And less skills don't equal more fun. What skills do mean is specialisation and personalisation; where you build a character who is entirely unique to the next you create, which enhances the role playing. Now good design is making sure these skills are all meaningful in this context, and you want to cut down which are not -indeed your point is absolutely spot on. However on the flip side we have Oblivion, a game where skills and specialisation was almost worthless when the player was capable of absolutely everything, and other specialisations were absolutely useless; all in the name making sure the payer 'didn't miss out on anything' when playing the game. Add in the dumb as bricks plot, the impressively bland and dull game world, wonky combat (which was focused on massively) and quest design spanning from some of the worst in any role playing game to genuinely inventive - and I'd say that gamers aren't in the wrong position at all of questioning and scrutinising Bethesda. Now this cutting down for Skyrim could be better, who knows, what I do think is that the game will have far more direction and purpose than its plodding sibling Olbivion which didn't do particularly anything well at all; despite clearly wanting to be more of an action oriented hack and slash RPG in an open world. If Skyrim does that well then I'd be more than happy.More skills DO NOT equal more fun! I would rather have 18 skills that are unique and fun and useful to play with than a 100 "skills" that are all useless and serve no purpose....
I wish more people would realise this.
ShadowMoses900
Why do oblivion haters believe that Skyrim will be GOTY?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]And less skills don't equal more fun. What skills do mean is specialisation and personalisation; where you build a character who is entirely unique to the next you create, which enhances the role playing. Now good design is making sure these skills are all meaningful in this context, and you want to cut down which are not -indeed your point is absolutely spot on. However on the flip side we have Oblivion, a game where skills and specialisation was almost worthless when the player was capable of absolutely everything, and other specialisations were absolutely useless; all in the name making sure the payer 'didn't miss out on anything' when playing the game. Add in the dumb as bricks plot, the impressively bland and dull game world, wonky combat (which was focused on massively) and quest design spanning from some of the worst in any role playing game to genuinely inventive - and I'd say that gamers aren't in the wrong position at all of questioning and scrutinising Bethesda. Now this cutting down for Skyrim could be better, who knows, what I do think is that the game will have far more direction and purpose than its plodding sibling Olbivion which didn't do particularly anything well at all; despite clearly wanting to be more of an action oriented hack and slash RPG in an open world. If Skyrim does that well then I'd be more than happy.More skills DO NOT equal more fun! I would rather have 18 skills that are unique and fun and useful to play with than a 100 "skills" that are all useless and serve no purpose....
I wish more people would realise this.
skrat_01
lol like I said go play daggerfall and get back to me, you'll agree 100% that the transition is better.
Honestly I think people who want 100 different skills have borderline OCD and just want to manage things in a menu. The trick is to have skills that are fun a unique to play with, so what Skyrim has less "skills" than Oblivion. If those skills are ACTUALLY fun to play with than it's a good thing, it's not getting "dumbed down" it's simply "trimming off the fat" so to speak. I think having 100 usless skills "dumbes down" a game.
There is no point to having a "specialty" if your specialty is useless.
And less skills don't equal more fun. What skills do mean is specialisation and personalisation; where you build a character who is entirely unique to the next you create, which enhances the role playing. Now good design is making sure these skills are all meaningful in this context, and you want to cut down which are not -indeed your point is absolutely spot on. However on the flip side we have Oblivion, a game where skills and specialisation was almost worthless when the player was capable of absolutely everything, and other specialisations were absolutely useless; all in the name making sure the payer 'didn't miss out on anything' when playing the game. Add in the dumb as bricks plot, the impressively bland and dull game world, wonky combat (which was focused on massively) and quest design spanning from some of the worst in any role playing game to genuinely inventive - and I'd say that gamers aren't in the wrong position at all of questioning and scrutinising Bethesda. Now this cutting down for Skyrim could be better, who knows, what I do think is that the game will have far more direction and purpose than its plodding sibling Olbivion which didn't do particularly anything well at all; despite clearly wanting to be more of an action oriented hack and slash RPG in an open world. If Skyrim does that well then I'd be more than happy.[QUOTE="skrat_01"][QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]
More skills DO NOT equal more fun! I would rather have 18 skills that are unique and fun and useful to play with than a 100 "skills" that are all useless and serve no purpose....
I wish more people would realise this.
ShadowMoses900
lol like I said go play daggerfall and get back to me, you'll agree 100% that the transition is better.
Honestly I think people who want 100 different skills have borderline OCD and just want to manage things in a menu. The trick is to have skills that are fun a unique to play with, so what Skyrim has less "skills" than Oblivion. If those skills are ACTUALLY fun to play with than it's a good thing, it's not getting "dumbed down" it's simply "trimming off the fat" so to speak. I think having 100 usless skills "dumbes down" a game.
There is no point to having a "specialty" if your specialty is useless.
I agree with you 100%. People are focusing too much on meaningless stats that really serve no purpose. Bethesda should be focusing more on making those skills actually worth using within the game world.
And less skills don't equal more fun. What skills do mean is specialisation and personalisation; where you build a character who is entirely unique to the next you create, which enhances the role playing. Now good design is making sure these skills are all meaningful in this context, and you want to cut down which are not -indeed your point is absolutely spot on. However on the flip side we have Oblivion, a game where skills and specialisation was almost worthless when the player was capable of absolutely everything, and other specialisations were absolutely useless; all in the name making sure the payer 'didn't miss out on anything' when playing the game. Add in the dumb as bricks plot, the impressively bland and dull game world, wonky combat (which was focused on massively) and quest design spanning from some of the worst in any role playing game to genuinely inventive - and I'd say that gamers aren't in the wrong position at all of questioning and scrutinising Bethesda. Now this cutting down for Skyrim could be better, who knows, what I do think is that the game will have far more direction and purpose than its plodding sibling Olbivion which didn't do particularly anything well at all; despite clearly wanting to be more of an action oriented hack and slash RPG in an open world. If Skyrim does that well then I'd be more than happy.[QUOTE="skrat_01"][QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]
More skills DO NOT equal more fun! I would rather have 18 skills that are unique and fun and useful to play with than a 100 "skills" that are all useless and serve no purpose....
I wish more people would realise this.
ShadowMoses900
lol like I said go play daggerfall and get back to me, you'll agree 100% that the transition is better.
Honestly I think people who want 100 different skills have borderline OCD and just want to manage things in a menu. The trick is to have skills that are fun a unique to play with, so what Skyrim has less "skills" than Oblivion. If those skills are ACTUALLY fun to play with than it's a good thing, it's not getting "dumbed down" it's simply "trimming off the fat" so to speak. I think having 100 usless skills "dumbes down" a game.
There is no point to having a "specialty" if your specialty is useless.
It is called roleplaying, if we want to specialise in a less useful skill. Let us. The fun part of roleplaying games is not to create a character who is as strong as he could ever be, but rather to create a role with his own distinct advantages and disadvantages. Removing skills weakens a very large part of what makes RPGs rpgs. Playing as a character with more disadvantages can in many cases be a lot more interesting than one with many advantages. Take the shepherd class in Ultima 4 or females in Mount and Blade.
And I really hate the the spell sucks so lets remove it mentality devs have. How about buffing them, making them more useful. You could probably do all sorts of cool stuff with Mysticism.
And less skills don't equal more fun. What skills do mean is specialisation and personalisation; where you build a character who is entirely unique to the next you create, which enhances the role playing. Now good design is making sure these skills are all meaningful in this context, and you want to cut down which are not -indeed your point is absolutely spot on. However on the flip side we have Oblivion, a game where skills and specialisation was almost worthless when the player was capable of absolutely everything, and other specialisations were absolutely useless; all in the name making sure the payer 'didn't miss out on anything' when playing the game. Add in the dumb as bricks plot, the impressively bland and dull game world, wonky combat (which was focused on massively) and quest design spanning from some of the worst in any role playing game to genuinely inventive - and I'd say that gamers aren't in the wrong position at all of questioning and scrutinising Bethesda. Now this cutting down for Skyrim could be better, who knows, what I do think is that the game will have far more direction and purpose than its plodding sibling Olbivion which didn't do particularly anything well at all; despite clearly wanting to be more of an action oriented hack and slash RPG in an open world. If Skyrim does that well then I'd be more than happy.[QUOTE="skrat_01"][QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]
More skills DO NOT equal more fun! I would rather have 18 skills that are unique and fun and useful to play with than a 100 "skills" that are all useless and serve no purpose....
I wish more people would realise this.
ShadowMoses900
lol like I said go play daggerfall and get back to me, you'll agree 100% that the transition is better.
Honestly I think people who want 100 different skills have borderline OCD and just want to manage things in a menu. The trick is to have skills that are fun a unique to play with, so what Skyrim has less "skills" than Oblivion. If those skills are ACTUALLY fun to play with than it's a good thing, it's not getting "dumbed down" it's simply "trimming off the fat" so to speak. I think having 100 usless skills "dumbes down" a game.
There is no point to having a "specialty" if your specialty is useless.
No. Keep in mind the year audience and context of those releases. Daggerfall being a far, far older game was pitched at an RPG savvy audience, one who would be familiar with games like Ultima, Oblivion was aimed squarely at an audience completely unfamiliar with role playing games; Morrowind was far more of an in between. Otherwise no you're wrong. People want variety as form of expression - personalisation, in problem solving and building themselves an experience that is unique to them - that's the bread and butter of role playing games. Again fun is a *horrible* term to throw around in any debate because it's an entirely subjective notion; neither equals more 'fun'. Again as I said it's a matter of having meaningful skillsets that fit a role and have purpose than those that are useless. If you read my post again I state Oblivion had a good deal of useless skillsets that undermined personalisation and player choice entirely, especially when factoring in how every player was a 'generalist' by nature, who could specialise in every area in a single playthrough; which is why I stated Skyrim's changing could very well be for the benefit of itself. Which is why my whole previous post is had already addressed what I'm quoting right now.... Seriously re-read it. Again 'trimming the fat' doesn't mean its good, and doesn't mean its being dumbed down, it's silly to assume either way. Remember this - it's about the context of what those skills exist in and the experience the developer in indenting to deliver. Take Deus Ex HR. While the game lacks 'skills' entirely - having its augmentation system instead, it is heavily bent on those abilities there to support types of ways to play the game, and give the player more options. That breadth of abilities for the player unlocks makes the experience of choice and accomplishing challenges far more personal than a game that has *less* options in accomplishing challenges, and doesn't have specialisation. I'm not saying Skyrim is 'dumbed down' at all, as I said cutting down is probably for the best as Oblivion was a misdirected game entirely, while I'm repeating myself yeah, checkout my previous points.Depends on the context and implementation of them. In Oblivion a massive array of skills were useless in the broad context of the game - that undermined the player choice involved, the role playing systems and mechanics and the illusion of a 'deep' and 'complex' role playing game. Instead it was all surface based and the game was worse for it. Now cutting those down to less doesn't mean a better game at all - more often than not it means less player choice, and less personalisation especially in an open ended game bent on role playing. What you want rather is meaninful skillsets that reflect and expand on the *core pillars of gameplay* in your game design. If it's an action RPG well you want to have skillsets centric to combat; you might have subsets of sneaking and conversation so you can allocate skils into these areas, magic so on and so fourth. However if you want players to feel like an individual in the world then you have to make your skills *count for something* and be attached to the player character. The skills that you have earned have to serve a purpose and stand out to the next - otherwise when you're trying to encourage players to have their own unique experience, your game system completely undermines that. Take Demon's Souls, that's a game that did specialisation and statistics for most of the part absolutely outstandingly within the context of its action RPG game design.I agree with you 100%. People are focusing too much on meaningless stats that really serve no purpose. Bethesda should be focusing more on making those skills actually worth using within the game world.
Gibsonsg527
[QUOTE="DarkLink77"]This exactly. As far as I can tell Skyrim will be properly bent on being more of an action open world game then RPG, so we might have something with more direction then that mess that did absolutely nothing well - Oblivion. Unfortunately. I mean, there's a lot of cool stuff in it (DRAGONS! :D) but so far, all I'm seeing is a lot of flash and more of the things that made Oblivion a chore to play.Because they've been drinking the Kool-Aid Bethesda is handing out.
The fact that the studio hasn't developed a good game since Morrowind is beside the point. It's all about hype.
skrat_01
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment