151 réponses à ce sujet

[EpicBoot2daFace]

XX-Pyro wrote...

Enigmatick wrote...

XX-Pyro wrote...

David7204 wrote...

This is not a non-issue. A well written quest that the player has no real choice in starting does not force the player to do to do something completely stupid to finish it. Poor writing is not justifed just because it's optional. 

It's also not poor writing because you think it's stupid, but like I said in my edit we'll have to agree to disagree 

It's definitely poor writing when a misguided child gives me a quest to assainate a grumpy old woman and my only two options are "Kill the woman so The Dark Brotherhood questline begins" or "stick your head in the sand and pretend that you never met the brat".

If presented with the option in real life (or heck in the game itself,) the logical options would be;

Do as he says.
Ignore him.
Report him to the authorities. <--- This would have made the quest better.

I don't see how it's poor writing not always giving a "good" choice though, I guess some people just like binary situations.

Also, taking quests out of the journal wouldn't have been a bad feature (in fact I'd welcome it), but by no means does it ruin the game or make it bad by not having it.

Yes, that would have made things more interesting. Or have Astrid track the player down before he or she kills the old lady. THEN you could make your choice on whether or not you want to join the Dark Brotherhood or destroy it.

[Boycott Bioware]

Look at some Skyrim quest such as

"In My Time of need", the redguards are searching for one Redguard woman...the woman claim those redguards are assassins who want to kill her, the player then go to kill these red Guards group, but then those Red Guards claim that they are not assassins but hired men to hunt a traitor who work for Aldemari Dominion in Hammerfel, then the player have option to go back to the woman, lied to her and lure her out to be taken or kill all those Red Guards...The thing is, the player don't know who speak the truth, it is badly written quest.

Blades vs Greybeards/Paarthunax...this have been debated in Skyrim forum, but the truth is no one know who is right or wrong. The Blades demand the player to kill Paarthunax the dragon, the Greybeards leader is Paarthunax the dragon. Killing Paarthunax or not don't have any real impact in the game...Paarthunax suppose to be an important character but yet you kill him or not doesn't lead to anything because in anyway you still a hero killing Alduin the dragon

There is another non-sense quest about the Jarl son who being tempted by Daedra...you ask the Jarl about his son, then investigate, then lead to a secret chamber in Dragonreach that have an evil sword...then you know actually this Daedra want the child to kill his own family using the sword...you pick up the sword then the quest end...you cannot tell the Jarl about the sword and why his son act weirdly, the quest end when you pick up the sword...it is just a quest to pick up the sword...imagine that...you can wield that sword in Dragonreach and no one ever say something about it even though that sword being locked away by them because of it's evil nature

Another one...Vigilant of Strendar...you meet some men and women in robes claim themselves Vigilant of Strendar who fought Daedra and all abominations, they give you their base location, you go there and then nothing...NOTHING...the NPCs there have no quest for you and only repeat the same dialogue...it is a total waste of your time

In Riverwood...an elf ask you deliver a fake letter to woman and so that woman think the guy who hit on her is a fool of some sort, optional quest is talk to the guy and then the guy ask you to do the same thing that is to deliver a fake letter and make that elf look like a fool...you give the letter to the woman...you have no option to tell the woman about those guys

So, what is great about Skyrim?

[Rawgrim]

David7204 wrote...

Where's the option to convince him it's a bad idea?
Where's the option to pretend to do it to satisfy him?
Where's the option to side with her?

This is what I was talking about earlier.

Kind of the same with Anders in DA2, isn`t it?

[David7204]

Wouldn't know. Haven't played any of the Dragon Age games.

[Rawgrim]

Qistina wrote...

Look at some Skyrim quest such as

"In My Time of need", the redguards are searching for one Redguard woman...the woman claim those redguards are assassins who want to kill her, the player then go to kill these red Guards group, but then those Red Guards claim that they are not assassins but hired men to hunt a traitor who work for Aldemari Dominion in Hammerfel, then the player have option to go back to the woman, lied to her and lure her out to be taken or kill all those Red Guards...The thing is, the player don't know who speak the truth, it is badly written quest.

Blades vs Greybeards/Paarthunax...this have been debated in Skyrim forum, but the truth is no one know who is right or wrong. The Blades demand the player to kill Paarthunax the dragon, the Greybeards leader is Paarthunax the dragon. Killing Paarthunax or not don't have any real impact in the game...Paarthunax suppose to be an important character but yet you kill him or not doesn't lead to anything because in anyway you still a hero killing Alduin the dragon

There is another non-sense quest about the Jarl son who being tempted by Daedra...you ask the Jarl about his son, then investigate, then lead to a secret chamber in Dragonreach that have an evil sword...then you know actually this Daedra want the child to kill his own family using the sword...you pick up the sword then the quest end...you cannot tell the Jarl about the sword and why his son act weirdly, the quest end when you pick up the sword...it is just a quest to pick up the sword...imagine that...you can wield that sword in Dragonreach and no one ever say something about it even though that sword being locked away by them because of it's evil nature

Another one...Vigilant of Strendar...you meet some men and women in robes claim themselves Vigilant of Strendar who fought Daedra and all abominations, they give you their base location, you go there and then nothing...NOTHING...the NPCs there have no quest for you and only repeat the same dialogue...it is a total waste of your time

In Riverwood...an elf ask you deliver a fake letter to woman and so that woman think the guy who hit on her is a fool of some sort, optional quest is talk to the guy and then the guy ask you to do the same thing that is to deliver a fake letter and make that elf look like a fool...you give the letter to the woman...you have no option to tell the woman about those guys

So, what is great about Skyrim?

01. Its not badly written. It lets the player decide who is lying or not. The player doesn`t need to be spoonfed everything. That turns the writing into a lecture. Show, don`t tell etc. Its a roleplaying choice.

02. Again an in-character choice. its what roleplaying is all about

03. I agree. It should be acknowledged in some way or another.

04. I think that quest is tied to the vampire expansion. You find the Vigilants slain by vamps later on. Sounds like it didn`t get activated properly.

05. Yes you can. You can tell her its a fake letter.

[Enigmatick]

Rawgrim wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Where's the option to convince him it's a bad idea?
Where's the option to pretend to do it to satisfy him?
Where's the option to side with her?

This is what I was talking about earlier.

Kind of the same with Anders in DA2, isn`t it?

Honestly that's worse on account  of you getting aoptions to not help anders or ratting him out to the chantry and they do nothing 

[10K]

Qistina wrote...

So, what is great about Skyrim?

Game play, combat, exploration. Sure Skyrim story isn't much to praise over but there's a lot in the game that makes it fun. I'm sure even you most've liked something about it? By your post it's clear you've played it.

Modifié par mosesarose, 06 avril 2013 - 04:23 .

[David7204]

Ehh...combat's okay. It's got it's share of problems.

[Rawgrim]

The skyrim story fleshes itself out alot more if the player does some research in books and whatsnot in the game. I can see why not everyone would want to do that, though.

[10K]

David7204 wrote...

Ehh...combat's okay. It's got it's share of problems.

And that's true for all games. There's not one game you can say that's perfect, because there will always be someone that can find something wrong with it.

[Enigmatick]

^What's your point? You're just doing unnecessary damage control now.

[10K]

Enigmatick wrote...

^What's your point? You're just doing unnecessary damage control now.

My point is there's no use in fighting over if Skyrim story is good or not. Because there will be no agreement on the matter. So what's the point in debating about it? It's just an endless circle.

[EpicBoot2daFace]

Damage control, really? The game has sold over 10 million copies. It doesn't require a defense.

[Enigmatick]

That's true for every debate ever held on the internet. I'm not even arguing that that's it's a bad story, I just think it's a lesser game than say Morrowind.

[Enigmatick]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

Damage control, really? The game has sold over 10 million copies. It doesn't require a defense.

Lol. Sales=Quality.

[Rawgrim]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

Damage control, really? The game has sold over 10 million copies. It doesn't require a defense.

In all fairness, Justin Bieber sells alot of records. It doesn\\ t make his music great. Quantity does not equal quality.

[XX-Pyro]

Rawgrim wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

Damage control, really? The game has sold over 10 million copies. It doesn't require a defense.

In all fairness, Justin Bieber sells alot of records. It doesn t make his music great. Quantity does not equal quality.

Perhaps not to you or me, but there's clearly something about his music that makes so many people like it.  It's like the guy a few posts above said, it's just basically bantering in circles when we argue these things, some people enjoy certain things while others enjoy, well other things.

Modifié par XX-Pyro, 06 avril 2013 - 04:46 .

[EpicBoot2daFace]

Enigmatick wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

Damage control, really? The game has sold over 10 million copies. It doesn't require a defense.

Lol. Sales=Quality.

The Elder Scrolls games have been held in high regard amongst gamers for a very long time. The game sells very well because of it's quality and what it offers.

That said, I don't recall seeing any articles with Todd Howard defending the game from fair criticism. But we did see just that with Mike Laidlaw in his Dragon Age 2 defense. Which didn't go over well with a lot of people, including myself. It probably did more harm than good. If it's a quality game, it will stand the test of time. If not, then it won't.

Modifié par EpicBoot2daFace, 06 avril 2013 - 04:47 .

[10K]

XX-Pyro wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

Damage control, really? The game has sold over 10 million copies. It doesn't require a defense.

In all fairness, Justin Bieber sells alot of records. It doesn t make his music great. Quantity does not equal quality.

Perhaps not to you or me, but there's clearly something about his music that makes so many people like it.  It's like the guy a few posts above said, it's just basically bantering in circles when we argue these things, some people enjoy certain things while others enjoy, well other things.

Thank you

[grumpymooselion]

Quality is to often considered a static, when it's a dynamic that changes from perception to perception. It's an attempt, an estimate, but not definitive. If a great many people enjoy an experience, regardless of outside opinion, then there must be something that those taking part in the thing consider of proper quality.

Too many people mistake their own personal taste, or the taste of a very vocal individual or multiple minority for quality or fact. Quality is a terrible thing to use in the context of many artforms besides, as taste often has more to do with it than anything resembling quality. Quality is a word meant for subjects of exact scrutiny . . . the quality of a metal, the quality of water - things where impurity or pollution of one manner or another actually have an effect on their worth.

I am not a fan of the music mentioned above, but I wholly understand that it is wholly a result of my own personal taste, and not of measure of the individuals worth or potential as an artist. Such things are too subjective, down to the individual by individual measure, to have opinions or assurances of worth, or lack thereof, to have any true meaning. This is why when recommending music, for example, to an individual - you never use your own measure, but attempt to recommend music based off what you know of them as a person and their tastes . . . your own tastes could easily be quite meaningless when attempting to make a selection for them.

Think, 'them' not, 'you' in other words.

Modifié par Janan Pacha, 06 avril 2013 - 04:53 .

[Enigmatick]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

Enigmatick wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

Damage control, really? The game has sold over 10 million copies. It doesn't require a defense.

Lol. Sales=Quality.

The Elder Scrolls games have been held in high regard amongst gamers for a very long time. The game sells very well because of it's quality and what it offers.

That said, I don't recall seeing any articles with Todd Howard defending the game from fair criticism. But we did see just that with Mike Laidlaw in his Dragon Age 2 defense. Which didn't go over well with a lot of people, including myself. It probably did more harm than good. If it's a quality game, it will stand the test of time. If not, then it won't.

Todd Howard didn't have to defend his game because there was no fan backlash, there was no fan backlash because Skyrim pretty much gained it's own (semi-casual) fanbase. Most of the old TES fans didn't take up too much of a problem with the game (Though I know several that did) because it fulfilled certain wants and those not fullfilled could be through modding. All-in-all even though Skyrim seems like a quality game on the surface, it is very very very shallow especially compared to older TES titles. Hell even The Witcher 3 devs think so:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqk-9FKcuZ4 


 

[EpicBoot2daFace]

Enigmatick wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

Enigmatick wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

Damage control, really? The game has sold over 10 million copies. It doesn't require a defense.

Lol. Sales=Quality.

The Elder Scrolls games have been held in high regard amongst gamers for a very long time. The game sells very well because of it's quality and what it offers.

That said, I don't recall seeing any articles with Todd Howard defending the game from fair criticism. But we did see just that with Mike Laidlaw in his Dragon Age 2 defense. Which didn't go over well with a lot of people, including myself. It probably did more harm than good. If it's a quality game, it will stand the test of time. If not, then it won't.

Todd Howard didn't have to defend his game because there was no fan backlash, there was no fan backlash because Skyrim pretty much gained it's own (semi-casual) fanbase. Most of the old TES fans didn't take up too much of a problem with the game (Though I know several that did) because it fulfilled certain wants and those not fullfilled could be through modding. All-in-all even though Skyrim seems like a quality game on the surface, it is very very very shallow especially compared to older TES titles. Hell even The Witcher 3 devs think so:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqk-9FKcuZ4

There was no fan backlash with Skyrim because it was a quality game.

[Enigmatick]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

Enigmatick wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

Enigmatick wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

Damage control, really? The game has sold over 10 million copies. It doesn't require a defense.

Lol. Sales=Quality.

The Elder Scrolls games have been held in high regard amongst gamers for a very long time. The game sells very well because of it's quality and what it offers.

That said, I don't recall seeing any articles with Todd Howard defending the game from fair criticism. But we did see just that with Mike Laidlaw in his Dragon Age 2 defense. Which didn't go over well with a lot of people, including myself. It probably did more harm than good. If it's a quality game, it will stand the test of time. If not, then it won't.

Todd Howard didn't have to defend his game because there was no fan backlash, there was no fan backlash because Skyrim pretty much gained it's own (semi-casual) fanbase. Most of the old TES fans didn't take up too much of a problem with the game (Though I know several that did) because it fulfilled certain wants and those not fullfilled could be through modding. All-in-all even though Skyrim seems like a quality game on the surface, it is very very very shallow especially compared to older TES titles. Hell even The Witcher 3 devs think so:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqk-9FKcuZ4

There was no fan backlash with Skyrim because it was a quality game.

On the surface. 

[EpicBoot2daFace]

Enigmatick wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

Enigmatick wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

Enigmatick wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

Damage control, really? The game has sold over 10 million copies. It doesn't require a defense.

Lol. Sales=Quality.

The Elder Scrolls games have been held in high regard amongst gamers for a very long time. The game sells very well because of it's quality and what it offers.

That said, I don't recall seeing any articles with Todd Howard defending the game from fair criticism. But we did see just that with Mike Laidlaw in his Dragon Age 2 defense. Which didn't go over well with a lot of people, including myself. It probably did more harm than good. If it's a quality game, it will stand the test of time. If not, then it won't.

Todd Howard didn't have to defend his game because there was no fan backlash, there was no fan backlash because Skyrim pretty much gained it's own (semi-casual) fanbase. Most of the old TES fans didn't take up too much of a problem with the game (Though I know several that did) because it fulfilled certain wants and those not fullfilled could be through modding. All-in-all even though Skyrim seems like a quality game on the surface, it is very very very shallow especially compared to older TES titles. Hell even The Witcher 3 devs think so:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqk-9FKcuZ4

There was no fan backlash with Skyrim because it was a quality game.

On the surface. 

I'm done here.

[XX-Pyro]

It's a good thing you're so much more intelligent than us in that you can look beyond the surface of bland games and let us know that they are actually generic and shallow!

Whilst I agree it is shallower than previous TES games to a degree, it also had limitations that previous TES games did not have. 

Modifié par XX-Pyro, 06 avril 2013 - 05:19 .