What is next after Skyrim?

[cuafpr]

loved skyrim until i finally decided to do the final quest chain and the "epic" battle was over in like 2 hits.... barely touched it after that disappointment.

 

[Lil Frier]

I agree, that was my one annoyance with Skyrim. The final boss took little effort, and that sucked. That, and I hate that it scaled with level, since my friend was able to beat the story at level 26 or something.

 

[norseamd]

I agree, that was my one annoyance with Skyrim. The final boss took little effort, and that sucked. That, and I hate that it scaled with level, since my friend was able to beat the story at level 26 or something.

so much for the skyrim is less leveled promise. maybe it is but i hate the leveling. requiem gets rid of the leveling entirely

 

[Red Hawk]

Surprisingly, for me, putting all the Skyrim hype aside. It was a mediocre game, especially because it suppose to be the leader of AAA RPG's. In all honestly I enjoyed Oblivion more, and found Oblivion to have a better story, and environment. Skyrim added dragons which was so gimmicky its not even funny, it was useless. There was nothing special or epic about the dragons. The animations in the game were absolutely terrible, I cant stress that enough. The A.I is dumber than dumb. The graphics were ok, but nothing special to be honest. I only got about 40 hours into the game, never completed the main quest, I just found the game to contain so many problems the first one had. The selection of enemies was so limited, and the selection of weapons was as well. You would think a game like this would have 1000 items, well....no, theres like 5 types of each kind of weapon. So everyones play through is the same in terms of items. I don't know, I am expecting a lot more for the next one if that ever managed to come out, because in my eyes Skyrim wasn't that great.

I firmly disagree. Skyrim drew me in more than Oblivion did; it felt more natural. The animations are funky, but they're improved over Oblivion and FO3, and the camera perspective is less in-your-face. The graphics up close aren't anything special, but it's the wide scale graphics that are amazing. You can stand on a hill, and look over a whole valley. Not simply a nice background valley, but a valley you can actually go to, and you can see any animals or people that might be roaming around. Only Skyrim can offer that sort of experience. And it edges out past Bethesda games, with the event randomization mechanic that organically puts random people and things around the world.

And clok1966 has a point, if Skyrim is "mediocre", what's better (aside from the other Elder Scrolls and Bethesda Fallout games)? You say you "only" got 40 hours into the game...how many games do you spend 40 hours on at all? How many games from 2011 did you spend 40 hours on? Sure, it's not perfect. But it does what it does better than any game out there, except arguably games from the same series and developer. You might enjoy The Witcher 2 more, but the Witcher 2 doesn't even try to do what Skyrim does. That's a matter of taste, not quality. I don't go around saying Grand Theft Auto is a mediocre series because I don't like the modern urban setting, I just don't prefer it.

 

[EDUSAN]

well... in almost any rpg you can spend 40 hours...

I took probably 50 to beat Mass Effect the 1st time, and probably 40 for ME2. I think i was able to beat ME3 in a bit less than 40hs.
Darksouls took me probably 60hs to beat for the 1st time and i still had some optional places that i never went into
It took me aproximately 35hs to beat Jade Empire last month and that is like a 2003 game

40hs for RPGs is not that much.
of course you can play 200hs more in skyrim in the same playthrough, but the question is "do you want to spend 200hs more?" i played 50hs of skyrim and i was getting asleep playing it.

 

[shortylickens]

well... in almost any rpg you can spend 40 hours...

I took probably 50 to beat Mass Effect the 1st time, and probably 40 for ME2. I think i was able to beat ME3 in a bit less than 40hs.
Darksouls took me probably 60hs to beat for the 1st time and i still had some optional places that i never went into
It took me aproximately 35hs to beat Jade Empire last month and that is like a 2003 game

40hs for RPGs is not that much.
of course you can play 200hs more in skyrim in the same playthrough, but the question is "do you want to spend 200hs more?" i played 50hs of skyrim and i was getting asleep playing it.

yeah but most modern RPG's have you piss away a lot of time doing nonsense.
Mass Effect and Knights of the Old Republic had relatively slow walking speeds, that made a small game feel huge but also had you stare at the back of your characters head for incredibly long chunks of time.

Mass Effect also had that stupid planet rover which was ultimately pointless and really just a distraction from what again, isnt that long of a game plot-wise.

Thats why I love Baldurs Gate 2 so much. Every single screen is full of shit to do. Usually at least once quest, often times more. The Slums has multiple major and minor quests running thru it, not to mention provides access to the slavers hold, Jans house, the thieves fence, a good temple, some homes, the planar sphere, and the best tavern in the game (which is where you pick up a bunch of PC's and do a major quest and get access to the sewers the first time, which has more quests).

Not one square inch of that world was wasted. Brilliant design all around. If you arent doing a quest you are moving towards one, and encountering something fun along the way. People literally run at you with offers of things to do.

 

[monkeydelmagico]

Skyrim's fun/$ is about as good as it gets.
Steams says I have played 800 hours.
That is over 13 hours of game play per dollar.

And, of course, we can all quibble with things about this, or any other game, but over all it was a amazing game.

Currently trying out Far Cry 3. Very good - better than Far Cry 2. But, is there anything on the horizon that looks like it might be as good as Skyrim was?

Same. Loved skyrim awesome game. Have almost as many hours into Oblivion. Dragons age, Far cry dragon, Witcher 2 are all good too.

Not sure where the next thrill will come from for you but I have bioshock infinite to finish playing next. Got distracted by Witcher 2.

 

[darkewaffle]

Thats why I love Baldurs Gate 2 so much. Every single screen is full of shit to do. Usually at least once quest, often times more. The Slums has multiple major and minor quests running thru it, not to mention provides access to the slavers hold, Jans house, the thieves fence, a good temple, some homes, the planar sphere, and the best tavern in the game (which is where you pick up a bunch of PC's and do a major quest and get access to the sewers the first time, which has more quests).

Not one square inch of that world was wasted. Brilliant design all around. If you arent doing a quest you are moving towards one, and encountering something fun along the way. People literally run at you with offers of things to do.

Actually one of my favorite things about FFXI (different game but this is more of a design decision than game specific) was the fact that the world was constructed with both meaningful areas and 'negative space'. Cities had alleys which served no specific purpose other than connecting two streets, houses were accessible with "useless" NPCs, you could walk up into a guard tower and find... nothing except a view. I think it's more immersive and realistic if not everything has a 'purpose'. If too many areas or NPCs exist to only fulfill a quest objective I think it feels more false and contrived.

 

[Squeetard]

I played the Beta for ESO and can not wait for it. Everything I would want with an Elder scrolls mmo. Skyrim where you can get help on quests and trade with real peeps.

 

[zinfamous]

The next for me will be Skywind, then whatever happens with the next Fallout release.

ESO does not exist to me.

 

[EDUSAN]

ESO does not exist to me.

well... thats what every warcraft 3 player wants to think about story and lore in WoW...

but you know what... when every thing that seemed to be important in Elder Scrolls is destroyed in a MMO and that is taken as canon, you wont say "ESO does not exist to me"

 

[Lil Frier]

I played the Beta for ESO and can not wait for it. Everything I would want with an Elder scrolls mmo. Skyrim where you can get help on quests and trade with real peeps.

Oh, I will wait SO HARD for it. I'm not touching it at $15/month, but when it inevitably goes free-to-play after 6-12 months, I'll probably get it. Odds are, I'd get it on the Xbox One, since I could play it with my brother-in-law if I did (assuming he got it as well).

 

[zinfamous]

well... thats what every warcraft 3 player wants to think about story and lore in WoW...

but you know what... when every thing that seemed to be important in Elder Scrolls is destroyed in a MMO and that is taken as canon, you wont say "ESO does not exist to me"

hah! I think Warcraft was destroyed by WC3. I stopped liking Blizzard after that.

Why don't I like ESO online? It's an MMO. I don't generally like MMOs; especially when they follow the same cookie-cutter mold that this one seems to be following.

The very last thing that matters in an MMO is lore. Story is always shit and meaningless in the face of the endless grind to gear your little avatar.

I like the ESO games for their design, and an MMO does not fit that design at all. Hence, it does not exist to me. It's the difference between liking ES games, and liking MMOs. There is a wide gulf of difference between those genres.

 

[norseamd]

And clok1966 has a point, if Skyrim is "mediocre", what's better

as far as rpgs the older ones are usually considered better. the old ie games and arcanum and nwn and kotor and such

 

[norseamd]

It took me aproximately 35hs to beat Jade Empire last month and that is like a 2003 game

was from 2005

how is it

 

[norseamd]

Mass Effect also had that stupid planet rover which was ultimately pointless and really just a distraction from what again, isnt that long of a game plot-wise.

now if i go to the planet under attack it will advance the story and that i will be near the end. and i thought that these were just the early missions. mass effect is way too short. how long is mass effect 2

the rover is interesting but eventually it does get tedious

 

[norseamd]

Thats why I love Baldurs Gate 2 so much. Every single screen is full of shit to do. Usually at least once quest, often times more. The Slums has multiple major and minor quests running thru it, not to mention provides access to the slavers hold, Jans house, the thieves fence, a good temple, some homes, the planar sphere, and the best tavern in the game (which is where you pick up a bunch of PC's and do a major quest and get access to the sewers the first time, which has more quests). Not one square inch of that world was wasted. Brilliant design all around. If you arent doing a quest you are moving towards one, and encountering something fun along the way. People literally run at you with offers of things to do.

this is one of my favorite games. but i am starting to like the first one better. there are tons of exploration maps that have no connectin to the main plot. the fact that you can go anywhere is a big plus for me over shadows of amn.

know any good mods

 

[Mai72]

loved skyrim until i finally decided to do the final quest chain and the "epic" battle was over in like 2 hits.... barely touched it after that disappointment.

Modding is your friend.

 

[zinfamous]

as far as rpgs the older ones are usually considered better. the old ie games and arcanum and nwn and kotor and such

KoToR, especially, was heavily story-driven, very linear. It's a great game, but you can't really compare those types of RPGs. Look at Morrowind, if you want something in the same time period as KoToR, and I think you will see how very different the ES model is to those type of linear RPG.

ES games are about living your life the way you want to. The main storyline may suffer a bit for it, but it is there if you want it. In addition, you have many dozens of storylines that you can work out on your pace, an entire world that you can actually explore, rather than a cut path through everything.

Both games are great for what they do, but also very different styles.

 

[zinfamous]

now if i go to the planet under attack it will advance the story and that i will be near the end. and i thought that these were just the early missions. mass effect is way too short. how long is mass effect 2

the rover is interesting but eventually it does get tedious

ME2 feels a lot shorter, storywise, than ME1. The grindy rover exploration is replaced by an equally pointless planet-scanning mechanism for ores. You can upgrade your ship this way, which only truly matters at the very end, and what type of ending you get.

I would hesitate to call ME2 an RPG. ME1 was closer, imo, but also very far from KoToR.

 

[norseamd]

the star system design was a mechanic that i have not seen before and did like very much

 

[norseamd]

with the star system mechanic the planet scans could be used with a economy. you could mine certain deposits and then sell the commodities at trade planets. you would need a lot more planets and asteroids and such but it would be completely doable. you would also need npcs that make actions on their own. so other npcs might be out there looking for asteroids and planets to mine. you could have the droid and zerg like enemies dynamically attack and such. also the space station was too small. it was more or less implied that it was much bigger but there were not a lot of areas. the hoth planet was a nice size for the mission but there are not many mission like it

 

[shortylickens]

this is one of my favorite games. but i am starting to like the first one better. there are tons of exploration maps that have no connectin to the main plot. the fact that you can go anywhere is a big plus for me over shadows of amn.

know any good mods

many areas in BG2 were not needed for the main plot.

 

[shortylickens]

You popped out at Waukeens promenade but were allowed to leave immediately and never had to come back. You only have to do one thing in the Slums and are automatically taken to the important house the first time you visit.

You never actually NEED to go thru the Bridge or Government or Temple district. You only need to visit the graveyard once during the main quest and again are automatically taken to the important crypt for the plot.
Docks are necessary to visit multiple times but only a couple buildings.

Darnise hold is totally optional as is Trademeet, Druids Grove, Umar Hills, windpear, and temple ruins.

http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17t1szeyhbmf7jpg/original.jpg

Also Watchers Keep is totally optional. As are 2 of the 3 caverns in the Underdark.
You dont NEED to do the Sahagin area, but if you pass it up you can never go back either.

I liked it better in BG2. The optional areas had names, and lots of stuff to do in them.
There were too many small, unamed areas in BG1 that had little if anything going on in them.

http://www.shsforums.net/uploads/monthly_03_2012/post-5803-0-19446500-1332632372.gif
(you dont see most of those names on your map in the game).

And the areas of Baldurs Gate itself were too generic. No names, just north south east west, and they all felt roughly the same except for the one important thing you had to do in each area.

 

[norseamd]

true

but there many more maps on the first one. have you played it before?