Example; the Legend of Zelda: BotW and TotK weapon degradation system. At first I was annoyed at it, but once I stopped caring about my “favorite weapon” I really started to enjoy the system. I think it lends really well to the sandbox nature of the game and it itches that resourcefulness nature inside me.
The lack of interpersonal conflict in Star Treks overseen by Gene Roddenberry is a good thing. Humanity got their shit together, made Earth paradise, and went exploring the galaxy and other frontiers in life. Shoehorning conflict and darkness into the newer series destroys what made it unique.
I couldn’t quite pinpoint what I didn’t like about the newer series, but you’ve nailed it - the hyper realistic tone it now has really clashes with the explorative nature of the old series.
There are some ways in which the newer shows like Discovery are realistic, but there are also ways in which they are stupid.
For example, two federation officers in a life or death situation where they have two minutes to solve an urgent crisis, and they decide to spend 60 seconds of that having an emotional heart-to-heart.
If that was in TNG, they’d have got the job done like professionals, and then had the friends chat later in ten forward. Because that’s how people with jobs get their jobs done.
TNG era was quite cheesy in some ways, but it kept characters real in that they always acted appropriately for their role and position, not just like a bunch of emotional oddballs who get to be in charge of a spaceship for some reason.
Well said. Discovery was more about individualism and the “rich tapestry” of family histories to show that these characters have inherited their greatness and that no one else is equipped to be in the singular intense situation they are now in.
TNG was more about the mission. Sometimes family history came into it, but most of the team was just doing the best they could given the circumstance and their characteristics were more quirks that helped the overall effort. At least that’s how it felt. Not one single character was more special than another.
No particular heroes, just professional heroics.
Discovery was trash. Lasted until season 2 but the plot holes and inconsistencies and bad writing was too much for me. Not to mention the 'member berries. And the key jangling, and tech ahead of its time breaking all manner of canon. Agreed the over emotional stuff came off as trite and out of place for what was essentially a space navy.
So, they can detect anomalies all over the milky way? In real time? Writers said that Klingons represented Trump supporters? Why? Or, with the baddies destroyed they didn’t have to travel in time. So why did they? Capital ships manoeuvring like borderline fighters? Plot contrivance from the writers? Okay. TNG or DS9 had their flaws but it was superior writing and seemed to be written for adults or did not insult its audience’s maturity, regardless of age. Discovery seems to have been written for kids or emotional teens. Lots of pew-pew action, too.
Seen shows where the writers --as they recalled-- originally removeded about this. Made writing harder, since it was more difficult to write plots, but fuck that, it made them think outside the box, which made for some excellent episodes Re: grander ideas and nuanced takes on many subjects. Most, if not all, have come around to seeing Gene was definately ahea of his time and came to agree, too.
However DS9 was excellent, even though it diverged from Gene’s formula.
I feel that divergence is what made DS9 so good. Instead of travelling around exploring aliens, we’re stationary exploring ourselves and our politics. It was a great idea to make a show about a completely different aspect of Starfleet life. Unfortunately, in my opinion, the last great idea they had.
Lord of the Rings (the books) are terribly written by modern novel standards and while the story is amazing their value purely as literature is quite low. I will always defend people who loved the movies and couldn’t get into the books.
I understand where you’re coming from, but I disagree completely. They are written in a different style than we’re used to today, but they’re masterfully done. To me, the movies are largely good adaptations, but the books are far superior.
But that’s the nice thing about taste: everyone’s entitled to their own.
I’ve read the Hobbit and the fellowship a few years ago. I absolutely adored the Hobbit, genuinely think that is an awesomely written book. Fellowship however, is not a fun read, despite the content in the book actually being good. But the act of reading it is not.
I enjoyed it a lot. The only parts that annoyed the hell out of me was the constant singing and the overly long ring council. The rest I have only fond memories of. Granted it was a long time ago.
I remember as a kid I was really into fantasy things and my dad told me about LOTR and thought I’d like it. I’d read the hobbit for school already and really enjoyed that… But LOTR was painful, I didn’t even complete the first book
I would probably say that FOTR is my least favourite of the LOTR trilogy, TTT and ROTK are both more enjoyable IMO.
That said, I saw the movies before I read the books, so that might be a factor, I’m not sure.
Personally, my favorite book of his is the Silmarillion, he’s in his element and is writing a text book about cool fantasy stuff he dreamt up.
The Hobbit is far better than LotR. It’s no contest.
Thank you.
Yeah, I stopped reading The Two Towers halfway through when it switched to Frodo’s and Sam’s perspective and I knew it’d just be a slog to get through.
Yea - the endless stair case is what I think of whenever I recall Tolkien’s writing style.
Been feeling some FOMO about the books, FOMO gone!
I’ve tried so hard, multiple times (years apart) and just can’t read the books. I read the hobbit fine, that’s a great book, but the trilogy I just found myself skipping pages to my favourite movie parts. It just went on and on. It’s a shame really, I’d love to have read them.
I started with the Hobbit really wanting to finally read the Lord of the Rings but I couldn’t get into it
Meanwhile I read the books as an artful evasion of an english assignment as a child but the movies just seemed too long for me to digest.
Maybe if they were packaged as a TV show but not at all changed in terms of content I could manage to get through it all in a day or so
A big complaint I saw about the live-action Cowboy Bebop adaptation for Netflix was that the acting was too cartoony/over-the-top.
Personally, I thought the acting was spot-on for what they were trying to accomplish. It was meant to be a live-action anime, so it was never intended to be 100% tethered to reality to begin with. The characters are meant to be characters, and I thought they did a great job with it. Spike, Faye, and Jet were all perfectly-cast, IMO, and they all felt like their original characters felt from the animated series. There are so many times where you can just close your eyes and listen to them talk to each other, and it feels exactly like it felt watching the anime on Adult Swim back in the early 2000s as a kid.
I honestly loved the live-action adaptation and thought it was amazing. I’m still immensely disappointed that the reception was so poor that Netflix decided to cancel it halfway through the story. There are so many characters I wanted to see that didn’t appear until later in the original series. I would’ve loved to see a live-action Toys In The Attic or Heavy Metal Queen.
Yea, if anything my main compliant about the show was that they took away too much levity.
Cowboy Bebop had some really stark messages about family, relationships, and the impermanence of time - and it delivers that through characters that live life fully in the moment and run from their fate. In the live action version the characters were too willing to fall into morose reflection and focused too much on their eventual fate - for me the seriousness of the show really undercut how serious the underlying message was.
I really liked it too, and was deeply disappointed that it was cancelled prematurely.
TBH, it seems like Netflix cancels everything that I really end up enjoying, and dragging out shows that should have been a limited series (e.g., Stranger Things).
I wholeheartedly agree. I also loved the live action and I usually hate live action. It definitely isn’t because of nostalgia.
The Original Mafia game is generally criticized for being a linear game in an open-world, but I think its linear nature is one of its strengths, because it gives the narrative a tight, driving focus that open world games tend to lack.
Shadow of the Colossus was linear, but I don’t recall anyone complaining.
I think Mafia received that criticism because of its surface level similarity to GTA, which is known for packing a ton of random side content in its open world.
In Mafia there is genuinely nothing to do out in the world when driving around outside of the main story missions, except for occasionally a mechanic at a garage will offer you some small mission to steal a newer and faster car. Because of that, people complained that the open-world part was pointless and a waste.
Is this the one where I kept trying to go visit my mom (as part of my belligerent insistence on looking for stuff to do in the open world after every mission), but the game wouldn’t let me go into any building that wasn’t the next story mission, and then later the main character got chewed out by his mom for never visiting her? I did find that annoying.
That might’ve happened in the sequel? I don’t think you ever see the main character’s parents in the first game, but I do recall visiting them when you come back from WWII in the second game.
I wasn’t a big fan of the sequel, since I found the main characters to be unsympathetic assholes.
I think you’re right, it must have been the sequel!
Was it? You were in an open environment
and you could do the opponents in mostly any order.Scratch that. I guess I’m think of post game when you can replay the battles.
I’ve only played 2 and I feel the same way about it. I wish more games did this approach of using an open world as a setting for a linear game to perform.
You get the best of both worlds with this approach. The feeling of the world being more real and lived in, whilst having the tightness of the storytelling of a linear game.
I’ve always defended how mafia 2 did it and never understood why people wanted it to be more open world. The story had me gripped too much to even think about that stuff.
I always find it weird in some open world games where something in the story is described as being a race against time or so important it needs to get done now, but as the player you can just forget that for a bit and go do something else before continuing. Even just the ability to do that takes me out of it.
That last point is why I couldn’t play Fallout 4. My son was kidnapped, my spouse was killed, and I need to find out who did it and where they are! Right after I save a library, build a town, and solve some detective mysteries, I guess.
Mafia 2 was just the best damn looking game I’ve ever played. No other game has sold the late 50s to me in a way that I actually thought I was there
It’ll be a game I’ll always remember fondly. I still think of that ending to this day, one of the best.
Red dead redemption 2 was pretty linear and I think it’s one of the best games
In the case of rdr2, it has a linear story, but a plethora of side content the player can engage with outside of the main missions. In Mafia, there was a single person that would sometimes offer you little missions to steal faster and better cars, but otherwise had no side activities whatsoever in between driving to and from the story missions. The lack of side content was the main complaint.
People have a boner for Simpsons seasons 3-8, the Conan years.
The Simpsons were excellent pretty much through season 12, much of seasons 13 and 14 are still legit.
I don’t disagree that most of the best episodes are in that era… But Trilogy Of Errors is forever my favorite Simpsons episode, and that’s S12E18. (Linguo… Dead??? “linguo IS dead.”)
I woukd go as far as to say that seasons 9 - 13 all contain at least one ‘top 30 of all time’ episode.
The fall off was not swift with Conan’s departure.
deleted by creator
Between season 18 and 19 was when the movie came out it IMDb’s dates are correct.
The truth is there are SO MANY great episodes of The Simpsons. Even the current seasons have a lot to offer.
I also think that the earlier seasons get an advantage because they’re the episodes we’ve all seen dozens of times.
Obviously I won’t deny that the earlier seasons have 10/10 episodes. Maybe there are fewer 10/10 as you go along, but even a “bad” episode will have some great jokes in it.
In fact the “I’m a sign, not a cop” meme/macro, that’s a season 20 episode.
Omg I love that episode too. I quote that grammar robot so the time “shuddapa yer face” “shut up your face”
I also am a software developer and use 123 fake street for testing forms all the time.
I’m surprised at how late it was, would have assumed it was pre double digits
I thought he was a party robot 🤖
The newest season has a nicer animation style I’ve noticed. It feels almost season 8ish, and has none of that digital gloss that pervaded in the last ten seasons. I’m genuinely interested to see if they stick with the classic almost hand-drawn style.
Yeah I think seasons 4-12 are the kind of ‘safe’ era, but you can go a few seasons either way and still get some bangers, it’s just a little more patchy.
Rewatched the Golden Years of the Simpsons recently and I think it’s crazy that season 2 isn’t included in that era. Season 2 Simpsons is fantastic.
Ariel in Disney’s A Little Mermaid doesn’t drop everything for “a man”.
She is clearly interested in land culture from the opening of the film, spending her time collecting shipwreck items and trying to learn what they are. She also isn’t interested in the hobby her father wants her to do, singing.
King Triton is abusive when destroying Ariel’s collection of artifacts, which makes you think of what else is going on with how he parents her.
So, Eric shows up and seems like a way out. It isn’t a lot of information to go off of for adults, but it is something solid for a teenager.
And what did she give up to gain her legs? Her voice. People interpret it as her giving up being able to speak for herself, but it is her giving up the thing that her father cares about.
Also I can’t look past the fact that there’s absolutely no way that they wouldn’t establish a form of nonverbal communication. ASL? Enthusiastic head nodding?!
In the original cartoon, it is explicitly shown that Triton does not like, or enjoyed or wanted to harm or hurt Ariel by destroying her collection. He wanted to protect her from her own follies and didn’t know what else to do. At worst, flawed but well intentioned.
This is obvious on the shot of his face, showing his sad expression, hurt and regret as he looks back at her and as she starts crying, as he leaves. This important nuance was completely cut out from the live action film. Doing so recontextualised the entire scene.
Which in the film does make him look like a crazy asshole father, do not know why this was done as it just unnecessarily vilifies him without reason and removes previously shown emotional depth and context from the cartoon. My guess was because he = man, and man = bad, which went along with some people working in the film and some others saying that she had dropped everything for “a man.”
It is still an act of violence against things she loved. It may be well intentioned, but we wouldn’t condone that behavior in real life.
I heard a lot of complaints about the twins in borderlands 3.They’re shallow, they’re obnoxious, they remind you of wanna be tiktok influencers, on and on.
That’s not a bug, that’s a feature. Guys, Handsome Jack was bottled lightning. He was a masterpiece of good writing, good design, well placed improv, and just plain dumb luck. They were never going to pull that off again. You’d need to open a real vault to find that level of treasure.
The Calypso’s are exactly what they say on the tin. They’re all those obnoxious, unfunny things I mentioned because sometimes villains aren’t well thought out, complex characters. I fucking love shooting Troy in his smug hot topic weeb face. I don’t need to consider the complexity of a man driven to an extreme or the show erosion of one’s moral character in pursuit of power, they were two shitty kids on an ego trip with no regard for the damage they did. It is plain, and simple, and easy.
Are there problems with the rest if the story? Absolutely. Are there some awful plot-holes? Oh my fuck, yes. But are the Calypsos the thing that ruined the game? Fuck no, they’re fine and perfectly shootable as a bad-guy needs to be.
Just gonna chime in to say I bought Tiny Tina’s Wonderlands cause it’s on sale right now for like $12 on steam (the season pass is only $5 too) and MY GOD IS IT AN ABSOLUTE BLAST TO PLAY!
I’m just having straight up fun with this game, and I’m already wishing there was a sequel coming out tomorrow so I could dive right in when I finish this one. The bright vibrant world is fun to explore, the enemies are entertaining to fight with their quips and banter, the new mechanics (spells instead of grenades, new dedicated melee weapons and inventory slot, enchanted rings/amulets/armor to change that can all act as individual class mods to switch up your play style a bit) feel right at home in the fantasy setting.
I’ve heard about the lack of endgame and DLC stories, but I don’t care. I’m just having fun with my bowguns and magic missile launchers.
The Zelda complaint is extra bullshit considering other open-world games like Just Cause do exactly the same thing by giving the guns limited ammo, so you constantly have to switch weapons based on what the enemies drop.
Considering in prior Zelda games you didn’t have to worry about your sword being unusable or your shield breaking (inb4 “what about…”, there’s like three circumstances in a dozen plus games, cmon.), I can understand why folks weren’t so keen on it in the new ones. Yeah you could run out of magic, arrows, or bombs, but that boomerang wasn’t going anywhere.
that boomerang wasn’t going anywhere.
Tbh, if I had a boomerang as a weapon, I’d get precisely one throw out of it (whether I hit anything or not).
BotW is just not a Zelda game at all. It is a very mid outdoor walking simulator with fetch quests. I don’t care about the breakable weapons, even. I want the collection of tools, the long dungeons with puzzles using those tools, and the bosses vulnerable to those tools.
It has dungeons: The four divine beasts.
IMO It put a lot of the “Use a particular tool for this” puzzles into the shrines to scratch the puzzle solvers itch, (along with some of the Korok seeds.) but even those still gave leeway to not having to use those tools at all.
That is why I wrote specifically “long dungeons,” yeah. Those are simple and short, all the same little floating skulls, maybe one treasure that is a mild head-scratcher to get at. The boss fights in there are barely distinct from each other. It feels cheap compared to previous releases.
They did put all those tool puzzles into shrines. But they are one-offs and simplified. It takes longer to find a shrine than to solve it. And too many of them are just “fight this same little spidery guy again.”
The whole experience strikes me as Zelda for people who hated the majority of the content in previous games.
I think if you’re comparing open world games to open world games then yeah, BOTW doesn’t do anything too terribl differenty, but when you compare BOTW to other Zelda games then it’s very different and that’s where the criticism comes from.
Personally I feel BOTW is a very competent open world game, probably one of the better ones I’ve played but I still didn’t gel with it because I was already strongly feeling fatigued from too many games becoming open world and not making that leap particularly well (Mass Effect Andromeda and FFXV coming to mind for me personally), what I wanted was a more traditional Zelda game and that’s simply not what BOTW was.
I mean if I run out of RPG ammo in GTA I can buy more for a universal currency I don’t have to keep beating crime lords down with a big stick until one of them drops a fresh one.
Can’t you pick up ammo in the Just Cause games? It’s been too long since I last played.
That being said, I like how Dying Light handles the decay system. You can repair a weapon so many times before it becomes completely useless, but in the second game I think you can just always repair stuff if you have the means.
I think there would have been less issue with the Zelda weapon system if they started you with a bigger inventory space or made the tree guy who expands it someone you talk to and learn where to meet them later at the beginning of the game.
That is kinda what happened in Tears of the Kingdom.
I think I missed that because I saw him in another spot wandering around before he went to the central hub place he stays at for a long time
One that always stood out to me was the ending of the Tom Cruise war or the world’s movie.
Now to be clear, this is not a good film and I don’t recommend that anyone bothers to go watch it, but a criticism I regularly saw was that the ending was bad - the aliens all just die suddenly.
That was literally the only thing that film got right from the source material. They changed literally everything else in an attempt to modernise it, it didn’t work but they at least kept the ending and that’s the bit people didn’t like.
Yeah. It’s a movie about surviving. Not winning. And the opening sets up the end.
It seems like a lot of people complain about Doctor Who not really having any canon or rules, and contradicting itself constantly (sometimes within the same episode) but I don’t think that’s necessarily a failing because it’s not trying to do that at all.
The trend these days is for a lot of shows, especially sci-fi ones, to be sort of ‘internet-proof’ and be designed to withstand the people who go through frame-by-frame looking for little errors and contradictions to pull apart, and Doctor Who ignores that completely and just aims to be big fun campy dramatic nonsense, which I think it mostly succeeds at. I think the only cardinal sin for that show is don’t be boring, which IMO it pulls off more often than not.
And it’s fine to not like that of course, but I don’t get it when people try to call the show out for not doing something it’s never really tried to do, at least since it came back in 2005.
The Van Gogh scene is amazing, and it made me think that I understand the purpose of the show
Joker: Folie à Deux.
The first movie was not about Joker, it is about Arthur. Joker is the unfortunate identity he takes on as a result of the events of the first film. But at the end of the day, he was just a guy. He was delighted but bewildered at the people rallying behind him.!Folie a Deux picks up is after the police inevitably apprehend Arthur. He is on medication, and speaking to a mental health professional regularly. He doesn’t want to be Joker, but everyone around him expects him to be. The tragedy of the ending is that Arthur rejects the love and admiration he has earned, knowing it will not redeem him to the people who hate and fear him now. He chooses to be completely alone and powerless to stop hurting people.!<
As far as the musical numbers went, they were infrequent and clearly a representation of the connection between Arthur and Lee. There was at least one scene where we view Arthur from the perspective of onlookers after he finished singing and dancing, but all they saw was him staring at a TV or something. I always felt like the songs added to character development, but even if they weren’t your thing they were brief and heavily outweighed by scenes with just dialogue.
In the last season of The Crown, Princess Diana’s “ghost” makes an apperence to Charles and the Queen. People were super upset, saying that it’s offensive to speak for her in that capacity.
That show is not fantastical, and they have never shown “ghosts.” I took it as those characters having a mental conversation with her, like, technically talking to themselves, as part of their grieving process, and not that the actual spirit of Diana came from the afterlife to tell Charles it’s cool.
Memory or not, they’re putting words in the mouth of a deceased woman to make a survivor feel less guilty
I guess, but wouldn’t that complaint apply to the whole show? I took the scene(s) as them being so far removed from Diana that they couldn’t even conjure her memory properly. Her kids didn’t have scenes like that, and I can’t imagine her “ghost” not seeing them. I think it’s because they didn’t feel guilty, at least not like those two, so they didn’t have manufacture an apology, they had nothing to apologize for.
I’m also reading way, way, too much into it.
Everyone is on fire in this thread. Every comment legitimately interesting and well thought out. Upvotes abound. (Apologies for the meta)
Dark Souls 2 gets so much hate for a few things that I don’t see as a big deal, or gets blamed for things that are present in the other games in the series.
They tied a stat called Adaptability to your dodge, so you have to level up that stat to get the same number of invincibility frames as the previous game. I did not notice at all until I read complaints about it. I never felt entitled to a certain number of i-frames. I can see how it might be annoying to someone with more experience from DS1, but it’s far from a deal breaker for me.
People complain about hitboxes, as if DS1 isn’t full of nonsensical jank in this category.
They complain about enemy spam, as if there aren’t 12 undead crammed in a small room before the Gargoyle boss who will body block you if you don’t deal with them. Or 8 Taurus demons followed by 6 Capra demons in a row. Or 40 crystal undead that hit like trucks in the Duke’s archives. Or another 12 undead in one room in The Depths.
Then there’s the magic bullet - Miyazaki wasn’t that involved. Ok, well does that mean the rest of the company is useless? Maybe he should create the entire games all by himself just to make sure those pesky colleagues don’t screw it up. It’s so disrespectful to the rest of the team to imply they aren’t shit without him.
People cry “development hell” when you point out the very unfinished second half of DS1, but crucify DS2 which had a massive change of direction and redesign halfway into development.
Ds2 does a lot right in vibes. I didn’t really get it that much while playing but it focuses a lot on being an RPG and making you utilize the different systems in the game. You benefit a lot from being able to use ranged weapons from time to time.
That said I found the game kinda ass to play. I think the enemy spam in ds2 is significantly worse than ds1 other than the room before the gargoyle fight. When there is enemy spam in ds1, you can almost always run past it. In ds2 you’re pretty much forced to fight every single enemy every single time.
I do think it’s over hated but I think it’s because people wanted a clone of ds1 which its not. If you went into without any expectations, I suspect it would be viewed much differently.
You benefit a lot from being able to use ranged weapons from time to time.
Totally. My first playthrough was as a sorcerer which was difficult, but advantageous in many ways. These games are praised for not hand-holding and DS2 is no different - you’re expected to adapt. Adaptability is not just a stat, but a state of mind.
When there is enemy spam in ds1, you can almost always run past it. In ds2 you’re pretty much forced to fight every single enemy every single time.
I have to disagree. I never felt body-blocked so often in 2 as I did in 1. They don’t make it easy, but in 2 most areas you can just run through if you bait enemy attacks as you dodge. There are some exceptions like Iron Keep which is downright sadistic in forcing you to kill the enemies, though, for sure. I felt the same way with the bloat-heads in Oolacile township, Demonic Foliage in Darkroot Garden, crystal undead in Duke’s, 90% of enemies in Undead Burg and Parish, New Londo Ghosts. I’m sure the amount of experience with either game can make the difference between running through and getting stun-locked though - I still feel like a noob when playing 1.
I do think it’s over hated but I think it’s because people wanted a clone of ds1 which its not. If you went into without any expectations, I suspect it would be viewed much differently.
I think you’re right. I played 2 before 1. Both were frustratingly difficult at times, but that was the only expectation I had going in, since the series is known for being about overcoming challenges.
This is very interesting to me, re: enemy spam. Goes to show everyone is different. I literally have no issue running through basically any area in DS1, including the ones you listed. Meanwhile iron keep, the magic swamp area, the bell tower area, and the run back to the samurai dlc boss all haunted me. There’s another part in the dlc where you send like oil barrel dudes through a trap door. I did that area about 30x until Everything despawned.
This is very interesting to me, re: enemy spam. Goes to show everyone is different. I literally have no issue running through basically any area in DS1, including the ones you listed. Meanwhile iron keep, the magic swamp area, the bell tower area, and the run back to the samurai dlc boss all haunted me. There’s another part in the dlc where you send like oil barrel dudes through a trap door. I did that area about 30x until Everything despawned.
I definitely know what you mean about those areas in 2. All four Lord Soul runbacks in DS1 make me feel a similar way. Though if any of these areas in either game were easy it wouldn’t feel so dang good to overcome them :)
The lord soul runbacks are rough for sure. I hated doing them, but never for the enemies. Just so long for no real reason lol. But you’re right, challenge is absolutely the name of the game here
I once read a comment on the old site about how Skyrim’s combat is like mashing WWE action figures together.
I completely agree but I don’t think that’s a weakness at all. Maybe when it released, the game was seen as a grand RPG by more casual people and as a watered down Oblivion by older ES players.
But I think by looking at it not through the lens of a grand RPG, but as a familiar, comforting brain-off experience, it really shines. It really gave us the most it could for how low effort it is to play, and I mean that in a good way.
I remember getting recommended a YouTube video (by the algorithm) called something like “why do we still like Skyrim” and I thought the video was very disappointing. And I think the video’s thesis was about the same as mine in this comment. I wanted it to be something like this:
I associate the game with a long tradition of RPGs that I wasn’t around for, as one of the last great games we got before the priorities of the industry shifted again. The graphics didn’t need to be perfect, the comically small number of VAs didn’t need AI bullshit, the straightforward story lines don’t need to be groundbreaking. The music and atmosphere though are immaculate. It’s a game with a ton of flaws, even some jank that is endearing in hindsight. It just works!
Throw on the modding aspect and you have a very “pure” PC gaming experience. This is exactly what I want from a game, something that’s good enough to just be fun to run around aimlessly in, without feeling like I need a podcast to play in the background, that I can just lose hours in.
I’m playing a much higher effort game now. Workers and Resources Soviet Republic makes the Cities Skylines 2 look like drawing stick figure houses. WRSR is absurdly complex and is super engrossing when you’re in it, if you’re wired to enjoy these types of games. However, I need to be mentally ready to jump in.
With Skyrim I just launched it when I was bored, and I was less bored after.
I insist: Skyrim’s simplicity is what made it work.
and as a watered down Oblivion by older ES players.
Uh… What?
A lot of complaints around release were that the game wasn’t as complex as Oblivion or Morrowind, to the point that it was a disappointment for more hardcore players.
Idk man. I was just living in my first apartment, had played both Oblivion and Morrowwind, and I don’t ever recall hearing anything like that.
Everyone I knew who was in to the games was fkin psyched over it. The mechanics were cool even if the world might’ve felt smaller to some.
It was definitely a thing some people felt. There are several reasons some people like one TES game over another, and while visual styles and the world in general are large parts of it, the streamlined feel is a component for many that’s divisive. Not just changed made to systems, but how arcane a previous version felt is absolutely a positive to some people. They felt the games hit a sweet spot and later game(s) went too far.
Were you there?
Do you know what Oblivion didn’t have, for instance?
Dual Wielding.
Yeah, I was there. I’m 44. I loved all three games and played them on release (Morrowind, Oblivion, Skyrim.) I don’t want to oversell it. It was game of the year almost everywhere. Famitsu even gave it a 40/40. Maybe their first Western game reviewed as such? I remember that being a big deal. It was very well loved and very popular. A co-worker I knew who mostly only played Madden was sheepishly admitting he not only was paying it, but really loving going around picking plants for recipes.
But the skill system caught a lot of guff, which I recall being an issue some people had. I definitely remember the skill system being a thing that made a lot of people angry.
A lot of the other things were complaints you’ll find in other TES games, but people think a new game should’ve changed these things. For instance, there was the normal physics issues we get in a 3D TES game, which being the third game in a row, was adding up for some people. Then cities (and some buildings in cities) require loading was hated by some people who considered it old fashioned. Especially once a mod came out that got rid of that for cities. Also, the popularity of mods was instant. Not just people trying to add content, but initially a lot of that was people replacing models, and really talking shit on their modeling and textures.
Yeah, it got a lot of shit. But those people were playing it too. These are fellow gamers we’re talking about. People absolutely complain.
But the skill system caught a lot of guff, which I recall being an issue some people had. I definitely remember the skill system being a thing that made a lot of people angry.
You’re a decade or so older than me, and I think that affects our experiences of how it was received.
Personally I wasn’t on any online forums (at least ones which discussed TES) back then. I only had friends of my own age, people who had been tweeners/teeners when Morrowind came out and older teenagers when Oblivion came out.
I genuinely don’t remember any gripes about the game in comparison to older TES. Well, except that I really loved how open-ended the crafting was in Morrowind. You could do seriously OP items if you had the skill and gold.
Popularity of mods was instant
This is also a difference between us, as I played it on PS3 back then, so didn’t have mods. Neither did my friends.
I was much more critical of the games I played when I was 30 compared to when I was 20. So perhaps that’s a bit of the explanation? I’m not saying none of your complaints are true, they’re probably all true from a certain pov. I just didn’t experience any of them myself, and seemingly neither did my TES playing friends, and we weren’t into reading online reviews or anything.
