What's his problem, huh?
With all the negativity that has been courted by the fine folk over at Bethesda, I feel it necessary to get one thing straight; Skyrim is a good game. Heck, it's a fantastic game, in some people's opinion (Like mine) it's one of the best ever made. This shouldn't be something I need to establish but I have read post after post of people gas lighting themselves into forgetting how much this game achieved with what it did. People who exacerbate the issues and disregard all the positives. And I understand, I've done it too with Bethesda stories, but when Skyrim is dragged in front of the crosshairs it does make me feel a little personally affronted. And so I intend to launch myself in front of those crosshairs and defend my baby for the world today.
Today it's hard to defend anything with Bethesda's name and branding on it and honestly that is their own doing. The twin launches of Fallout 76 and 'Wolfestein: Young Blood' did murder upon their reputation and the lukewarm reception to the gutted Fallout 4 didn't leave anyone feeling hopeful for the future of this company. Then there are the studio departures, no where near as bad as what Bioware's facing but still disheartening to read about, and the fact that the team are committed to reusing the same tired engine once again on the upcoming Elder Scrolls 6. (Just put the thing to rest, it's painful at this point.) Folk are wondering if there is any point supporting a studio that seems intent on self sabotage to the point of obscurity, but I have never wavered in my loyalty to one of their products.
I remember my relationship with Skyrim so vividly because it was the first time that I had ever given the fantasy genre a chance. Before it always felt like the same stories being retold with the same characters and no heart in any of it. There were always the 'colonised Elves' who served as a thinly veiled metaphor for the Native Americans, the 'Stalwart Dwares' who toiled underground with their big beards and Napoleon complexes and the dull 'standard humans' who existed as little more than placeholders for the audience to stick their face in. With this tried and tested formula being the norm I saw little of the scope for imagination that the fantasy genre promised and I would never have done so if I didn't give a chance to a little game with a man wearing a horned helmet.
The Elder Scrolls served as my entry point into fantasy (which is now one of my favourite genres), my introduction into YouTube (Which is easily my most visited website), and helped feed my love of world building. (Which is a adoration that birthed my obsession with writing.) Nowadays I'm able to give a chance to almost any Fantasy property, even those that look generic from the outset (like the Witcher) only to prove one of the most interesting stories that I've ever committed myself to. (Like the Witcher.) I'm even slowly starting to trust other platform's depiction of fantasy with the new Dafne Keen led 'His Dark Materials' Series out now and the Henry Cavil 'The Witcher' series coming out the same day as Star Wars Episode 9. (That'll be an interesting ratings battle to see in hindsight.) Even recent storytelling tragedies (Like Game of Thrones Season 8) have not managed to put out my reigning passion for fantasy, so you can see how deep the roots of love for Skyrim are set.
One of the most common sources of criticism that I often hear to regards to Skyrim is the way that it presents it's Intro sequence. Just look online and you'll find plenty of videos of folk who highlight that Intro specifically as how not to start a game. Issues generally revolve around the length of time it takes to get into the open world as well as the fact that the intro is linear. (Shocked noises!) But I've always found both arguments to be incessantly asinine and have never been able to understand people's widespread issues with this practice. Firstly that carriage sequence only lasts for 3 minutes, hardly as unbearable as people like to make out, and the following 20 minute dungeon is a breeze through which all you are subjected to is a rough test of skill and a situation for you to settle into a playstyle. Compare that to Oblivion's slog of a dungeon or Daggerfall's nightmare first dungeon and I really don't see why Skyrim gets the full weight of the hatred. As for the 'linear' argument; it's the intro, of course you won't be making any narrative changing decisions. (Plus there's nothing wrong with linearity, lay off once in a while will ya?)
With all the negativity that has been courted by the fine folk over at Bethesda, I feel it necessary to get one thing straight; Skyrim is a good game. Heck, it's a fantastic game, in some people's opinion (Like mine) it's one of the best ever made. This shouldn't be something I need to establish but I have read post after post of people gas lighting themselves into forgetting how much this game achieved with what it did. People who exacerbate the issues and disregard all the positives. And I understand, I've done it too with Bethesda stories, but when Skyrim is dragged in front of the crosshairs it does make me feel a little personally affronted. And so I intend to launch myself in front of those crosshairs and defend my baby for the world today.
Today it's hard to defend anything with Bethesda's name and branding on it and honestly that is their own doing. The twin launches of Fallout 76 and 'Wolfestein: Young Blood' did murder upon their reputation and the lukewarm reception to the gutted Fallout 4 didn't leave anyone feeling hopeful for the future of this company. Then there are the studio departures, no where near as bad as what Bioware's facing but still disheartening to read about, and the fact that the team are committed to reusing the same tired engine once again on the upcoming Elder Scrolls 6. (Just put the thing to rest, it's painful at this point.) Folk are wondering if there is any point supporting a studio that seems intent on self sabotage to the point of obscurity, but I have never wavered in my loyalty to one of their products.
I remember my relationship with Skyrim so vividly because it was the first time that I had ever given the fantasy genre a chance. Before it always felt like the same stories being retold with the same characters and no heart in any of it. There were always the 'colonised Elves' who served as a thinly veiled metaphor for the Native Americans, the 'Stalwart Dwares' who toiled underground with their big beards and Napoleon complexes and the dull 'standard humans' who existed as little more than placeholders for the audience to stick their face in. With this tried and tested formula being the norm I saw little of the scope for imagination that the fantasy genre promised and I would never have done so if I didn't give a chance to a little game with a man wearing a horned helmet.
The Elder Scrolls served as my entry point into fantasy (which is now one of my favourite genres), my introduction into YouTube (Which is easily my most visited website), and helped feed my love of world building. (Which is a adoration that birthed my obsession with writing.) Nowadays I'm able to give a chance to almost any Fantasy property, even those that look generic from the outset (like the Witcher) only to prove one of the most interesting stories that I've ever committed myself to. (Like the Witcher.) I'm even slowly starting to trust other platform's depiction of fantasy with the new Dafne Keen led 'His Dark Materials' Series out now and the Henry Cavil 'The Witcher' series coming out the same day as Star Wars Episode 9. (That'll be an interesting ratings battle to see in hindsight.) Even recent storytelling tragedies (Like Game of Thrones Season 8) have not managed to put out my reigning passion for fantasy, so you can see how deep the roots of love for Skyrim are set.
One of the most common sources of criticism that I often hear to regards to Skyrim is the way that it presents it's Intro sequence. Just look online and you'll find plenty of videos of folk who highlight that Intro specifically as how not to start a game. Issues generally revolve around the length of time it takes to get into the open world as well as the fact that the intro is linear. (Shocked noises!) But I've always found both arguments to be incessantly asinine and have never been able to understand people's widespread issues with this practice. Firstly that carriage sequence only lasts for 3 minutes, hardly as unbearable as people like to make out, and the following 20 minute dungeon is a breeze through which all you are subjected to is a rough test of skill and a situation for you to settle into a playstyle. Compare that to Oblivion's slog of a dungeon or Daggerfall's nightmare first dungeon and I really don't see why Skyrim gets the full weight of the hatred. As for the 'linear' argument; it's the intro, of course you won't be making any narrative changing decisions. (Plus there's nothing wrong with linearity, lay off once in a while will ya?)
The second most common criticism I hear is one with a bit more legs, namely the fact that the protagonist is the Dragonborn. Now this isn't some deeply racist tirade against those with dragon heritage, (or at least I think not) people just feel that it stunts some of the roleplay potential of your character when they are already naturally an incredibly powerful, even fated, individual. I understand this problem and it is one that has followed all narratives that follow the 'chosen one' formula, but Bethesda did handle this game in a clever way that folk tend to forget. One can play Skyrim without ever being identified as the Dragonborn provided that they ignore the main quest. There is a point wherein the Greybeards summon you at which you become alerted to you Dragonborn status, and before then you are every bit the blank slate nobody that an RPG nut could hope for. They even go out of the way to ensure the reason you are arrested for the intro is a complete case of 'wrong place, wrong time', to ensure you don't start the game with any pre-conceived notions as to your character's disposition.
This next issue, however, is one that I cannot defend when it comes to Skyrim; The gutting of the faction system. In previous Elder Scrolls games, the player would join a faction (In Morrowind this often required you to meet some skillful perquisites) and then prove yourself in order to level up through that faction. Each rank would be identified and some milestones would come alongside unique rank benefits for your character to enjoy. Quests wouldn't necessarily be feeding into a larger narrative, and you had a chance to rise through the ranks by proving yourself an invaluable member of your respective. In Skyrim this whole system was replaced with a quest thread in which players would find themselves falling into the 'leader' position by the end, with little idea of what that rank entails. Now don't get me wrong, the older versions of the faction system were far from perfect, quests could often seem tedious and irrelevant in some cases, but Skyrim seemed to go backwards with it in a way that took all the special-ness out of the idea of factions.
This last point does tickle me quite a bit, namely the way that people complain how Skyrim has less NPCs to interact with than Oblivion and Morrowind. This is absolutely true, Skyrim does have a minuscule amount of people inhabiting towns compared to those other two games. In fact, sometimes cities are so sparse that one can wonder how society function throughout Skyrim. (I suppose imagination is a must.) However, what we have here is a clear-cut-case of quality over quantity. Don't believe me? Name all the inhabitants of the market district in Oblivion's Imperial City. You can't, because 90% of those NPC's are personality-less drones who only exist to be bodies to up that city's count. Everyone in Skyrim has a personality, a story, a home and a life. Off the top of my head I could name half the residents of Whiterun, because they are just more interesting people to get to know.
Of course, there are countless more arguments in this camp but none more that I feel are worth refuting. Some say that the RPG elements are neutered, but that's more a matter of opinion; I see them as remolded in a shape that fits into a modern action RPG, either way it doesn't 'ruin the game' in any fashion. Of course, you could understand all of this and still dislike Skyrim, and that's completely your prerogative, but to lump Skyrim alongside such travesties as Fallout 76 just to prove that Bethesda have never had talent is just plain petty and dumb. Once upon a time, Bethesda made a fantastic RPG that significantly changed videogame world building, and let's not forget that as we hope they'll do it again come 2024. (My projected release window for TES 6. If I'm right ya'll owe me a coke.)
Of course, there are countless more arguments in this camp but none more that I feel are worth refuting. Some say that the RPG elements are neutered, but that's more a matter of opinion; I see them as remolded in a shape that fits into a modern action RPG, either way it doesn't 'ruin the game' in any fashion. Of course, you could understand all of this and still dislike Skyrim, and that's completely your prerogative, but to lump Skyrim alongside such travesties as Fallout 76 just to prove that Bethesda have never had talent is just plain petty and dumb. Once upon a time, Bethesda made a fantastic RPG that significantly changed videogame world building, and let's not forget that as we hope they'll do it again come 2024. (My projected release window for TES 6. If I'm right ya'll owe me a coke.)
No comments:
Post a Comment