What Makes Skyrim Special?

Skullrattla said:

People have had to find and remove the actual audio file from the game to get rid...

Click to expand...

Okay, that really sucks, but that fix only works for PC...do consoles have the problem that bad?

Interesting note: Everyone I've ever met criticizes the hell out of Bethesda games (ES in particular) for being buggy garbage. I myself have only experienced three bugs or glitches in my entire time playing video games, and none of them were Bethesda titles.

I must be lucky. For the record, the games I found bugs in were Soul Reaver 2, Infamous, and co-op in Saint's Row 2. And none of them were game-breaking, I just had to kill myself in Saint's Row to get unstuck from inside a cliff. People who complain about bugs just confuse me.


Good about Skyrim:

- Visually amazing (Sidenote: If you play a game for graphics, I hate you. Chrono Trigger is timeless, dammit.)

- Great music/atmosphere

- Massive world with (hopefully) an equally massive amount of quests to play through

- Great replay value due to the massive world and open-ended questlines (You could finish a game without ever actually completing the game if you wanted to: There's nothing saying you HAVE to be the Dragonborn and defeat dragons )

- The Khajiit and Argonians actually look like felines and reptiles respectively, as opposed to disgusting deformities like some previous games.

- "Skyrim" sounds cool

- It's better than the garbage Fallout titles Bethesda released after stealing the franchise


Bad about Skyrim:

- Alleged bugginess

- Too many fans keep asking for an MMO

- I pickpocketed a sleeping woman as she was waking up and she stabbed me in the face

The atmosphere and spontaneous of the world itself. You can make a story out of just playing Skyrim naturally.

Sevrin said:

- Too many fans keep asking for an MMO

Click to expand...

Tell me about it, I really want to know what that's about...newbs.

I wasn't a fan of Fallout before Bethesda had it (not that I'm a fan of it now), so I'm not aware of that, I actually thought it was one of theirs and it was crap because they used it to test things for the next TES. For example, the killcams in Fallout were terrible and highly distracting, they even caused me to die sometimes because my character's being pounded to death and I'm stuck in a killcam that's taking for freaking ever. However, the killcams in Skyrim are perfect, they don't happen unless it's the last enemy nearby, and at that point you don't care about disorientation, you want something that makes the battle come to a close. Whenever any company takes over a series, it always kills it though.

Sevrin said:

- Visually amazing (Sidenote: If you play a game for graphics, I hate you. Chrono Trigger is timeless, dammit.)

Click to expand...

Couldn't be more right (though I've never played Chrono Trigger, but you're making me want to). As soon as Skyrim came out, people started making texture mods... Really? Texture mods? Really? Why not just play the game? People are so shallow, they started complaining about Skyrim textures before it was out...they didn't care about whether the game was good or not, just a bunch of whining about how the noses looked blocky. Who cares? Played Morrowind much? How about Arena or Daggerfall? Oh, and exactly how often do you see the front of your character? Or study the face that much of other NPC's?

I was trying to tell people when it was about to come out that I didn't care if it looked like Morrowind and played like an old Zelda game as long as it was a good game, but that just doesn't compute with most I guess: great aesthetics = great game somehow...oh well, can't please everyone, so one must always aim to please themselves. I suppose I get a little worked up over stuff like this though...

I enjoy the visuals, and I even enjoy the time that was put into placing objects where they should be to increase the overall look and feel, but a great game starts with a great story and is finalized by interesting and challenging gameplay...not visuals, that's an afterthought.

PurpleShew said:

I was so enthalled by my character I have literally written a story of who I play him as. The game takes me inside the story.

Click to expand...

My Breton has no name, he has a story.....lean closer and I'll tell you.

In my opinion, Skyrim is by far the most complete game of all times, and I'm not exaggerating. Not to talk about the mods which contribute to it's fun by 50%.

It could've been better though, for example one flaw is that almost all guards and most male characters have the same voice. I think it might be too much asking for the main character to be fully voiced considering the vast line of quests, but it would be a great improvement.

Don't get me wrong though, compared to other RPG game, Skyrim is superior many ways. It's like an other world.

I am sorry but I will have to get to work in about 5 years so I will not have the enough time to write all the things that makes Skyrim the most epic game I have played.

Train said:

Tell me about it, I really want to know what that's about...newbs.

I wasn't a fan of Fallout before Bethesda had it (not that I'm a fan of it now), so I'm not aware of that, I actually thought it was one of theirs and it was crap because they used it to test things for the next TES. For example, the killcams in Fallout were terrible and highly distracting, they even caused me to die sometimes because my character's being pounded to death and I'm stuck in a killcam that's taking for freaking ever. However, the killcams in Skyrim are perfect, they don't happen unless it's the last enemy nearby, and at that point you don't care about disorientation, you want something that makes the battle come to a close. Whenever any company takes over a series, it always kills it though.



Couldn't be more right (though I've never played Chrono Trigger, but you're making me want to). As soon as Skyrim came out, people started making texture mods... Really? Texture mods? Really? Why not just play the game? People are so shallow, they started complaining about Skyrim textures before it was out...they didn't care about whether the game was good or not, just a bunch of whining about how the noses looked blocky. Who cares? Played Morrowind much? How about Arena or Daggerfall? Oh, and exactly how often do you see the front of your character? Or study the face that much of other NPC's?

I was trying to tell people when it was about to come out that I didn't care if it looked like Morrowind and played like an old Zelda game as long as it was a good game, but that just doesn't compute with most I guess: great aesthetics = great game somehow...oh well, can't please everyone, so one must always aim to please themselves. I suppose I get a little worked up over stuff like this though...

I enjoy the visuals, and I even enjoy the time that was put into placing objects where they should be to increase the overall look and feel, but a great game starts with a great story and is finalized by interesting and challenging gameplay...not visuals, that's an afterthought.

Click to expand...

I'm not against MMOs. Most are meh and the popular one (WoW) is overrated but I bought the Star Wars one and I'll be buying TERA for its beautiful visuals and action-style combat. But Elder Scrolls just isn't MMO material. On the subject of people incessantly wanting things that won't ever happen though, Bethesda or Bioware should try their hand at Harry Potter. That series just begs for an RPG and all it gets is profit-milking drivel.



As for Fallout, it goes like this:

Before Bethesda: Post-apocalyptic tactical RPG with great writing.

After Bethesda: Post-apocalyptic generic FPS without the great writing. The only saving grace for it is the games can make for entertaining LPs...And Yes Man (an endgame NPC: Imagine Jim Carey in a robot, with a freakishly comedic cheerful optimism for murder and mayhem)

Before Bethesda snatched it, the guys running the show were making a third entry for the series. From what little survives about it, I can't help but think it would have been better.


I definitely suggest Chrono Trigger. Great game. Multiple endings. The Playstation version had anime-style cutscenes but there's just a certain nostalgic charm to the original scenes that it doesn't quite capture with those. It got a pretty good sequel in Chrono Cross (opinions vary on that) and a fanmade midquel (after Trigger, before Cross) that was sadly shut down by a Cease & Desist order when it was just about to be released (though it can still be found in a mostly-complete form on the internet).

I didn't play anything before Morrowind, barely played Morrowind, barely played Oblivion. For all intents and purposes, Skyrim is effectively my intro to the series. And I actually see my character's front a lot since I like to get pictures of him in various epic scenery.


Everyone obsesses over graphics when they should focus on the actual content. Unless the graphics are just unforgivably bad - Deus Ex and Thief come to mind with their terrible resolution (though mods can correct that these days and I was just playing Deus Ex a few minutes ago) - then I don't see a big problem.

Aesthetics, however, are key to a really great game. Aesthetics and graphics are two separate concepts. Skyrim manages to do both great but take something like...Well, Deus Ex again. Graphically, without today's high-res mods, it's just terribly aged. But the aesthetics were great. Graphics are basically the quality of the visuals while aesthetics are the atmosphere of the visuals. An unmodded Deus Ex looks like crap graphically but manages to excuse that by looking great aesthetically: It might be a crummy low-res dystopian future but it's still a convincing and immersive dystopian future. In a reverse of that, Skyrim could have its graphical brilliance and still fail miserably if it lacked the atmosphere to back the graphics. Take away the sun flare, the reflections of the water, the mountains and snowy expanses looming in the distance, the salmon in the streams, all these little touches. That's aesthetics. It can keep its great graphics but without all those little details, aesthetics would suffer a lot.

Sevrin said:

Aesthetics, however, are key to a really great game. Aesthetics and graphics are two separate concepts. Skyrim manages to do both great but take something like...Well, Deus Ex again. Graphically, without today's high-res mods, it's just terribly aged. But the aesthetics were great. Graphics are basically the quality of the visuals while aesthetics are the atmosphere of the visuals. An unmodded Deus Ex looks like crap graphically but manages to excuse that by looking great aesthetically: It might be a crummy low-res dystopian future but it's still a convincing and immersive dystopian future. In a reverse of that, Skyrim could have its graphical brilliance and still fail miserably if it lacked the atmosphere to back the graphics. Take away the sun flare, the reflections of the water, the mountains and snowy expanses looming in the distance, the salmon in the streams, all these little touches. That's aesthetics. It can keep its great graphics but without all those little details, aesthetics would suffer a lot.

Click to expand...

You actually made me look up the definition of aesthetics, lol. When I said aesthetics I was refering to the graphics and textures, not the feel, but now I see that's in error. The word applies more to ambience and feel than the quality, so yes, I agree, that's what makes a great game as well; if it doesn't feel like the world that you're supposed to be in, then it's not the world you're in.

The details are what makes a game great. When I saw the salmon for the first time in Skyrim I literally sat back in my chair stared at the screen slack jawed...then my head exploded.

Thanks for the backstory on Fallout, and I'll definately play some Chrono...that is, if I can ever find my way out of Skyrim.

I went back and played Daggerfall before Skyrim came out, I played Morrowind for just about two years when it first came out (my first experience with TES), played Oblivion for almost a year total (not as good as Morrowind, but I was burnt out with it so kept playing Oblivion), and so far Skyrim has proved to be the best in the series (though some would debate that and say Morrowind's still the best).

I haven't played the latest Deus Ex, but from the previous one I didn't mind the graphics at all...of course I've only recently even started paying attention to graphics period. Thief is a great series, I've only play Deadly Shadows, but the look and feel to that game was so awesomely epic. The part I hated the most was the asylum, the rest of the game was great, but that one part just freaked me out for some reason, and usually games aren't scary at all for me; I play stuff that scares my older brother sometimes, but the asylum in Deadly Shadows is just not cool, so they must have done a really good job with that...

Train said:

You actually made me look up the definition of aesthetics, lol. When I said aesthetics I was refering to the graphics and textures, not the feel, but now I see that's in error. The word applies more to ambience and feel than the quality, so yes, I agree, that's what makes a great game as well; if it doesn't feel like the world that you're supposed to be in, then it's not the world you're in.

The details are what makes a game great. When I saw the salmon for the first time in Skyrim I literally sat back in my chair stared at the screen slack jawed...then my head exploded.

Thanks for the backstory on Fallout, and I'll definately play some Chrono...that is, if I can ever find my way out of Skyrim.

I went back and played Daggerfall before Skyrim came out, I played Morrowind for just about two years when it first came out (my first experience with TES), played Oblivion for almost a year total (not as good as Morrowind, but I was burnt out with it so kept playing Oblivion), and so far Skyrim has proved to be the best in the series (though some would debate that and say Morrowind's still the best).

I haven't played the latest Deus Ex, but from the previous one I didn't mind the graphics at all...of course I've only recently even started paying attention to graphics period. Thief is a great series, I've only play Deadly Shadows, but the look and feel to that game was so awesomely epic. The part I hated the most was the asylum, the rest of the game was great, but that one part just freaked me out for some reason, and usually games aren't scary at all for me; I play stuff that scares my older brother sometimes, but the asylum in Deadly Shadows is just not cool, so they must have done a really good job with that...

Click to expand...

Most people seem to make that error. Worse still, upon being corrected, many deem graphics of greater priority in judging a game. Sad state of affairs, that. Good thing I already dislike people or it'd make me angry. XD

I've only recently started the first in the Deus Ex series so the original is what I was referring to. I'm a bit OCD when it comes to chronology. I still refuse to even touch The Darkness 2 until I complete its predecessor. I tried the first Thief game but its graphics are just legitimately too awful to look past for me and I can't seem to get the high-res mod working.

When I first saw the salmon (back on my now-scrapped Argonian), I had no time to stare. I had just killed a chicken and everyone in town was on a damn bloodhunt. I ran for about ten real-time minutes then headed back to find them immediately after me again. All this over a chicken. I then proceeded to make a racial stereotype joke about how everyone in Riverwood must secretly be black and immediately afterward wondered what Hell would be like when I got there.

I've yet to see any game match Skyrim in graphics and aesthetics. Some have equal graphics. Some have equal aesthetics. None have yet managed to equal both. I find it strange how some people can actually hate this series...

One of the things I love about this game is how many ways there are to play it. We all know you can make a million different characters bit I was talking to a friend who is also playing this game. We're both approaching level 50 so have been playing a while, and only just realized I've played through in first person view while he's played the whole game in third.

When I start a character I'll use 3rd person, it'll be like a whole new game!

Sprugly

I disagree with Train about Skyrim's combat action: IMO it sucks and is nowhere near as fun as Devil May Cry 4 ( an all-time favourite, any one of its bosses also better than Skyrim's) .

About bugs: I suppose the lower spec your system the more you'll get. I got lots of game -breaking bugs. Without having the console to get out of glitches and the internet to find solutions there is no chance I would have completed the main quest and would have probably deleted the game in a rage.

sprugly: Yeah, all the different ways of doing things really maximizes the replay value. I've always played TES in 3rd person, usually because I was too disoriented in 1st. In Oblivion I started to get more into 1st, and then finally in Skyrim I figured out my preference: I roam about the world in 3rd person, but then when battle starts I switch to 1st. I like the battles to feel as real as possible, and nothing feels more real than seeing a sword swinging right for your head and quickly blocking to defend yourself...it's all kinds of epic! Plus I have much better aim with all the weapons period.

Skullrattla: About bugs, I play 360 and hardly experience any, but I know why a lot of computer players do get bugs: A lot of it has to do with the hardware, not how expensive the hardware is, just what type and what brands. People that think ATI works for video games are always going to be in trouble period, you need Nvidia, specifically CUDA powered graphics cards. One day AMD will be out of business and we can all rest easy, but for now they're still running around raping people, it's disgusting . Just go Intel, it's safe and reliable. Still you have to worry about what components you're getting and stuff and whether it will work with the game. Build for a system that will play Skyrim with no bugs at High for around $1,000 (for Ultra just get another GTX 470, that should do it I think):

i7 980 quad core, compatible Gigabyte Motherboard, Nvidia GTX 470 or better (450 will work, but really?), high quality RAM and at least 2GB (I have 12, but that's not for gaming purposes ), 750-1000 watt power supply and a hard drive with a fairly high RPM. Now just put it in a cool case and you've beaten Alienware at their own game for half the price.

Some will argue with me about Gigabyte, but I'll hear none of it, it works and it's stable, which is more than I can say for some other brands. Side note: never, ever, ever, ever, never, ever, neverever overclock any component...no matter what these people say, just don't do it, you'll thank me later.

Back to talking about games and Skyrim:

...dude, DMC4 is cool, but at the end of the day it's a button masher... I have never mashed a button in Skyrim, every move is calculated precisely. When fighting I have to decide so many things in such a rapid succession just to stay alive...no time for frenzied movements, that just gets me killed. I understand some people can play button mashers without mashing buttons, but I'm not one of them . Like I said, I'm not a major fan of hack and slash games, but I liked DMC. Opinion and preference.

As for bosses...I don't care for bossy games. The battle at the end of Skyrim against Alduin is almost too bossy for me, just the regular dragon battles are borderline bossy, but since they don't have repeated patterns it keeps it from being annoying. Again, some people like bossy games, I'm just not one of them, had my fair share of them as a kid: Zelda, Star Fox, all side scrollers, in fact, just about every game that was made 15-20 years ago was so very bossy. When they finally stopped making bossy games and I played something that wasn't like that, my mind exploded, I couldn't believe that I didn't have to study a pattern anymore and do the same thing over and over until it finally died... With a bossy game, I always wondered why the boss didn't just kill me...it's not like I could stop it if it just decided to not repeat its pattern and just end it...no brain I guess.

Edit: oh dear, what have I done, I used 5 smilies in that post...

Okay, finished the article and asked the mods if they wanted to post it. I only talked about the two things in my original, sound and scenery, but will try to do seperate articles for the rest if people like the theme.

Oh, and no, you can't see it, you all will just have to wait until it gets posted as an article. If it doesn't get posted then I'll put it up here, but for now I don't want to ruin its debut.

Why the ATI/AMD hate? I've been AMD/ATI since 1997 and have had hardly any game breaking issues. Guess I've just been lucky!. But in all seriousness, i've seen equal problems with PCs whether it is AMD/Intel or ATI/Nvidia. (yes i know that ati and amd are the same company now). With the multitude of computer manufacturers out there you are going to have issues at some point and time with compatibility.

Oh and you do know that the Xbox is powered by the ATI Xenos GPU right and the PS3 is powered by the Nvidia RSX?

What makes Skyrim amazing for me is the music. Seriously every time I'm in Whiterun or in the wilds, I like to pause the game just to listen to the music that plays during certain areas.

enfiniti said:

Why the ATI/AMD hate?

Click to expand...

Not quite a zombie thread, but maybe a partially undead one, lol...

Honestly, this debate is kinda' old, and generally Intel wins:

Debate: AMD vs. Intel: Who makes the better processor? - Helium
What exactly makes Intel processors better than AMD? : buildapc
Can AMD Ever Beat Intel? | PCWorld

Here's someone that actually likes AMD, but it seems like that's just for the price, when money isn't a big issue, go Intel.
AMD Vs Intel for Gaming

enfiniti said:

Oh and you do know that the Xbox is powered by the ATI Xenos GPU right and the PS3 is powered by the Nvidia RSX?

Click to expand...

I did not know that, but I also know that while consoles are extremely similar to regular comps, consoles do vary as far as how the tech works. Basically, if you don't go Nvidia for computers, you end up like this poor fellow:
CUDA on AMD Radeon? - NVIDIA Forums

I'm not sure how consoles work in terms of software, so they may be coded differently, but for the most part, regular computer games thrive with CUDA power. Sometime soon we might not even have processors anymore, since they're slowing us down.

A Few Definitions : Nvidia's CUDA: The End of the CPU?

You know how sometimes those really badass machines can render lots of stuff that would crash the average PC...well, that's the power of CUDA love.


Booyakasha!

Oh, and enfiniti don't mind me, I can be an a** sometimes, I don't mean anything by it, I just like to end these types of debates before they start since they're kinda' pointless, I'll never convince you unless you want to be convinced.

Not that I need convincing, I've just been an AMD man for nearly 20 years now. I have used both intel and amd builds. I build my own PCs, assembled my first when i was 6. I just prefer AMD over intel because I find the performance to be comparable, if not equal, and the price point a whole lot better. Like you said the debate between intel vs amd or nvidia vs ati is old and it all depends on what side of the fence you are standing on. Personally, I prefer AMD(ATI) and any issues I've had with AMD(ATI) I've been able to fix easily. On these points we will agree to disagree.

Interesting, I've been building PC's for at least 14 years, started when I was ten, but after some trial and error I found that Intel was indeed better. Yes, I do agree that we disagree, and let it settle with that.