UESP Forums

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!

Thanks,

TJ

I think that most of the games just have a special feel to them
though i agree certain aspects of each game have been dumbed down

Also , i preferred Oblivions art style to Morrowinds , so it can also come down to personal opinion as well

Yea what you think of the artstyle is personal opinion ofcourse. But i mean I don't see any point in buying Skyrim if it's even more dumbed down. Or are there other reasons to play it (except improved graphics which i don't care for much).

There is ofcourse the lore which I love. But everyone's in love with the game so there must be some gameplay elements or something tht make it so great. I just wonder what those are

I think most game's have started dumbing down games as they release sequels, and get away with it due to the new releases having better engines, graphics, and new features (though a the cost of old features). e.g. Mass effect, COD, and Halo.

I think Skyrim lacks some stuff that oblivion did (e.g. spell making and enchanting), but I personally wouldn't say that it has been dumbed down

What a lot of people forget is that a metric [&@%!] ton of Morrowind's, and indeed most older games, "depth" came from the hardware and graphical limitations of the day.

A game is going to appear to have more depth then it does when Devs had to place menus inside of menus inside of menus because hardware limitations prevented them from just making one menu, and in more gameplay related things, older RPGs HAD to use attribute systems because computers couldn't handle real-time combat, and when you throw 5000000 numbers in someone's face it appears to have more depth then when all of that stuff is hidden and people can actually do the combat themselves.

Most of the supposed lost "depth" of video games is depth lost because computers dont suck anymore, and most of that depth was fake depth anyways.

SajuukKhar wrote:What a lot of people forget is that a metric [&@%!] ton of Morrowind's, and indeed most older games, "depth" came from the hardware and graphical limitations of the day.

A game is going to appear to have more depth then it does when Devs had to place menus inside of menus inside of menus because hardware limitations prevented them from just making one menu, and in more gameplay related things, older RPGs HAD to use attribute systems because computers couldn't handle real-time combat, and when you throw 5000000 numbers in someone's face it appears to have more depth then when all of that stuff is hidden and people can actually do the combat themselves.

Most of the supposed lost "depth" of video games is depth lost because computers dont suck anymore, and most of that depth was fake depth anyways.

I hadn't thought of that before, and thinking about it, it's very true

Yet again...

fat boy kyle wrote: e.g. Mass effect, COD, and Halo.

SajuukKhar wrote:What a lot of people forget is that a metric [&@%!] ton of Morrowind's, and indeed most older games, "depth" came from the hardware and graphical limitations of the day.

A game is going to appear to have more depth then it does when Devs had to place menus inside of menus inside of menus because hardware limitations prevented them from just making one menu, and in more gameplay related things, older RPGs HAD to use attribute systems because computers couldn't handle real-time combat, and when you throw 5000000 numbers in someone's face it appears to have more depth then when all of that stuff is hidden and people can actually do the combat themselves.

Most of the supposed lost "depth" of video games is depth lost because computers dont suck anymore, and most of that depth was fake depth anyways.

Yeah you have got a point there. Then again I don't think it's necessary to 'hide' those stats. I mean it just feels like from Morrowind through Skyrim the games have become more and more mainstream (read easier)

I can see what ya mean about the whole dumbing down thing...that might be what's causing my itch about Skyrim.

Personally, Morrowind is the best TES that came out simply because of the amount of detail in the quests. Yeah, many people don't think that the graphics were good...I thought otherwise. I thought the graphics were brilliant (for its time, anyway). I think the whole 'menu within a menu' causing depth is a bit odd, but I can definitely see why its been said.

And how much lore was there in Morrowind? TONS of the damn stuff. And, in my opinion, a lot of the lore they COULD have put in to Oblivion/Skyrim was lost, which is why they had more time for graphics, combat etc etc.

BlackDrake wrote:And how much lore was there in Morrowind? TONS of the damn stuff. And, in my opinion, a lot of the lore they COULD have put in to Oblivion/Skyrim was lost, which is why they had more time for graphics, combat etc etc.

Yeah , but if all i wanted was lore , i'd read a book , not play a video game , its a good thing they put time into fixing morrowinds god-awful ,craptastic , wonderfully bad Combat , even at the expense of A bit of lore

philfredobob wrote:

BlackDrake wrote:And how much lore was there in Morrowind? TONS of the damn stuff. And, in my opinion, a lot of the lore they COULD have put in to Oblivion/Skyrim was lost, which is why they had more time for graphics, combat etc etc.

Yeah , but if all i wanted was lore , i'd read a book , not play a video game , its a good thing they put time into fixing morrowinds god-awful ,craptastic , wonderfully bad Combat , even at the expense of A bit of lore

I would have preferred more lore in Oblivion, especially about the other planes of Oblivion, since it only showed Mehrunes Dagon's plane.

And I appear to be the only one who liked the combat system in Morrowind. If you're terrible with a weapon, you're not gonna hit very often, are you?

If you are standing a foot in front of a person, directly facing them, swing a sword at were they are standing, and they dont move from that spot by the time the sword gets there, you will hit them.

It's called blocking.

And I'm not doubting it has it's setbacks. I just liked the fact you didn't always hit. It was down to skill whether you did.

When a game gets a bigger audience or becomes more mainstream yes it will be simplified and dumbed down.

BlackDrake wrote:It's called blocking.

And I'm not doubting it has it's setbacks. I just liked the fact you didn't always hit. It was down to skill whether you did.

A block is still you hitting them. You just dont do as much damage.

And no it wasn't due to skill if you did hit, it was due to the computers entirely random dice-rolls, it was luck, purely luck, that you hit.

BlackDrake wrote:It's called blocking.

And I'm not doubting it has it's setbacks. I just liked the fact you didn't always hit. It was down to skill whether you did.

The NPCs didnt Block your attacks , you just didnt hit them , for some silly reason , even if you swung a sword directly at them , with no logical possibility of missing , you would still miss ...

kids these days ...

forgetting and neglecting the origin of RPGs ... the "pen and paper" style system

and yes, success or failure boiled down to a random dice roll modified by stats

the whole system was taken from turn-based style

the original games were text and turn based as well, hence the loss of "depth" as text has been replaced by mutimedia content of voice acting

the first thing computer eliminated was the turn-based combat system eventually in favor of the more "realistic" simulated feel of real-time combat, but much of the text and stat-driven success or fail rolls were still the core of the game.

true that as technology has advanced, it's been easier to do away with this, but the truth is, these games are no longer true "RPG", but action games based in a fantasy setting. "RPG" in name only since the text and turn-based systems have been done away with and replaced by real-time simulation and text based content was replaced by multimedia content. might as well call them fantasy-based FPS.

*edit*

yeah, back then we actually had to use our imaginations. something today's generation is sorely missing.

I like text dialouge, I could say my name, like in Skyrim, but then guess what? They, npcs, could say it back. That's right in older ES games people had realistic onversations with you. The problem is that they couldn't have them with each other, so voice acting adds depth.

bull. the fact is its ALL scripted. every last line so ultimately, it boils down to memory usage and space allocation. guess what? the fact is, no mtter how you slice it, a line of text takes a fraction of the memory and storage as it does to voice act and record the same line of text dialogue in multimedia format, so that is where all your in-game content is being lost. this isn't rocket science people. it's simple logistics so why spend such an inordinate amount of time trying to justify and rationalize a bunch of bull?

*edit*

the bottom line is the tradeoff is always sacrificing substance in favor of style. the more eye candy you want and get, the less actual "content" you're going to be able to provide.

Ragnarok wrote:true that as technology has advanced, it's been easier to do away with this, but the truth is, these games are no longer true "RPG", but action games based in a fantasy setting. "RPG" in name only since the text and turn-based systems have been done away with and replaced by real-time simulation and text based content was replaced by multimedia content. might as well call them fantasy-based FPS.

*edit*

yeah, back then we actually had to use our imaginations. something today's generation is sorely missing.

There is no such thing as a "true" RPG.

And even if there was D&D would not be it becuase D&D was not the first RPG.

Ragnarok wrote: the bottom line is the tradeoff is always sacrificing substance in favor of style. the more eye candy you want and get, the less actual "content" you're going to be able to provide.

Nonsense

I have gotten more time out of many current day games, with all their eye candy, then a large number of older games.

wrong

"The first commercially available role-playing game, Dungeons & Dragons (D&D), was published in 1974 by Gygax's TSR."

try again

Yes, there is such thing as a "true" RPG, and it is basically D&D. It was the first commercially made one, as Ragnarok just stated.

And actually, if you follow a lot of recent-ish games, Ragnarok is correct. A lot of new games don't have the same sustenance older games do. Anyone play Heroes of Might and Magic? V is worse than III, simply because it was kill, kill, kill.

Ragnarok wrote:wrong

"The first commercially available role-playing game, Dungeons & Dragons (D&D), was published in 1974 by Gygax's TSR."

try again

I suggest you read again "the first commercially available"

That's the thing, RPGs existed before they were turned into board games, and indeed before things were sold, proto-larping has existed since the dawn of man.

A RPG is defined as
"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."

People have been making up games like that, and playing them, long before board games were invented.


D&D is, if anything, the least true form of roleplay because it uses the most proxies to get it to work, the "purest" form of RPG video game would be a game without proxies, most likely a Virtual reality game were you completely control your character through your thoughts.

Yes, because it was commercially available, it means it can't be a true RPG (!)

Of course they existed, you donut, but how can they be considered true if not documented?

EDIT: I like how all my posts cause arguments. I'm the UESP Agonist, by the seems of it.

BlackDrake wrote:Yes, because it was commercially available, it means it can't be a true RPG (!)

Of course they existed, you donut, but how can they be considered true if not documented?

Because we know people played RPG like games before D&D was invented. We dont need to know what its called, how they played it, or what roles they did, the simple fact we know people did play them puts them as the first.

and going off the "ITS FIRST SO IT MUST BE TRUE" definition Ragnarok used, those games would be the most true form of RPG, not D&D.

D&D would be a corruption, or an offshoot of the RPG, not the RPG itself.

yeah, but you miss one important point. all those "RPG"s you're so hyped up about had different sets of rules so none of them were universally applied or recognized. cygax and TRS were the first ones to come up with a universally ("commercial) recognized format and structure that anyone and everyone could play adopting the same rules so they were in effect the "first" to actually create a formalized and universally recognized structure and set of rules.