![]() ![]() | The Elder Scrolls V: SkyrimESRB:![]() Platform: Xbox 360 Category: RPG |
|
|
8 7 7 8 7.5 | ||
What the hell have I gotten myself into? First I got involved with some rebellion, and that led me to the headsman's block, and then there was a dragon, and weird voices, and... now, I'm wandering through a dungeon killing some people called the Silver Hand because I didn't realise my fellow warriors were actually werewolves! Heeeelp!
Okay, so that last bit may seem like a spoiler, but it really isn't. See, everything except the werewolves happened in my first hour of main plot play, and that last bit? I'm not telling you. Skyrim, to those who don't know (for shame!) is the latest in the Elder Scrolls series of RPGs, games with lore so deep, and so thick on the ground, that not even a +15 chainsaw could get through it all. The basic idea of this installment is that... well, after centuries of being who-knows-where (maybe having a good sleep?), dragons have come back to the land of Tamriel, and you, through the usual Elder Scrolls mcguffin of the prophecy, are the fated one. Don't let the corniness fool you, Bethesda are good at their job of storytelling, and I've seen them pull off cornier premises. In the same series.
Visuals
For those looking for an improvement from the last game graphically, there is... and there isn't. See, the creatures and characters are even more beautiful to look at, although the character engine doesn't seem to allow true obesity (if it did, my chargen abominations would have been so much more evil). So yeah, the characters look great, most of the creatures look great. Know what doesn't look great? Watching trees suddenly pop into clarity in the distance as I run forward. On High settings. Seeing the base ground texture if I look at it in just the right way. But in dungeons, and when exploring ruins, my two favourite activities, it's just fine, and the architecture, as always, is pretty damn stunning. Sure, the cities aren't always great, but when you see a barrows with huge stone ribs poking out of the ground? You know you're in high fantasy country, and the immersion skyrockets.
Sound
If you've heard the soundtracks of Morrowind and Oblivion, you have at least some idea as to the music. The sort of music you'd hear while Aahnold and James Earl Jones have a good staring match, or when Aragorn is kicking righteous buttock. It fits with the theme, is stirring when it wants to be (in combat), and, while it's nothing new under the sun, it's still pretty cool. The Bethesda Curse, as it was known in gaming circles, is also much less evident here. No more does it sound like there's maybe 5 voice actors phoning it in. It's definitely quite a few of them, and only one or two characters sound like their lines are being read in a classroom. Combat sounds, similarly, are slightly improved, although it's sorta hard to improve on “BASH, CLANG, THUMP, Urrrrggh!”. They still pull it off, and even manage to make arrows swoosh past. The one thing I personally found special however? The dragons. They're obviously the focus of the action, and... wow. Every wingbeat sounds visceral, and the sound of dragonfire is audio-coded for “This will roast you. Hard.” Even the other creatures occasionally sound cool, like a wolf howl on the plains at night. How many are there? Daaaamn, can't tell! And that, again, adds to the immersion.
Gameplay
One thing you ought to know, if you're new to Elder Scrolls games, is that they're always pretty big, world wise. Not always full of content, but big. At the time of writing this paragraph, I'm 4 hours in, and, while I've completed something like 11 quests across 8 or 9 locations (and explored another 4 or 5 on top of that), I have only finished two, maybe three story missions out of god knows how many. Including the mandatory tutorial quest. One thing that old Elder Scrolls players will either take or leave, and experienced CRPG players may be a bit concerned about, is that some quests are not “take the quest and finish it when you can be bothered.” They have to be done, as far as I can tell, immediately after taking them. On the one hand, this means people going for the main quest will be rushing into situations they can't control, and possibly moving further along than they feel comfortable with, but, on the other, it does keep that vital immersion factor going. Good example: Killing your first dragon. The military aren't going to wait for you, and so, going seems pretty important. Even if it turns out I'm wrong, and it isn't mandatory to follow them, it certainly puts some virtual pressure on. But, as my play time increased, I saw the cracks...
Skyrim is the first Elder Scrolls game to be designed for console accessibility, and, in places, it shows. Is this a bad thing? It's not bad, it's not good, it's just different. For example, while the mouse controls for inventory and conversation choices are finicky (and downright annoying in the character creator, due to small sliders), using the keyboard is actually much simpler, and the interface itself has become a lot more user-friendly, with nearly everything do-able with just the direction keys, mouse buttons, E and Q keys. The obviously regenerating health (not ultra-speedy, we're talking obvious to an RPG player here) feels sort of odd, but considering factors I'll get to in a bit, it's nonetheless welcome. What isn't so welcome is the lack of HUD tips for things previous games told you, like the fact that you have a disease. Check your active effects semi-regularly people, because the messages are easy to miss, and I almost became a vampire, thanks to not realising I was about to catch it. Dual wielding finally came to the Elder Scrolls with Skyrim as well, and good god, it feels good... although instakills for both you and your opponent when low on stamina is a mixed blessing.
There's too much to talk about in one sitting, so, with these examples in mind, I'm going to say that, where Skyrim gives with one hand, it takes away with the other. Argonians, for example, finally have some semi-regular use for that Water Breathing fix they had back in Oblivion, yet melee characters will quickly find themselves in large amounts of the brown stuff if they don't also take mage and rogue skills. This isn't much of a problem, because characters in the Elder Scrolls can learn anything they want, but pure melee characters are definitely a tougher proposition than in previous games.
One thing that I will finish on is the difficulty. To say the difficulty in this game is erratic is like saying ghost chillis are “slightly warm”. One second, you can be happily slaying skeletons in single hits, and the next, a Master Vampire might lay the smackdown. Or you could be walking merrily along, slaying some bandits as you go, and... you hear the dreaded wing-flaps of a dragon, the screech that lets you know it's seen you, and... you might as well savescum there and then until you've got some decent cutlery. It's also quite glitchy, crashing while screenshotting, screwing up the Steam overlay on PC, and, in one instance, hurling me 200 feet up from a giant's smackdown, only to crash as I tried to screenshot the awesome. And then refusing to catapult me when I reloaded the game and died again to try and bring you some awesome-sauce.
Conclusion
Skyrim is good, but it's a flawed good. It's a different experience in many ways to previous Elder Scrolls games, but, at the same time, it's still the familiar world Elder Scrolls fans know and love. It has the usual kickass story, but the difficulty curve is a bit wobbly, to say the least, and, in general, it's a story of give and take. I'd still give this my thumbs up, but only to RPG fans, as opposed to newbies to the genre. You want a “my first RPG” to ease you in, this isn't it. You want an entertaining, but sometimes frustrating experience? Go for it, empty your wallets, and don't be like the douches who torrented this game with no intention of buying.
EDIT: The review was written after 33+ hours, the specific paragraph was written 4 hours in. Apologies for the confusion.







Comments
33h is enough
It is a good review, keep it up.
Whatever people keep saying, there is nothing new you can see in the game after 30 hours. Given you played an Elder Scrolls title before after 20 hours you are either invincible (mage), deadalot (warrior), annoyed (roge) or any combination. While it may still be fun to keep on playing, same as playing Diablo II is fun, there is nothing fundamentally new you will experience.
Skyrim is a good game, but compared to Morrowind its a joke of an rpg.
I agree completely!
This game was a disappointment. The textures were ugly, the interface was clunky, the combat was weightless, and the loot system was retarded. The loot system ruined this game for me, whats the point of adventuring if all the good gear is smithed, and not found in a random dungeon?
Bravo Game-Boyz, Bravo
Gameplay
Let's just all agree;
1) for people fairly newish to the Elder Scrolls series (players of just Oblivion and/or Skyrim) Skyrim is a mind-blowing game that brings new life into the RPG genre
2)For players farther back in the series (Morrowind, Daggerfall, and even Arena) this is a deliberate dumbing down through making it console and newbie friendly. Morrowind was probably the zenith of the series in terms of story and immersibilty
If you are the former, this is a slam-bang 10
If you of the latter, 7.5 seems quite reasonable.
Everyone has an opinion, much like everyone has a puckered starfish.
Zeeshan Sajid
After reading this review, I don't understand why everyone is hating on the score itself. I have yet to play Skyrim, but everything Jamie stats seems to be very believable, even though i have yet to play. However one thing is for certain! Just because Skyrim got game of the year award from several different agencies doesn't mean it's the best game ever, because i can honestly say that Fallout 3 got the game of the year award, which was a Bethesda title, but after playing Lost Odyssey, I believed it to be a better game. Hopefully everyone understands that there really is no point in raging about a review that you don't agree with, because it's not your opinion, it's the reviewers opinion.
Thumbs up
I've noticed from the forums as well that critical comments, except those that are highly apologetic and, well, almost couched with cringing respect, are shouted down and attacked. A lot of the defenders will even defend places where the AI or NPC interaction is totally botched with a call on the player to the effect of, "well, that's what role-playing is for!"
(And I agree with the person who replied to them with the answer, no, that's what play-pretend is for. A CRPG is there to provide you with a responsive environment, not a forum for you to imagine the things you would like it to be.)
Anyway, I have to agree with your review here. I actually think you're rather generous -- but I will admit I was dazzled at first by it (even though I was highly disappointed by Oblivion and stuck with Morrowind for a long time) and raved to friends. But as I played, the flaws and imbalances and poor game-mechanic design (in the sense of the actual RPG rules and mechanics), along with how much they *have* dumbed it down, started to really ruin the experience.
Either way, though -- a guy posts a 75 for a highly fanboi-defended game, and you guys are going nuts attacking him. Really? Really??
Respect for daring to buck the trend.
VGA's
Did you watch the VGAs? Skyrim gets game of the year and you give it a 7.5? Man up and admit you dropped the ball on this review. How did this get posted? Someone should have quality controlled your review bro. And stop trying so hard to defend your review. It only makes you look worse. Dont quit yer day job bro.
Thanks for the compliment.
Elder Scrolls games have gotten GOTY for three games running, and you think my review's enough of a threat to that to whiteknight it? Now I feel powerful enough to take on all 30 of the evil game reviewers who gave this 100, and get a girl through magical, Scott Pilgrim like powers... :end sarcasm:
Thanks for the compliment, Tully, backhanded though it may be. But seriously, you don't like a review, you don't have to ragepost, and, with GOTY and several 100s behind it, the game doesn't need you.
i gotta admit, i think this
i gotta admit, i think this guy really did only play 4 hours when he wrote this. Unless he wrote this article over 30 hours (and even 30 isn't enough to grab the scope of this game) and didn't go back to fix anything he wrote earlier, which is just bad writing. After playing 30+ hours it should be fairly obvious that you can take quests and then finish them whenever. He also doesn't mention anything that i didn't see in the first 4 hours. Other than that his points are pretty valid, but the game deserves an 8 just for the amount of content alone. Hell even if you dont like the gameplay you can read hundreds of books.
P.S. the world of gamers needs to get over MW3 getting good scores everywhere. it's a good game and ppl like it, no ones forcng you to play it.
Hrm...
...While it is true that a good 90% of the quests can be taken, and then left forever, some of them either can't, or don't feel like they can. If you can't, well, you just got yourselves into dragon territory at level 5 or thereabouts without even realising. If you *can* ignore the blokes running along shouting "FOLLOW US TO THE QUEST!"... it's artificial pressure that an open world game really doesn't need until the final act. Either way, not great game design, either way, marked down.
As to the content: read a little closer, you'll realise I did actually give a shout out to the stupidly huge amount of (good) lore in the game. What else are books, and people's random conversations, if not in-game lore? But the point is, as a *game*, it's flawed, for reasons I've gone into both in and out of the comments. This is the thing with Elder Scrolls. The lore is great. The world is great. The game has always been good, but not "OH JEEZ CREAMING NAO!" quality. Hence the 75, which is still a mark of something worth buying. Just not excellent.
...Also, I have yet to find a copy of 'The Pig Children', which is a darn shame.
Anyways, thanks for the discussion, and I'd like to add to the MW3 thing: Nobody's forcing you to play MW3 (I certainly won't, for the very reasons many people have outlined... I think it's derivative, repetetive, and dull), but at the same time, nobody's saying Skyrim isn't worth buying. So disagreeing over numbers is... well, it's a bit silly, to be honest, especially since, if you read the review, I do actually say it's good.
But yeah, have a good weekend, and thanks for posting your thoughts.
So...
...just been reading about the november 30th patch... Some, er, interesting things happened there, didn't they?
Difficulty
Really guys? You are whining that you can't one-hit everything? That a giant takes tactics to kill rather than running up and slashing madly at it? Well then maybe you should go get MW9, I heard black ops 7 is coming out soon.
No, actually (SPOILERS, WORDS)
If you'd take the time to read the review, giants killing you were not an issue. Glitches with the giant attacks were minor, and didn't actually affect the score that much.
What *did* affect the score is that, in a balanced game, all classes have an equal chance without needing to branch out overmuch into other disciplines. This has been a problem throughout the Elder Scrolls series, and is no different here.
The group who get the brown end this time? Melee. Mages and ranged sneakers can quite happily survive all but the higher encounters, but melee? Oh, they're in serious trouble this time.
A melee character of up to level 25 can expect, without adding magic or ranged to their arsenal, to be mullered by:
+ Dragons
+ Mages (not your apprentices or adepts, but many story bosses, such as the two necromancers whose exclusive schtick is "I will shoot high powered lightning bolts from far away)
+ Bears until you get some decent cutlery (after that, they just hurt in combo with other monsters, which is thankfully rare)
Add to this that certain bosses are ridiculously easy with certain powers/tricks. Remember that archer bloke who clones himself, and two of those clones are illusion? Stay near the grave he came from, he won't spawn there, and you have enough distance to avoid all his shots while being able to shoot the (largely immobile) archer boss.
Difficulty: Erratic. Score: Lessened as a result.
Balance between classes has *always* been an issue with the Elder Scrolls games, and it's no different here.
But imagine the situation: You're a low level character who, due to the nature of the early quests (lots of 'follow me', which adds pressure, whether real or artificial, to get to the first dragon). You beat the first dragon (only took me 3 tries, which isn't bad considering I'd never met them), and then?
Ahhh, yes... random dragon spawns... at early levels. Dragon spawns near you at early levels, especially if you're melee focussed? Just savescum and hope it doesn't spot you this time.
Difficulty: Erratic. Score: Lessened as a result.
Now a lot of people have been complaining about me getting my opinion after 30+ hours, compared to their hundreds, believing this allows me little to no access to details about mechanics. Let's explain this a bit.
Roleplayer for 15 of my 29 years. PC gamer for 25 of those 29. GM for 10 of those roleplaying years. This is, despite the "simplicity" of levelling, a difficult system, because many of the perks are quite situational, and, before you can pick those perks correctly, you have to understand what situations they're good for. Not all the perks, as extra damage or lower spell cost are no brainers for anyone using a character focussing. Smithing is a good example. Being able to make your own armour seems nice, doesn't it? Except it *will* take away from your combat effectiveness, and most armour types (except dragon armour) can be easily found. Dragon armour is, as far as I can tell, the only use beyond monetary for Dragon Scales and Dragon bones. Of which there will be plenty, weighing the packrat player down and unnecessarily making newbies drop useful stuff in favour of ingredients with, at most, two uses.
Random quests, while we're on the subject, are nothing new. And, indeed, always "kill this/fetch this". Not that immersive, and not even that necessary. Trust me, you get tired of "kill this/fetch this" very quickly when there is story to be found. Speaking of which, Azura's shrine quest... easily found at level 20, not recommended for anyone but pure mages or ranged until higher levels.
...And this is just me picking random examples without going back into the game to find more.
Really?
Lemme direct you to something special. You say you can't do well in the game if you are a melee guy huh? Go check out SSoHPKC's walkthrough of the game on youtube. The guy has literally nothing to do with magic or sneak and has done quite fine on the game. The issue here isn't that you are docking it points . . . it is why you are docking it a full 25% for what pretty much every other person on this planet would consider extremely minor flaws, many of which aren't even truly flaws. I'm curious, what game DO you think deserves a high score that came out this year? MW3? Was a cheap ripoff of the past five Call of Duty games that didn't change one damn thing. Battlefield 3? Insert generic Call of Duty comment here as well. Revelations? Sure, entertaining gameplay, but no where near as massive as Skyrim, nowhere near as varied in the type of quests of you can undertake, and the main plot leaves a lot to be desired. The ONLY game that even comes close to Skyrim this year was Gears 3, and it had it's own set of issues as well. So, you are more than welcome to your opinion, but don't get all defensive to the people bashing your score of the game when it is ridiculously lower than what anyone else has rated the game. You want to post something radical, you are going to get hate for it. So instead of being defensive, how bout giving some real reasons for rating the game so low. Have a good day.
HonestGamers just gave it a
HonestGamers just gave it a 7. Let's go pick on them, next. Come on guys, it's still a positive review.
Still a positive review, guys!
7.5 is still a positive review on Metacritic. No harm, no foul!
You want graphics and a GREAT
You want graphics and a GREAT game! You want a 10, no doubt about it.
Just got through a weekend beta testing Star Wars: The Old Republic.
Wow (killer)! Save the TEN for this Monster. Skyrim will pale in comparison.
We all should not take this personally
Looking at the comments about how the reviewer is doing his job wrong are slightly asinine. A review is an evaluation of what a product does, which is in this case a video game that gives an RPG-experience. Many reviews are based on the reviewer's opinions.
We are meant to have different opinions on something, some will say Skyrim is a phenomenal 10, others will say it's a broken 3. Just because one says it's bad doesn't mean they wan't you to feel the same, your entitled to your own opinion, if you don't like a review, just stop reading it, there is no need to overly disparage someone. We Agree to Disagree, but we do not go on slander fests if one hates another's opinion.
unfairly rated
I must say you have given great disrespect to the rpg game of all games. How could this website be taken seriously when other games for the system are being reviewed and highly undeserved praised. Games such as:
Call of Duty MW3=10??? (You guys are kidding right? Overrated GOTY)
WWE 12 Wrestling=9!???? (A BIG FAT ZERO CREDIBILITY FOR GAMEBOYZ!)
SKYRIM(greatest game I've played in years)=7.5...
Don't just take it from me, not only extreme deserved praise from not only editorial reviewers but also look at the user reviews on all these games and you'll see why some people would be outraged. When I see quite honestly the best game I've ever played in years getting a mediocre score, (ya 7.5 is mediocre buddy) I feel perhaps your taste in games is not exactly the "norm". All I have to say to the reviewer is this...if writing is a part time thing for you (because it shows, no offense) then cool but here's my advice, don't quit your day job!
Get Over It
Dude,
Just cause your opinion does not meet that of any of these writers, doesn't mean you are the right one.
I just don't understand the hate as everyone is entitled to an opinion.
I would love to see you sit and critique a game, and see your writing skills. I love how people are what we call "Couch Critics" and think they are the ones who know better. That being said, do they know better? I wold say that they are not the "be all, end all", but their opinion counts, and this site has been doing it's thing since 1996, so I figure the site must be doing something right.
Anyhow, I just figure sit back, relax and enjoy your Skyrim. If you don't agree with them then so be it, you love the game and that is what counts.
Sheesh.
As a quick note to everyone,
As a quick note to everyone, 7.5 is still a good review. Just because every reviewer and their mum is terrified to give anything lower than a 5 doesn't mean those ratings don't exist. This is in the positive.
not going to lie. I have put
not going to lie. I have put over 100 hours Into skyrim and I have to say that the game is the best single player experience I have ever had and you give it a 7.5? How does gamerankings even take your rating seriously? You gave mw3 a perfect 10, makes you seem like a biased writer. That's what I get from this
Different Authors
You might want to look at the authors. You want to rage at someone about MW3? Go see Trev. You want to rage at someone about Skyrim, that's me.
Same site, different authors.
It's not so bad...
You're right. I hate how people think that every gaming website has a sort of "hive mind" and that everyone will think the same way. While I do think a perfect ten is way too high a score for MW3, and 7.5 is way too low for Skyrim, I understand that there are reviewers out there that believe every point added counts, and that they dont have to abide by the opinions of the majority, instead giving their own honest opinion. I applaud you for that.
That being said, I'd never want you to be a high school teacher.
Huh?
Wow. Some real angry dorks, replied to this thread. I.e; "Eldar scrolls is good, but a flawed good...[lol] credibility lost". I bought the game, it IS flawed. The melee sucks donkeys testicles...and now I've pursuaded a friend to trade me 'Dark Souls' for this. Some people need to get a life. Nice review..very honest.
You might consider to edit
You might consider to edit your text and get rid of the remark: I'm four hours in. I only realised you played the game for longer than this period when I read the end of your review. A bit sloppy, if I may say so. Overall I wasn't very impressed with the quality of your writing, and I disagree with the low score you gave this brilliant game.
RUN!
Its the attack of the fanboys!!!! How dare the reviewer didn't give this a 10!!!!
Honestly, I'm in this game for some considerable time now and I find to be in agreement with the reviewer in some points.
Graphics - Yup sometimes its beautiful and yet sometimes its crap. Definitely isn't next gen as it was marketed to be.
Difficulty - True, you would be taking down enemies like a bad ass and when you run into some random troll you get squished like a bug.
Gameplay - Honestly the random quest generator that seemingly add hours upon gameplay is actually quite cheap. Once you boil it down you're practically doing the same fetch, grab, loot , kill quest with different items or characters. Even dialogues and texts are recycled.
And finally since the review is based on the PC version, I think score is just. Bethesda obviously shafted this platform. Horrible interface, glitches, and dated graphics.
skyrim hater!
yeah well do you really expected a game with this level of content to be bug free? and thats your only real argument to give it down to a 7.5? dont get me wrong here is not a perfect game, but reviews are based on the experience not in the bugs that eventually will be fixed with an update and as far as i know, all bugs and glitches in this game are not annoying at all and there aren't that many either. so either yo are a skyrim hater or you are just bad writing reviews so please stop doing it and find another job... here is a review that is already better from a guy does not write reviews
graphics 9.5
while it has its bugs, skyrim is just beautiful, every place comes to life and you could spend hours just wandering around the beautiful scenery and for a game with over 300 hours of gameplay and running on a 6 year old console they are simply the best graphics ever seen
sound 10
the music in this game is excellent, every moment is captured by beautiful masterpieces and gives the game a unique feeling. voice acting is also very impressive, every character in the game feels different and new.
gameplay 9.0
the gameplay is simple and fun, the leveling system is way much better than previous games and killing dragons is awesome, but it could get repetitive sometimes
lasting appeal 10
over 300 hours gameplay, everything feels new every time, enough said
overall 96.25
Wow This review is bad
Im sorry but you said you died alot did you ever change the settings in the options menu to lower the difficulty?? Also I did not die that much and the dragons are not overpowerd!! But you should know that after playing 33hours!!! I disagree with this review and can not believe this is on matacrtic, and that you played for 33 hours or the fact that I read it!! Sorry bud but look at your review compared to the other sites Credibility out the window!!
*Enter your own subject heading*
Well you got another hit, I purely came here from Gamerankings since I saw the surprisingly low score. Read the review and it just doesn't add up.
Ok, so you say multiplatform games appear as Xbox, I assume you reviewed the PC version because you changed the settings? Well it sounds like your rig isn't cut to run it, that or you just pumped everything up. Did you tweak at all like adding LAA for ram over 2gb? My system is only a mid level one and I can run everything on high and maintain a stable 60fps. Anyway, I'm not here to compare e-peen.
You say the world is big, but not full of content big. Shit dude, 80hrs in and I've barely touched the main quest. There are over 150 mappable locations in this game, that's dungeons, towns, mines, and then you go on about the game having problems. Seriously, you don't get games this big without a few bugs. They happen and over time they get fixed. You need to look at the game from a gameplay side and a technical side. Take a look at some professional reviews like Edge, Eurogamer, GamesTM (Avoid IGN!!!) and look at what they have to say. Game has faults but they are outweighed by the sheer size and enjoyment of the game.
And lastly, this bit...
'I'd still give this my thumbs up, but only to RPG fans, as opposed to newbies to the genre. You want a “my first RPG” to ease you in, this isn't it. You want an entertaining, but sometimes frustrating experience? Go for it'
Really? Because you ask any rpg fan who has played atleast 3 of the Elder Scrolls games and they will say this one is dumbed down for mainstream. Don't ask me because I hate rpgs and you know what? Skyrim is one of the most enjoyable games I've played since I started gaming in the late 70s. It's easy to pick up, the potions are suitably named, there isn't too much micro management and importantly, it's got replay value if you fancy rolling a different character.
Welp
I'm not quite sure on how I should feel... a review like this makes it onto Gamerankings and Metacritic. I usually expect to see some credibility. I don't like being linked to a site that looks like it was built on Geocities. Good job bro, give Skyrim the lowest score it got yet on both. Way to be different while everyone continues to not visit the site. This is about the quality I see in common user reviews. One section of the review you write you are 4 hours in, about half way through the review, and yet apparently you're 30+ hours in? Nice proof reading. Hang up your writing pants, because you're not built for this profession.
As to the site, it's
As to the site, it's apparently due for a redesign sometime soon, but hey, why judge a book by its cover?
As to the editorial issue with this article, think about this for a second. 4 hours in, I'm enchanted by the good character models (not the best, but still good), yet later, I notice things that are impacting negatively on the experience. At the same time, I'm showing the good (the lore is excellent, as you'd expect since it's been polished over quite a few games now, the character models, the writing, the improved voice acting), and equally (and rightfully) showing the negative (render engine for outdoors not exactly great, difficulty curve erratic, crashes, glitches, and an interface that, on PC, is actually fiddly, while looking like it shouldn't).
Does that make the review bad? Or more balanced? See, if you take the time, you'll notice that, overall, I'm saying it's good. Not GOTY good, not stupidly good, but still worth it for RPG fans. And if a game's *lowest* score, by a guy who's played every Elder Scrolls since Daggerfall, is 75, that speaks for its quality, doesn't it?
Personally, I was shocked by so many 100s (see my blog posts on the site, and you'll see some common threads here, including "No game should get 100%. Ever."), because crashes to desktop, erratic difficulty, and at least some render issues make for something that is not perfect (IE- 100% score), but that's me.
Are you kidding me?
How can you even write a review for a game that has OVER 300 hours of gameplay, plus the infinite randomly generated quests, and only be four hours in?!?! Credibility=lost.
Actually
Due to my method of writing, I often finish writing a review long after I've written down "4 hours in" or somesuch. At the time this was published, 33 hours, finished Mage Guild quests, about 20 odd misc and side quests, at least a third of the way through story mode, and my opinion remains unchanged.
Difficulty curve is erratic, which marks it down, interface is still iffy (although managable) which marks it down, and outdoor render distance is not great, marking it down some more.
With any game I review, I start from 100, and mark it downwards. So for all those saying "You only played for 4 hours, you lose credibility", apologies for making you think I'd played the game 4 hours total before writing the review, but yeah, opinion remains unchanged. Also, you're talking to someone who's played *all* of the Elder Scrolls games... Even Redguard.
Considering you've only spent
Considering you've only spent 4 hours with Skyrim, I will ignore your comments about gameplay. You haven't played Skyrim enough to have an authoritative opinion on the combat or levelling systems.
What we're left with is some first impressions. Huzzah.
Well done at least for disclosing that you only played for 4 hours before reviewing.
See the comment right above
See the comment right above yours, Derka for the 4 hours thing.
As to the combat and levelling: Dragons are lethal at low levels, but turn up once you've done an early main quest, which often ends with random dragons murdering you in a somewhat arbitrary fashion. Render glitches, bugs, crashes, and steam overlay problems lower the score.
Levelling is fine, for the most part, but certain classes definitely get the short end of the stick, even with shouts (hallo, melee!), and the random quests, mostly taking the form of 'kill this' or 'fetch this', are neither new nor interesting.
The interface, on PC at least (the platform reviewed on) is finicky, although I will defend it against the trollish idea that it's "stupid" or "unfinished". It does the job, but using it can be a pain in the rear when the mouse hitbox for a succesful use is off, as it is.
Oh, and to forestall "But it's on the metacritic page for XB360!", there's a bug with the site that makes any game that's multiplatform show only the XB360 or PS3...
Read up on the lore, actually
Read up on the lore, actually play more of the game, pay attention to what is going on, and then post another review. Thanks.
Which part of "Really deep
Which part of "Really deep lore, of which there is lots" did you miss? Also, see other replies.
I'm happy to discuss, but, while I apologise for writing a part of my review that made people believed I'd sat down for 4 hours, then wrote the review, then went and played golf, I'd appreciate it if the discussion is civil.
Err... so you wrote this
Err... so you wrote this review after playing for 4 hours?
No, although I do apologise
No, although I do apologise for writing the article in such a way that it was construed as such. 33+ hours at the time it was published, finished Mages Guild quests, and died a large number of times, often in somewhat arbitrary ways (Dragon notices you at early levels? Just savescum, as I said, you haven't got a hope in hell).
Also played all the Elder Scrolls games.
Anyways, thanks for asking for clarification, and hope you stick around. I may tend to be more crtical than most, but you can guarantee any kudos it gets, it earns.
"Oblivion is good, but it's a
"Oblivion is good, but it's a flawed good." LOL Credibility lost.
Hahaha!
Oh boy, sometimes you write an article, it's late, you post it, and... then this happens. Remember folks, edit yer articles! Sorted, and thanks for pointing that out!
Post new comment