• Topic Archived
You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.

User Info: CplCam

CplCam
1 year ago#41
Runesamurai posted...
TC just gave away the fact that they're a troll now. I can completely understand not liking the game without mods. But with the right ones the game never gets old. Anyone who says the mods suck is trolling. We'll just be feeding the troll at this point if we keep replying.

I always fling s*** at trolls. If they want to eat it that's on them.

User Info: DovahkinReynold

DovahkinReynold
1 year ago#42
Guys guys guys, we shouldn't be ignoring or feeding s*** to these poor, lonely bastards. Trolls are people who have been ignored and forced to eat s*** their entire lives, they need a healthy diet of compassion and logic.

A Defense of Feeding the Trolls Via a Defense of Vanilla Skyrim

Our appropriately named relmlyce contends that Skyrim is a bad game and, helpfully, offers a few opinions on why to bolster his argument. For one he says, "The dungeon crawling aspect is pointless because anything you craft is better than what you find."

Now the ability to walk up to a crafting anvil and enchanting table at level one and make a better item than you'll find in any dungeon would certainly trivialize the game and not be fun. That's probably why Bethesda didn't make a game like that.

In setting up this brazen straw man our relmlyce has inadvertently stumbled upon one aspect of Skyrim that people enjoy: setting goals for their character separate from the official quests of defeating alduin or deciding the civil war or whatever.

Your Dragonborn has the potential to become the greatest blacksmith/enchanter in history and make better weapons and armor than some musty ancient relic if you level those skills through gameplay. And why shouldn't they?

On Combat

Skyrim has never been known for great combat but, at this point, it gets so s*** upon its probably actually underrated. Dark Souls has "slow" and "clunky" combat as well but it's beloved. What Skyrim's combat is actually missing is weight and feedback but it can still be fun if you know what you're doing.

On Compromise and Subjectivity

All games make compromises, no game can do everything and do it well. Skyrim does a lot of things, people who like it are willing to compromise on combat to enjoy those things that Skyrim does that other games with better combat don't do or do poorly. Those people may have different priorities in what they look for in a game than you. Duh.

On Mods

Some people here seem to be willing to concede that Skyrim is a bad game without mods, this is wrong. Mods did not "save" Skyrim, they extended it's lifespan. Skyrim came out almost a decade ago and people are still playing it. It's a single player game with a longer tail than all but the most popular multi player games. You may not like it but if you think it is a "bad" game you are objectively wrong.

User Info: Slakr

Slakr
1 year ago#43
DovahkinReynold posted...
You may not like it but if you think it is a "bad" game you are objectively wrong.
If a person does not like something they are wrong for thinking it's bad? I think you misused the word "objectively" in this case, considering the perspective by which one determines for themselves whether or not a thing is "good" or "bad" is by definition entirely subjective. Killing a person is "good" if they are your enemy, but "bad" if they are someone else's loved one.

How I came to the determination that Skyrim without mods is "bad" is by defining it like this: I couldn't bring myself to play through the whole game without mods. It's that simple. The game, in my opinion, requires mods to make it worth playing. I'm not talking about re-playing in this case, but about playing the full game (in this sense, we'll define that as completing the main quest) in the first place. In my first time playing the game, I gave it less than 10 hours before I decided to wait until there were enough mods out to fix the things that made it "bad" in my opinion, which in my case took a minimum of about 20 mods.

On the other hand, though, it's worth noting that the ability to add mods - and the extent to which the game can be modded - is what makes the game great. There are very few things that cannot be changed. Hell, if you get tired of the high fantasy setting, there's even a mod out there that turns Skyrim into a western.

The thing is, I came into this knowing that I would mod the hell out of the game. I learned that from Oblivion (I still haven't forced myself to get into Morrowind yet, which is magnitudes worse than Skyrim and Oblivion in my opinion, from a gameplay perspective). I also knew that Skyrim wasn't going to be worth MSRP for me, so I waited until LE was on sale for $12.50 before buying it ("good" or "bad" can also be defined by value of the price paid divided by the number of hours playing the game, with a "bad" game having a high cost per hour played). So, with those considerations, Skyrim met my expectations and it's easy in retrospect to call it a "great" game.

That said, TC's opinion nearly 10 years later is just reflective of how lazy they are. There's no reason to not know by now what Skyrim offers, and certainly no reason to not know that the majority of people who enjoy playing it have utilized mods. Furthermore, to then retort that they are not willing to expend the minimal effort it takes to obtain and install mods - which they should have known would be needed prior to purchase - only serves to prove the extent of how lazy they are. And when you compound that with their inability to even do some basic role-playing in a game like Skyrim, well, at some point you just realize that "lazy" doesn't begin to describe them.
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt.
Ban the DH.

User Info: DovahkinReynold

DovahkinReynold
1 year ago#44


Slakr posted...
If a person does not like something they are wrong for thinking it's bad? I think you misused the word "objectively" in this case, considering the perspective by which one determines for themselves whether or not a thing is "good" or "bad" is by definition entirely subjective. Killing a person is "good" if they are your enemy, but "bad" if they are someone else's loved one.


Yes, sometimes you are wrong for thinking something is bad just because you don't like it. This describes the origins of racism and sexism but I am not making a moral philosophical argument. I am speaking to the quality of the product and the experience it delivers compared to it's peers in the market at the time of release.

You may not like Karl "The Mailman" Malone, you may have thought he was boring to watch and preferred Michael Jordan but Karl Malone was, objectively, a good basketball player. This is born out by his position as the second all time leading scorer in NBA history, your opinion is irrelevant.

The same with video games. You are giving far too much weight to your subjective opinion and pretending objectivity is impossible. In actuality, we have the historical perspective to judge it's critical and commercial reception, it's longevity, and it's influence on the industry.

Historical consensus says it good, revisionist history from the vantage point of 2020 is the only thing saying otherwise.

User Info: Slakr

Slakr
1 year ago#45
Sure, when compared to ET and Superman 64, vanilla Skyrim was good. And it was only slightly less bugged than those other two games combined when it was released.

Just think of how "great" ET and Superman 64 would have been if they could have been modded, though!

Just trying to be "objective" here.
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt.
Ban the DH.

User Info: DovahkinReynold

DovahkinReynold
1 year ago#46
Yeah, a 94 metacritic and 8.2 user score, sounds horrible.😂

The game of the year in 2011 when Skyrim came out was Portal 2, not E.T. or Superman 64. You know anyone still playing Portal 2, mods or not?

You don't sound "objective," you sound "salty" ...maybe because you're objectively bad at evaluating video games in their proper context (as your last post makes clear.)

User Info: Slakr

Slakr
1 year ago#47
DovahkinReynold posted...
You know anyone still playing
I don't know anyone still playing Skyrim, either. I'm not still playing it, for that matter (it's been a couple of years since I have). I'm playing Far Cry: Primal (which only has graphics mods, and I haven't felt a need to bother with that). I might eventually play Skyrim again, but I'd be on a fresh install and at this point the game needs over 250 mods to be worth playing. As a "replay" regardless of how much of the game I can change (while still playing Skyrim), that is a lot of effort compared to other games that are worth playing "vanilla," which I never found Skyrim to be.

My taste in games is fine. I simply don't need popular validation to know what I like is "good," and what I don't like is "bad" in my opinion. It must be a rough life to feel the need to think movies like "Titanic" are "good" based on everyone else's opinion rather than your own. (I think that movie sucked, regardless of how well it did in the box office. Imagine that, free thought!)

The thing is, if something is objectively "good" and you subjectively don't like it, then there's something wrong with your opinion, not that thing. Therefor, by your own metrics, if Titanic is "good" and you don't like it, your opinion sucks, not the movie. In that case, you've surrendered your thoughts to public opinion, and have none of your own.

Again, we're not talking about whether someone can drastically change Bethesda's product to make it "good" in their opinion. That has been established. Clean water is objectively "good." Let's not be confused about whether Skyrim meets the qualities of clean water.
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt.
Ban the DH.

User Info: DuneMan

DuneMan
1 year ago#48
Slakr posted...
the game needs over 250 mods to be worth playing
And that one sentence invalidates everything you might say concerning whether the game is 'good' or not.
"I'd rather betray the world than let the world betray me." -Cao Cao

User Info: RealmIyce

RealmIyce
1 year ago#49
Wow now ya'll are attacking each other over this lame game. tsk tsk. such a horrible game.
I've been around for a long time. Really miss some of the old PS2 boards.

User Info: DovahkinReynold

DovahkinReynold
1 year ago#50
Slakr posted...
I don't know anyone still playing Skyrim, either. I'm not still playing it, for that matter (it's been a couple of years since I have). I'm playing Far Cry: Primal (which only has graphics mods, and I haven't felt a need to bother with that). I might eventually play Skyrim again, but I'd be on a fresh install and at this point the game needs over 250 mods to be worth playing. As a "replay" regardless of how much of the game I can change (while still playing Skyrim), that is a lot of effort compared to other games that are worth playing "vanilla," which I never found Skyrim to be.

My taste in games is fine. I simply don't need popular validation to know what I like is "good," and what I don't like is "bad" in my opinion. It must be a rough life to feel the need to think movies like "Titanic" are "good" based on everyone else's opinion rather than your own. (I think that movie sucked, regardless of how well it did in the box office. Imagine that, free thought!)

The thing is, if something is objectively "good" and you subjectively don't like it, then there's something wrong with your opinion, not that thing. Therefor, by your own metrics, if Titanic is "good" and you don't like it, your opinion sucks, not the movie. In that case, you've surrendered your thoughts to public opinion, and have none of your own.

Again, we're not talking about whether someone can drastically change Bethesda's product to make it "good" in their opinion. That has been established. Clean water is objectively "good." Let's not be confused about whether Skyrim meets the qualities of clean water.


This is adorable. You're either 12 or very insecure, either way enjoy Far Cry...

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-09-27-elder-scrolls-series-a-huge-inspiration-for-far-cry-3
  • Topic Archived

GameFAQs Q&A