I have never understand how a rush through can be a joyfull gameplay experience.
It takes anything fun out of the game...i played many games 100s of hours and in maybe 20% of them i have ended the mainquest bcs i play that long that i changed the os, some hardware, started new bcs of patches that improved and added gameplay and mostly bcs if i end a mainquest i evnetually have no reason to come back and play again
It's not a joyful experience if one hasn't finished the game at least once. Anyway it's only for bragging rights.
FOR ONE QUEST LINE. The main one. But regardless thats one long quest line in and off itself. And again, my point is, thats just one single dinky quest line of a game populated with tons of quests, towns, guilds etc. In other words? Thats one big game right there.
The non-main quests are exactly that, short filler stuff. Really Elder Scrolls games comes from a different era of gaming when players wanted the solo player here is an immersive world, but I think after games like WoW people want the sim RPG world to be multiplayer. As a result Skyrim will look pretty, you will be able to interact with many NPCs as you can with WoW, but the writing for the main quest is realatively small compared to many modern RPGs. That's why I can perfectly well write, I will spend a few days geting my fill out of the world exploration and character development, and then I will head on in and hit up the main questline of Skyrim. I will experience most of the game, though not every trifiling detail, which are always repetitive and a bit RNG.
See this doesnt really mean anything. Dark Souls arguably one of the most challenging console games atm has been speed run in 90 minutes. However, most folks will spend an average of 70 hours the first time they go through.
So... just cause you know how to blitz the game, doesnt mean thats the average, or even how 90% of the people will do it.
See this doesnt really mean anything. Dark Souls arguably one of the most challenging console games atm has been speed run in 90 minutes. However, most folks will spend an average of 70 hours the first time they go through.
So... just cause you know how to blitz the game, doesnt mean thats the average, or even how 90% of the people will do it.
Dark Souls just uses a harsh RPG ruleset, if the game simply had an easy or casual difficulty mode everyone would beat the game in less than 2 hrs, as their simply isn't that much to the RPG.
See this doesnt really mean anything. Dark Souls arguably one of the most challenging console games atm has been speed run in 90 minutes. However, most folks will spend an average of 70 hours the first time they go through.
So... just cause you know how to blitz the game, doesnt mean thats the average, or even how 90% of the people will do it.
Dark Souls just uses a harsh RPG ruleset, if the game simply had an easy or casual difficulty mode everyone would beat the game in less than 2 hrs, as their simply isn't that much to the RPG.
False.
I used to play MMOs like you, but then I took an arrow to the knee.
Are people really freaking out over a speedrun time? As an fyi for you all, one of Baldur's Gate 2's faster speed runs is only 1 hour and 30 minutes (source), and only 30 minutes if you include glitches (youtube "half-hour Baldur's Gate 2 speedrun").
Really, the only ones that should pay attention to speedrun times are those that actually find them interesting/fun/competitive.
See this doesnt really mean anything. Dark Souls arguably one of the most challenging console games atm has been speed run in 90 minutes. However, most folks will spend an average of 70 hours the first time they go through.
So... just cause you know how to blitz the game, doesnt mean thats the average, or even how 90% of the people will do it.
Dark Souls just uses a harsh RPG ruleset, if the game simply had an easy or casual difficulty mode everyone would beat the game in less than 2 hrs, as their simply isn't that much to the RPG.
False.
I'm keen to say false to all of that lol.
The only way I see a 90min DS run would be possible is if you were using a glitch like the infinite souls one to max your char, and imo that would count. I don't really see how you could start a fresh char, run past everything, and still manage to defeat the necessary things (with a poorly equipt lowbie char) within 90min-2hr.
(off-topic I know, but this skyrim speed run debate ended before it even started if you ask me)
The only way I see a 90min DS run would be possible is if you were using a glitch like the infinite souls one to max your char, and imo that would count. I don't really see how you could start a fresh char, run past everything, and still manage to defeat the necessary things (with a poorly equipt lowbie char) within 90min-2hr.
(off-topic I know, but this skyrim speed run debate ended before it even started if you ask me)
Actually, for those interested in some more speed run times, here's a site that's archived a good few (though I'm sure not all): Speed Demos Archive
It's broken down by platform. Fallout 1's fastest recorded time is just under 7 minutes, heh heh.
Hah thx, that is actually pretty interesting. Looking at the games i've played over the years I can't even begin to understand how a lot of those are possible lmao.
Really, the only ones that should pay attention to speedrun times are those that actually find them interesting/fun/competitive.
This is the sort of Elder Scrolsl fan reactionary point of view. The speed runs mean nothing about the game, they are just freaks of nature and have nothing to do with playing Skyrim. Except, the speed runs are just that giving an estimation on how long the main quest line is, and in this case a short one. Can quite easily see most of the game as a newbie player in a week or so playing casually.
Really, the only ones that should pay attention to speedrun times are those that actually find them interesting/fun/competitive.
This is the sort of Elder Scrolsl fan reactionary point of view. The speed runs mean nothing about the game, they are just freaks of nature and have nothing to do with playing Skyrim. Except, the speed runs are just that giving an estimation on how long the main quest line is, and in this case a short one. Can quite easily see most of the game as a newbie player in a week or so playing casually.
Actually, if you read the articles, they were developers who knew every possible shortcut they could take. Not only is 2 hours not the real length of the main story for an average person, but it probably isn't for a "hardcore" gamer unless they helped develop the game.
These games are true RPGs. Well, as close as one can get without having a complete sandbox. :P
This is why Bethesda > Bioware. The main story doesn't matter one bit, because the world itself is more important.
Give me a bethesda MMORPG!
Bethesda would completly fail at an MMORPG. Speed levelers will be more vast and care less in an MMO. It's fine to be good at a story but power gamers couldn't careless about story and they drive MMOs into the ground or atleast into Freemium.
Replace "Bethesda" in your post with "Bioware" and you'll make my point for me.
Bioware does story. Bethesda does worlds. Which one fits better in an MMORPG?
Although the article presented by the OP leaves much up for discussion, the responses made by people on the topic at hand does not prove or disprove the quality of RPGS put out by either developers nor what they choose to focus on (Story or Worlds). But what it does point out from all those responses are the players themselves and how they choose to approach both developmental paths.
On one hand you have pro sandbox mmo players rallying around Bethesda like it offers something more other than a 2 hour questline. And on the other you have pro storyline mmo players that like more fleshed out stories to help make the journey of that 2 hour questline feel more epic and meaningful.
Both offer limited worlds to explore via minimum options. It's just one removes the artifical barriers that a story driven rpg uses to build up momentum and maintain a certain level of focus. This is always a problem with a open world system where a single player is driving the economy and is tasked with building up emotions that impact his/her motivations to continue.
Not so with a structured and paced narrative. Key moments are built up to and therefor have a better impact in remaining key to motivating players to find out more. Take for instance the opening of Oblivion and that of Fallout 3. Which do you remember more of? How many npcs in Fallout 3 can you remember as opposed to Oblivion? Do can you recall the side quest in Fallout 3 more or did the side quest in Oblivion stick more in your mind.
I ask this to the players who have played both games thoroughly. For me I remember more that happened in Fallout 3 rather than Oblivion. But I enjoyed Oblivion's environments more even though the progression pretty much lacked focus to maintain my drive to finish. Once I got lost in Oblivion's world I lost all connection with my character and was more worried about how npcs perceived my Fallout 3 character and how he progressed. I think the strong story helped with that.
Also some of those side quest in Fallout 3 had a lasting effect on me as I my approach to future side quest was more thoughful. Not so in Oblivion as most npcs were linked to a faction so if I didn't want anythng from that faction, I didn't care how I treated npcs of that faction.
But basically all this only goes to prove that it's not games that makes the players, but what the players make of the games they play.
"Small minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas."
Comments
Exactly..
I think I only got through half way of Oblivion's main questline because I was too busy exploring and messing with other things..
It's not a joyful experience if one hasn't finished the game at least once. Anyway it's only for bragging rights.
It's amazing what people are capable of when pie is on the line.
D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium
The non-main quests are exactly that, short filler stuff. Really Elder Scrolls games comes from a different era of gaming when players wanted the solo player here is an immersive world, but I think after games like WoW people want the sim RPG world to be multiplayer. As a result Skyrim will look pretty, you will be able to interact with many NPCs as you can with WoW, but the writing for the main quest is realatively small compared to many modern RPGs. That's why I can perfectly well write, I will spend a few days geting my fill out of the world exploration and character development, and then I will head on in and hit up the main questline of Skyrim. I will experience most of the game, though not every trifiling detail, which are always repetitive and a bit RNG.
See this doesnt really mean anything. Dark Souls arguably one of the most challenging console games atm has been speed run in 90 minutes. However, most folks will spend an average of 70 hours the first time they go through.
So... just cause you know how to blitz the game, doesnt mean thats the average, or even how 90% of the people will do it.
Is this game going to have level scaling like Oblivion?
No it will be more like Fallout 3.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
omg..lucky dude!
Dark Souls just uses a harsh RPG ruleset, if the game simply had an easy or casual difficulty mode everyone would beat the game in less than 2 hrs, as their simply isn't that much to the RPG.
False.
I used to play MMOs like you, but then I took an arrow to the knee.
Exactly that, most people should learn to understand what they read.
That extra hour will make all the difference, if you repeat it over and over enough before game launch you may just believe it.
Are people really freaking out over a speedrun time? As an fyi for you all, one of Baldur's Gate 2's faster speed runs is only 1 hour and 30 minutes (source), and only 30 minutes if you include glitches (youtube "half-hour Baldur's Gate 2 speedrun").
Really, the only ones that should pay attention to speedrun times are those that actually find them interesting/fun/competitive.
I'm keen to say false to all of that lol.
The only way I see a 90min DS run would be possible is if you were using a glitch like the infinite souls one to max your char, and imo that would count. I don't really see how you could start a fresh char, run past everything, and still manage to defeat the necessary things (with a poorly equipt lowbie char) within 90min-2hr.
(off-topic I know, but this skyrim speed run debate ended before it even started if you ask me)
Actually, for those interested in some more speed run times, here's a site that's archived a good few (though I'm sure not all): Speed Demos Archive
It's broken down by platform. Fallout 1's fastest recorded time is just under 7 minutes, heh heh.
1 hour, 26 minutes and 28 seconds.
Though that one is a Japanese run through. Finding the different parts may be a bit of a hassle, but there it is.
Hah thx, that is actually pretty interesting. Looking at the games i've played over the years I can't even begin to understand how a lot of those are possible lmao.
Pretty quick for inhouse race to the finish, it's going take me a hell of a lot longer as I live my life out as a vampire.
Lol . Imagine that. And only took him a whole year of testing . WoW!
This is the sort of Elder Scrolsl fan reactionary point of view. The speed runs mean nothing about the game, they are just freaks of nature and have nothing to do with playing Skyrim. Except, the speed runs are just that giving an estimation on how long the main quest line is, and in this case a short one. Can quite easily see most of the game as a newbie player in a week or so playing casually.
Actually, if you read the articles, they were developers who knew every possible shortcut they could take. Not only is 2 hours not the real length of the main story for an average person, but it probably isn't for a "hardcore" gamer unless they helped develop the game.
To answer your question... BOTH
It is amaizing that the games main quest can be done so fast and still the game has so much other content that it can take 100+ hours to do it all.
Can hardly count these as speed runs . . . more like glitch runs.
Gaming since Avalon Hill was making board games.
Played SWG, EVE, Fallen Earth, LOTRO, Rift, Vanguard, WoW, SWTOR, TSW, Tera
Tried Aoc, Aion, EQII, RoM, Vindictus, Darkfail, DDO, GW, PotBS
Although the article presented by the OP leaves much up for discussion, the responses made by people on the topic at hand does not prove or disprove the quality of RPGS put out by either developers nor what they choose to focus on (Story or Worlds). But what it does point out from all those responses are the players themselves and how they choose to approach both developmental paths.
On one hand you have pro sandbox mmo players rallying around Bethesda like it offers something more other than a 2 hour questline. And on the other you have pro storyline mmo players that like more fleshed out stories to help make the journey of that 2 hour questline feel more epic and meaningful.
Both offer limited worlds to explore via minimum options. It's just one removes the artifical barriers that a story driven rpg uses to build up momentum and maintain a certain level of focus. This is always a problem with a open world system where a single player is driving the economy and is tasked with building up emotions that impact his/her motivations to continue.
Not so with a structured and paced narrative. Key moments are built up to and therefor have a better impact in remaining key to motivating players to find out more. Take for instance the opening of Oblivion and that of Fallout 3. Which do you remember more of? How many npcs in Fallout 3 can you remember as opposed to Oblivion? Do can you recall the side quest in Fallout 3 more or did the side quest in Oblivion stick more in your mind.
I ask this to the players who have played both games thoroughly. For me I remember more that happened in Fallout 3 rather than Oblivion. But I enjoyed Oblivion's environments more even though the progression pretty much lacked focus to maintain my drive to finish. Once I got lost in Oblivion's world I lost all connection with my character and was more worried about how npcs perceived my Fallout 3 character and how he progressed. I think the strong story helped with that.
Also some of those side quest in Fallout 3 had a lasting effect on me as I my approach to future side quest was more thoughful. Not so in Oblivion as most npcs were linked to a faction so if I didn't want anythng from that faction, I didn't care how I treated npcs of that faction.
But basically all this only goes to prove that it's not games that makes the players, but what the players make of the games they play.
"Small minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas."