Dumbing games down

[BlackDrake]

Every RPG has its own rules, settings, proxies, lore etc. Therefore, your argument before is rather invalid, as they are all made differently to begin with.

As stated, the first commercially available. That meant that every Bob and Jane was able able to play it, in their own homes, in peace. While before it was confined to groups of people, making their own little games. Those aren't 'true', how can they? We don't even know what they were about!

[SajuukKhar]

And none of them are any less true RPGs, which was the entire point I was making, that saying D&D is the true RPG is absurd because it wasn't the first, and popularity doesn't make something any more true.

Every Bob and Jane had the ability to get with as many people as they want, plan out a imagined RPG game, and play it. The commercialization of D&D didn't change anything.

We dont need to know what the first wheel was used for to know that it was made, or the first wheel. We dont need to know what the first god people worshiped was god of to know that it was the first god people worshiped. You dont need to know anything about the object, or subject, beyond that it existed, to know that it existed.

[Ragnarok]

still missing the point. none of them were formalized. they were informal games that constituted role-playing. hell, role-playing has been around as long as acting, but the first true RPG was the one with a fomalized set of rules and that would have been D&D, like it or not. read 'em and weep.

[SajuukKhar]

Formal or informal is entirely irrelevant, as even in those "informal" RPGs people still had agreed upon set rules, such as you dont do this, or you cant go there, in many instances.

D&D was far from the first RPG to have agreed upon rules, like it or not.

So we have proven that
-D&D was not the first RPG made
-D&D was not the first RPG to have agreed upon rules.

What false premise are you going to use next to try to justify the nonexistent "pureness" or "trueness" of D&D?

[Ragnarok]

sorry chief, but as far as I'm concerned, without a formalized structure, those earlier "games" weren't RPGs, they were just acting and role-playing. I suppose you could loosley infer role-"playing" as meaning "gaming", but it's still a stretch. the fact still remains that D&D as the first commercially available RPG was the first true RPG with a universally recognized set of formal rules.

[SajuukKhar]

-And the fact still remains that commercialization has nothing to do with what is the first of anything, besides being commercialized.
-And the fact still remains many of these RPGs had agreed upon structure in terms of how to play, what the play area was, and what roles you could play.
-And the fact still remains formal rules, such as the ones listen above, existed in many RPGs in the past.



And even if D&D was the first, it is far from the most true type of RPG, due to its extensive use of proxies.

The most true type of RPG would have zero proxies, and your character would be controlled by you.

[Ragnarok]

so, yeah. thanks for making my point for me. as long as kids have been playing cops and robbers or cowboys and indians there have been RPGs, but they weren't formally recognized as RPGs. it was called "pretend" and the "pretend" world of one set of individuals was completely unknown to another set a half a world away. it wasn't until D&D came along that the "RPG" was officially recognized as such with a universal set of rules that everyone agreed upon to the point that if a guy from chile talked about his elf slaying orcs and kobolds, a girl from guam would know exactly what he was talking about.

[SajuukKhar]

Except D&D's rules are mostly made up by the DM for that specific game.

To act like D&D has a strict set of rules that everyone world-wide adheres to is to ignore part of the basics of D&D itself.

So thanks for, yet again, for trying to use an entirely false premise to prove an entirely incorrect point.

[Ragnarok]

nope. sorry. the book for the DM was called specifically, the DM Guide and the book for the players was specifically the Player's Guide. according to your logic, theater was an ongoing RPG. had all the essential elements. plot advancement. character development, etc, but only one small problem. it wasn't an RPG and never has been known by that title. its theatre. D&D was the first RPG known as an "RPG". hell, it coined the name and the phrase, so what other qualifiers should it be required to meet to be officially recognized as the world's first RPG?

[SajuukKhar]

The only thing that can qualify something as being the first RPG is if it was the first thing to met the standards for what defines a RPG.

"A role-playing game (RPG and sometimes roleplaying game) is a game in which players assume the roles of characters in a fictional setting. Players take responsibility for acting out these roles within a narrative, either through literal acting, or through a process of structured decision-making or character development. Actions taken within many games succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines"


As for it not being called a RPG, that is also entirely irrelevant.

No one calls squares rectangles but squares do meet the definition of a rectangle, and are thus no less of true rectangles then normal rectangles.


D&D coining the term is also irrelevant.

If I created a word, "Noun XY", today because I made something "new", and then someone discovered someone had made it 1,000 years ago, that older thing would be considered the first "Noun XY" despite the fact the word was coined because of the thing I made, and despite the fact that people didn't call it that in the past.

[Ragnarok]

yeah, um, you might want to reread your definition again and pay special attention to that last line.

"Actions taken within many games succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines"

D&D was the first to commercially and universally offer this. hence coining of the name and title "RPG". acting is role-playing" but it doesn't meet that final qualification to be considered an actual RPG. again, D&D coined the name and phrase "RPG" or "role-playing game" so sorry they didn't consult you to get your laundry list of hoops and loopholes the world's first RPG was supposed to jump through for you to formally and personally recognize it as such.

[tjoudega]

Your discussion is kinda irrelevant and killing the discussion. I personally thiught Morrowinds battle system was a cool compromise between the turn based number-battle system (which has a lot of depth IMO) and the realtime battle. I also think the art style is beautiful, even today.

[SajuukKhar]

Actually you can entirely fail imagined games, and many imaged games had failure situations
-you fail tag if you get tagged
-you fail hide and seek if you get found
so on and so on, in fact most made up games have a failure condition of some sort that everyone who plays the game understand is a failure condition.

So no, D&D was NOT the first thing to offer it.


As for young loopholes you seem to be doing it far more then I, by making up entirely absurd, and blatantly wrong, reasons as to why older games dont have the same things D&D does, which they do.

Your discussion is kinda irrelevant and killing the discussion. I personally thiught Morrowinds battle system was a cool compromise between the turn based number-battle system (which has a lot of depth IMO) and the realtime battle. I also think the art style is beautiful, even today.

The only depth it has is because it takes away all control from you, the player, and puts it in the hands of a machine, which is something RPGs should not do.

[Ragnarok]

red herring and straw man

I never said anything about a "failure condition". go back, reread my post and try to actually address MY argument this time.

[SajuukKhar]

red herring and straw man

I never said anything about a "failure condition". go back, reread my post and try to actually address MY argument this time.

yeah, um, you might want to reread your definition again and pay special attention to that last line.

"Actions taken within many games succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines"

D&D was the first to commercially and universally offer this. hence coining of the name and title "RPG". acting is role-playing" but it doesn't meet that final qualification to be considered an actual RPG. again, D&D coined the name and phrase "RPG" or "role-playing game" so sorry they didn't consult you to get your laundry list of hoops and loopholes the world's first RPG was supposed to jump through for you to formally and personally recognize it as such.

I suggest you go back an re-read your own post. Your entire point was that D&D was the first game to universally offer those things, and I showed how it wasn't.


Also you can fail acting, by not playing your part right, be it by saying your lines wrong, or not being at the spot you are supposed to be, and you can succeed at acting, by playing your part right.

so acting does have success and failure conditions.

[Ragnarok]

"D&D was the first to commercially and universally offer this" ... "a formal system of rules and guidelines"

so where does it go on and on "failure conditions"? and at what point in any genre was acting, theatre, kids games, etc EVER known or recognized as an "RPG"? the first known universally recognized RPG was D&D. sorry, everything else was ... everything but ... acting, role-playing, theater, drama, playing pretend, kids games, etc. but never once did I ever hear anybody call "cops and robbers" or "cowboys and indians" an "RPG" ...

[SajuukKhar]

All of those are games, in which you role-play, and they fit within the definition of RPG.

People calling it that or not is entirely irrelevant because, as I pointed out in an above post, squares are technically rectangles but no one ever calls them such, doesn't mean they are any less rectangular as other rectangles.

Also, all of those have a set of rules and guidelines agreed upon by the parties at the time the game is started, and just like D&D those rules vary depending on who is playing it.

[Velvet LeChance]

From Wikipedia:

Children participate in a less structured and more informal form of live action role-playing known commonly as make believe.

As long as children have had imaginations there has been RPG games

[SajuukKhar]

As long as children have had imaginations there has been RPG games

ohh godz, someone that isn't a D&D purist, I had forgotten they existed.

[Argonanza]

Guys, just drop it, 'kay? If D&D was the first of something or not matters diddly squat to the topic, so stop your quarrelling this instant.

[SajuukKhar]

Back on the original topic.

Hello! After playing Oblivion and finish the main storyline a few times, I went back to Morrowind, and was amazed at the amount of depth in the game. I realized that even though Oblivion is better than Morrowind in some areas (Graphics, Animations) the game is dumbed down in terms of depth. On another note, I liked the artstyle of Morrowind better also than the one of Oblivion (which was too cartoony for my taste). My question is: Is Skyrim dumbed down even more in respect to Oblivion? (And is the artstyle a bit more realistic again?)

What do you guys think? Maybe you think I'm wrong altogether. I'd like to hear!

Skyrim isn't a dumbed down RPG compared to Morrowind, and neither was Oblivion.

Both games are, if anything, closer to real RPGs then Morrowind is because they use less proxy systems.

With the removal of many technological limitations of the past, we can remove the fake depth Morrowind had because of its limited combat systems, and instead add real depth.

[Ragnarok]

"fake depth" and "real depth"? hate to break it to you, but it's all fake. you never once really addressed my original point and hence, technically, the whole D&D thing was a red herring and straw man.

my original point was that there was more content in Morrowind, which is true since it was text based and didn't have the voice acting and multimedia eyecandy content of the later games.

I seem to remember Morrowind boasting over 100,000 manhours of development and production. a boast I haven't seen repeated in subsequent games. from the web I found this.

"Morrowind took Bethesda teams over 375,000 man hours to get it to Beta stage. The art for final release took another 40,000 hours."

*edit*

so found this which might explain the "100,000 man-hours" which might have actually been a misquote.

Morrowind Development: Staff
"According to the team's reasonings, the endeavor took "close to 100 man-years to create"."
(note this doesn't even include BM or TR)

Oblivion Development
"Developers working on Oblivion focused on providing a tighter storyline, with fewer filler quests and more developed characters.[62][63] The developers sought to make information in the game world more accessible to players, making the game easier to pick up and play."
(read: dumbed down)

[tjoudega]

I understand both your points. I feel like it's a matter of personal taste. Voice acting is nice, but sometimes I wanna have a longer conversation with someone, and then i don't mind text. But Voices do add depth and personality to characters.

Personally I like stats and countless weapons and apparel. I love to compare all different items and read all stories and backgrounds of characters. But I understand if you don't want to have all those numbers.

[SajuukKhar]

Morrowind had more content, in terms of it had X number of dungeons more then Oblivion and Skyrim, but the content it had was extremely less polished, and nowhere near as good.
-Towns were mostly contained generic NPCs with little, if any, quest related, or world related, content.
-Dungeons had terrible use of copy-pasta, and felt all samey
-there were countless redundant spells, armors, and weapons that served no real gameplay purpose etc. etc.
Morrowind may have had more content, in a raw numerical, 32>30, type value, but the content it had was very low quality in most cases.


Skyrim on the other hand has less content, sure, but the content it does have is far better.
-Dungeons are far more unique and varied. Every Nodric ruin, Dwemer citadel, ruined fort, and even a large number of caves, have a unique element found only in them.
-Each new armor is a clear and defined upgrade from the last, there's no two armors that have the same values
-Each weapon was given a more defined role with perks
-Redundant spells were able to be merged into 1 that can be upgraded with perks.

If having less content, that ends up being far more useful and more defined, rather then having more content, that is generaly copy-pastad = dumbing down, I would rather have the dumbed down game.


Also having fewer filler quests, and easier to access information =/= dumbing down, its just general gameplay improvements. I would love if Elder Scrolls got a Mass Effect/Dragon Age style codex that stores a great deal of world information in it.


Besides the main plot's story, I really dont think the changes in the Es series have made the game worse.

[Velvet LeChance]

I've never played Morrowind so I can only speak from playing Oblivion.
I feel that Skyrim was a lot more dumbed down than Oblivion in order to draw players in. In Oblivion each quest was interesting and I wanted to complete in Skyrim the quest just feel like chores. "Bring item X to person Y" , "Kill R in dungeon S" etc these are filler quests and there is no real reason to have them in the game than to clog my quest log.

In terms of Skyrim having a unique feel to its dungeons, the answer is yes the dungeons are great, better than Oblivions but there is no real reason to explore them because you can smith the best weapons yourself. This eliminates the need for dungeon crawling thus making all the time spent on creating these dungeons wasted. I myself have been to every location on Skyrims map (I think) but a lot of my friends have only gone to the main and and faction quest dungeons and left it at that, they can smith the best weapons and armour and enchant so there's no point in actually exploring. Money is basically thrown at you I have a few hundred thousand between my three main characters which I will never spend.

When it comes to weapon perks you only really need Armsman, Barbarian etc and your set there is no greater meaning to the way you use your weapons. In Skyrim all you have to do is block and spam attack. This is dumbed down to incorporate the newer players. Also I'm probably going to get flamed for this but I enjoyed the enemy leveling system in Oblivion the game got harder as you progressed and never got boring unlike Skyrim which gets harder then levels out at about 30-40 then gets progressively easier again.

I think the reason Morrowind had very little quest interaction with NPCs because of the hardware restrictions back in the early 2000s. look how much more advanced technology is compared to ten years ago, even comparing it to five years ago its a huge advancement. 5 years ago I didn't know anyone with a touch screen phone now I don't know anyone without one.

Seriously, a mod already asked you guys to calm it. This will be locked next time it gets out of hand

The Argument stopped didn't it ? Where having a nice civilised discussion now.