a mod that adds big army battles, but look in the comments, out of 5000 of them, half of them are people saying, "When I do this and this, my game crashes". It makes it unstable, very unstable, which is why Bethesda limited their big skirmishes in the first place.

 

[Necronic]

The mods seem to exacerbate my problems. But it could be because I'm still playing on XP and running into the memory limit.

You're definitely hitting your memory limit. I really wish people hadn't dogged Vista so much and refused to upgrade for so long, because while Vista had problems with drivers in the early days, XP is pretty much incapable of modern day gaming. 32 bit systems can't handle the memory for intense games, and XP 64 was always pretty terrible. Vista 64 >>>>>> XP 32 or XP 64 when it came to gaming.[DOUBLEPOST=1378749665,1378749574][/DOUBLEPOST]

You can have a mod that adds big army battles, but look in the comments, out of 5000 of them, half of them are people saying, "When I do this and this, my game crashes". It makes it unstable, very unstable, which is why Bethesda limited their big skirmishes in the first place.

In fairness large army battles simply don't fit in the TES gameplay style. I don't fault their engine for not being designed around it.

 

[Frank]

In fairness large army battles simply don't fit in the TES gameplay style. I don't fault their engine for not being designed around it.

It wouldn't be an issue if they didn't present scenarios in Skyrim that were begging to be large battles (like defending Whiterun, taking the cities, attacking forts).

Also, Bethesda needs to hire those guys that designed the combat for that first person Might and Magic game. It did combat so much better than any Elder Scrolls game (everything else was worse, generally).

 

[Gilgamesh]

You can have a mod that adds big army battles, but look in the comments, out of 5000 of them, half of them are people saying, "When I do this and this, my game crashes". It makes it unstable, very unstable, which is why Bethesda limited their big skirmishes in the first place.

Out of the 30,000 people that download it, and the 10,000 that download it, 5000 complain about crashes. Mostly due to their failure at knowing the proper procedure of modding.

I will agree that modding is more difficult than it should be, and Bethesda's Vanilla game should already count for this. I've already said that the Vanilla game is a 3/5 because of it's limitations, but saying that the game is limited even with the mods is simply not a matter of opinion of being wrong, it's just wrong. The engine is very much expandable.

@Ravenpoe - Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery <3

 

[Bubble181]

that first person Might and Magic game

I can think of at least 11 first person M&M games. Which one? Crusaders? Because that game was.....Ewww.

 

[Frank]

Dark Messiah.

 

[Jay]

Loved that game.

 

[Bowielee]

As much as I loved Skyrim and probably will play next year again with all the dlcs and remod the shit out of it with a new PC, the engine is weak and no matter the mods you use will make it perfect The creation engine was new but failed to be significantly better than the previous version in regards to reliability.

It's a Bethesda game and they are truly solid games, with suspect storylines but amazing world integration (nothing beats the feeling of adventuring in Fallout 3 and Skyrim in particular - though I agree with shitty NPC integration to the world). But their Q/A is probably amongst the weakest of the industry.

I long for a game where you're part of the world and react to it rather than the other way around as things remain static until you show up then repeat the same lines.

"you should join the mages guild"

"dude, I'm the fucking archmage."

I ran into a brick wall with the mages guild quest as a mage. When you have to beat that lich guy that does the ice cone spell. I just kept getting one shot by him even with my shield up and the staff that's supposed to drain his mana didn't seem to do much of anything.

Playing with a purely destruction mage was probably not the way to go though. That's always been one of my biggest issues with TES games, they have these huge curves on some of the monsters. I shouldn't be one shotting monsters all the way to the boss and then have the boss wipe the floor with me

 

[AshburnerX]

I ran into a brick wall with the mages guild quest as a mage. When you have to beat that lich guy that does the ice cone spell. I just kept getting one shot by him even with my shield up and the staff that's supposed to drain his mana didn't seem to do much of anything.

Playing with a purely destruction mage was probably not the way to go though. That's always been one of my biggest issues with TES games, they have these huge curves on some of the monsters. I shouldn't be one shotting monsters all the way to the boss and then have the boss wipe the floor with me

I feel like the "knock-down enemies when hit with a two-handed spell" perk is basically mandatory if you are going to play destruction mage, but it also makes the game incredibly easy.

 

[sixpackshaker]

I ran into a brick wall with the mages guild quest as a mage. When you have to beat that lich guy that does the ice cone spell. I just kept getting one shot by him even with my shield up and the staff that's supposed to drain his mana didn't seem to do much of anything.

Playing with a purely destruction mage was probably not the way to go though. That's always been one of my biggest issues with TES games, they have these huge curves on some of the monsters. I shouldn't be one shotting monsters all the way to the boss and then have the boss wipe the floor with me

Spoiler

You basically have to dual wield with a second staff to defeat him. Make him vulnerable, then blow through a fire ball staff. rinse and repeat.

 

[Bowielee]

I feel like the "knock-down enemies when hit with a two-handed spell" perk is basically mandatory if you are going to play destruction mage, but it also makes the game incredibly easy.

I have that perk, but it didn't really help in that fight, particularly because he has a ton of guards in there too.

The most I was able to get him down with was laying fire traps and summoning a fire elemental, but even then, his second form kicked my ass.

 

[Krisken]

Is Sneak/Silent Casting still obscenely overpowered? Oh, the days...

 

[Ravenpoe]

Is Sneak/Silent Casting still obscenely overpowered? Oh, the days...

Illusion magic is best magic. Why should I fight when I can make them fight amongst themselves?

 

[Gilgamesh]

Illusion magic is best magic. Why should I fight when I can make them fight amongst themselves?

That's pretty much true in any game with the option. I destroyed through Bioshock Infinite and nearly never used any vigor but Possession for example.