Unfair

[aron the dwarf]

Well HolyTemplarKnight (cool name by the way...I just noticed it's pretty awesome) anyway, you seem to accuse me of boycotting Snowblind. I"M NOT!!!! Are you also saying that your verbal attacks on Bethesda were fueled by people boycotting Snowblind? I do not see the logic here. Why don't you just start a debate with them about how great WITN is (no sarcasm meant) and leave other games out of it? By the way (and this is outside our debate), I'm interested in why you dislike The Elder Scrolls?

[Kindredbay]

The issue isn't between comparing Skyrim with WITN. Comparing and contrasting isn't some sort of "plague" to be frowned upon. The issue lies in fan boys misinterpreting something like "Skyrim has many more bugs than WITN, why do you love Skyrim and want to boycott WITN... A much smaller company that is barely making it?" and making it out to be "Skyrim has lots of bugs and WITN has lots of bugs, so having bugs in a video game is okay.".

History is the world's memory. The real problem lies in companies that get away with bugged games constantly when they know there are severe issues. It shows incompetence, dishonesty, and a general sense of apathy. There are many games released constantly that are merely meant to be corporate cash ins. It's how industrialism works in the long run, and it has severe consequences for the general populace. In fact, it doesn't surprise me that the video game industry is adopting the same principles that big corporations run by every day. Make money, get away with as much as possible.

Some stuff that goes by this principle:

Facebook
Fast food industry
Oil companies
Tobacco industry
Gaming industry
Computer industry
Phone industry (really any tech industry)
Alcohol industry (marketing)...etc.

The real fact of the matter is, this isn't new, and it isn't right. You can't change things by boycotting a small company... So it's pointless to bring it up here. As has been previously said, it is unrealistic to not expect an amount of risk with buying any game. To eliminate that risk would mean uprising and terminating any outsourcing industry and rewriting the constitution, which wouldn't happen unless the dollar lost value nearly entirely. And even if that were to happen, the games would be made by private companies and the games would take forever to hit market. They would also have exorbitant costs to make up for not having the abilities of an industry, and could still potentially have a bug or two. Truth is, the gaming industry hit its peak already, and is on the downturn. It is pointless to flame and pointless to complain for something that has been made so blatantly obvious by the practices of every company around. If you're going to blame something, blame the laws that have been passed that allow practices such as these.

[Kindredbay]

The issue isn't between comparing Skyrim with WITN. Comparing and contrasting isn't some sort of "plague" to be frowned upon. The issue lies in fan boys misinterpreting something like "Skyrim has many more bugs than WITN, why do you love Skyrim and want to boycott WITN... A much smaller company that is barely making it?" and making it out to be "Skyrim has lots of bugs and WITN has lots of bugs, so having bugs in a video game is okay.".

History is the world's memory. The real problem lies in companies that get away with bugged games constantly when they know there are severe issues. It shows incompetence, dishonesty, and a general sense of apathy. There are many games released constantly that are merely meant to be corporate cash ins. It's how industrialism works in the long run, and it has severe consequences for the general populace. In fact, it doesn't surprise me that the video game industry is adopting the same principles that big corporations run by every day. Make money, get away with as much as possible.

Some stuff that goes by these principles:

Facebook
Fast food industry
Oil companies
Tobacco industry
Gaming industry
Computer industry
Phone industry (really any tech industry)
Alcohol industry (marketing)...etc.

The real fact of the matter is, this isn't new, and it isn't right. You can't change things by boycotting a small company... So it's pointless to bring it up here. As has been previously said, it is unrealistic to not expect an amount of risk with buying any game. To eliminate that risk would mean uprising and terminating any outsourcing industry and rewriting the constitution, which wouldn't happen unless the dollar lost value nearly entirely. And even if that were to happen, the games would be made by private companies and the games would take forever to hit market. They would also have exorbitant costs to make up for not having the abilities of an industry, and could still potentially have a bug or two. Truth is, the gaming industry hit its peak already, and is on the downturn. It is pointless to flame and pointless to complain for something that has been made so blatantly obvious by the practices of every company around. If you're going to blame something, blame the laws that have been passed that allow practices such as these.

[crill]

Corporations are in the business of making money first and formost. Smaller developers I believe - even though money is important - tend to put love in their games. At least the good ones.

I also believe corporations like to buy up smaller developers to come closer to cornering the market... but I'm just guessing. I think that's what happened here and with Surreal.

Also I would like to see game fans not to be such graphics purists. I believe high quality graphics eat up so much disc space it creates obstacles in fine tuning. I'm playing a xbox 360 game right now that has PS2 graphics and I am just amazed at this game.

[HolyTemplarKnight]

I didn't mean you specifically. I meant those who were posting on the forum, telling people to boycott Snowblind. We even had one guy threatening to take Snowblind to court. What were my verbal attacks on Bethesda? Can you provide links to them? I used Bethesda and Skyrim as ONE example in three of my arguments. I also used Fable 2 & 3, Risen, Fallout: New Vegas and Dragon Age 2 in the same arguments.

My arguments were against those who were saying "boycott Snowblind and get Skyrim instead" and I simply stated that Skyrim had its fair share of bugs as well (in fact, it has more) and that if one should boycott Snowblind for WITN having two game breaking bugs, then they should also boycott Bethesda. In this argument, I was simply displaying how hypocritical the posters were.

In another argument, I said that I was more tolerant on WITN's bugs (which I haven't run into) because they can be avoided unlike the bugs of Fable 2 and Risen which I actually ran into and these bugs corrupted my saves. There was no way around these game breaking bugs and Risen still hasn't been patched.

So basically, my argument is that people should be more tolerant on Snowblind because they released a patch (yeah, it didn't fix everything but it shows that they are trying) and try to help the community. Further more, the bugs can be avoided easily and in some cases, simply going online and playing with someone will fix the bug.

I really don't see what you meant by your original post. I've seen no such arguments posted on here and for the record, I hate the Fable series more than the TES series. But I'm fine with those that like those game series. Why wouldn't I be? My opinion is just as valid as yours and at the end of the day, opinions are nothing but vanity anyway.

Why do I dislike Skyrim and other TES games? Well, I actually thought that Morrowind was probably the more decent one in terms of exploration but like the other TES games, I didn't really enjoy it that much because the combat was abysmal. Combat in all TES games consist on bashing down on one button and in Oblivion, most humanoid enemies had the same attack pattern which, once memorized, made it easy to defeat enemies. There's no true role playing in terms of choices that can be made in the main storyline (Morrowind, Oblivion and Skyrim all feature one ending as opposed to Daggerfall's six endings). Choices don't effect the plot. Choices don't really have long lasting consequences and like with the Fable series, you could go on a killing spree and then serve your time in prison and you'd be forgiven. Like with Fable, characters doesn't exactly contain depth and I find them to be poorly written and the stories from both gaming series don't really do anything for me.

I found Oblivion's story nothing amazing and the end battles were quite pathetic especially when NPC's were hyping them up and the battles turned out to be little skirmishes. Skyrim - like most TES games - has the same overused cliche with you starting in prison, rising up, accepting your destiny as some chosen one and then vanquishing a great evil. Skyrim didn't really improve upon the combat of Oblivion and featured power attacks wherein the direction could not be controlled, enemies were sometimes unresponsive to attacks and magic was way overpowered as with Oblivion. The random quest system is flawed and flying dragons really don't do anything for me because they weren't that impressive combat-wise. Skyrim's world - like Oblivion's - was quite boring to explore and despite developer's claims, there was no real reason to explore caves and dungeons as many felt the same.

In comparison to Dark Souls, Skyrim doesn't really do anything right. Dark Souls has a very interesting world to explore. The combat is quite varied and complex. The enemies are grotesque and brilliantly designed. Each enemy requires a different tactic to defeat and the dragons are actually pretty tough as one would expect dragons to be (the undead dragons suck though). Dark Souls doesn't have a heavy story via dialogue or cut scenes but there's depth to the story if you speak to the right NPC's. In fact, there's been debates about the endings and what the right choice is. Some argue Kaathe, some argue Frampt. Characters in Dark Souls aren't Bioware tier but they don't simply stand there inactive in your quest. Solaire of Astora helps you several times throughout the game and he actually has three endings. One ending is where he helps you fight the end boss and if you read the right descriptions of items and a miracle, the lore behind them seems to imply that Solaire could be the son and firstborn of Lord Gwyn. Then there's Siegmeyer of Catarina who also has several different endings based on the player choice and at one point in the game, he may actually help you defeat enemies so that he can repay you for your earlier help.

Now for me, I like characters having different endings, I like having influence on how their story plays out (nearly every character has their own story in Dark Souls which continues until you reach near the end), I like having choice in choosing an ending or how I advance the plot and I like the non-linear progression that Dark Souls has combined with the old school traditional RPG feel it has as you explore a new area. TES didn't provide that.

I'm a guy who likes games like Dragon Age: Origins, Baldur's Gate, NWN, Divinity and Dark Souls. Sandbox games are okay but compared to traditional RPG's...nah, I'll pass. Besides, if I want a sandbox RPG, I'll take Mount and Blade over TES any day. What you can do in TES, you can do in M&B anyway. It's not like TES has good characters or story and I'm pretty certain that most only play it for the exploration which M&B offers along with a better combat system and more character customization choices.

[HolyTemplarKnight]

I didn't mean you specifically. I meant those who were posting on the forum, telling people to boycott Snowblind. We even had one guy threatening to take Snowblind to court. What were my verbal attacks on Bethesda? Can you provide links to them? I used Bethesda and Skyrim as ONE example in three of my arguments. I also used Fable 2 & 3, Risen, Fallout: New Vegas and Dragon Age 2 in the same arguments.

My arguments were against those who were saying "boycott Snowblind and get Skyrim instead" and I simply stated that Skyrim had its fair share of bugs as well (in fact, it has more) and that if one should boycott Snowblind for WITN having two game breaking bugs, then they should also boycott Bethesda. In this argument, I was simply displaying how hypocritical the posters were.

In another argument, I said that I was more tolerant on WITN's bugs (which I haven't run into) because they can be avoided unlike the bugs of Fable 2 and Risen which I actually ran into and these bugs corrupted my saves. There was no way around these game breaking bugs and Risen still hasn't been patched.

So basically, my argument is that people should be more tolerant on Snowblind because they released a patch (yeah, it didn't fix everything but it shows that they are trying) and try to help the community. Further more, the bugs can be avoided easily and in some cases, simply going online and playing with someone will fix the bug.

I really don't see what you meant by your original post. I've seen no such arguments posted on here and for the record, I hate the Fable series more than the TES series. But I'm fine with those that like those game series. Why wouldn't I be? My opinion is just as valid as yours and at the end of the day, opinions are nothing but vanity anyway.

Why do I dislike Skyrim and other TES games? Well, I actually thought that Morrowind was probably the more decent one in terms of exploration but like the other TES games, I didn't really enjoy it that much because the combat was abysmal. Combat in all TES games consist on bashing down on one button and in Oblivion, most humanoid enemies had the same attack pattern which, once memorized, made it easy to defeat enemies. There's no true role playing in terms of choices that can be made in the main storyline (Morrowind, Oblivion and Skyrim all feature one ending as opposed to Daggerfall's six endings). Choices don't effect the plot. Choices don't really have long lasting consequences and like with the Fable series, you could go on a killing spree and then serve your time in prison and you'd be forgiven. Like with Fable, characters doesn't exactly contain depth and I find them to be poorly written and the stories from both gaming series don't really do anything for me.

I found Oblivion's story nothing amazing and the end battles were quite pathetic especially when NPC's were hyping them up and the battles turned out to be little skirmishes. Skyrim - like most TES games - has the same overused cliche with you starting in prison, rising up, accepting your destiny as some chosen one and then vanquishing a great evil. Skyrim didn't really improve upon the combat of Oblivion and featured power attacks wherein the direction could not be controlled, enemies were sometimes unresponsive to attacks and magic was way overpowered as with Oblivion. The random quest system is flawed and flying dragons really don't do anything for me because they weren't that impressive combat-wise. Skyrim's world - like Oblivion's - was quite boring to explore and despite developer's claims, there was no real reason to explore caves and dungeons as many felt the same.

In comparison to Dark Souls, Skyrim doesn't really do anything right. Dark Souls has a very interesting world to explore. The combat is quite varied and complex. The enemies are grotesque and brilliantly designed. Each enemy requires a different tactic to defeat and the dragons are actually pretty tough as one would expect dragons to be (the undead dragons suck though). Dark Souls doesn't have a heavy story via dialogue or cut scenes but there's depth to the story if you speak to the right NPC's. In fact, there's been debates about the endings and what the right choice is. Some argue Kaathe, some argue Frampt. Characters in Dark Souls aren't Bioware tier but they don't simply stand there inactive in your quest. Solaire of Astora helps you several times throughout the game and he actually has three endings. One ending is where he helps you fight the end boss and if you read the right descriptions of items and a miracle, the lore behind them seems to imply that Solaire could be the son and firstborn of Lord Gwyn. Then there's Siegmeyer of Catarina who also has several different endings based on the player choice and at one point in the game, he may actually help you defeat enemies so that he can repay you for your earlier help.

Now for me, I like characters having different endings, I like having influence on how their story plays out (nearly every character has their own story in Dark Souls which continues until you reach near the end), I like having choice in choosing an ending or how I advance the plot and I like the non-linear progression that Dark Souls has combined with the old school traditional RPG feel it has as you explore a new area. TES didn't provide that.

I'm a guy who likes games like Dragon Age: Origins, Baldur's Gate, NWN, Divinity and Dark Souls. Sandbox games are okay but compared to traditional RPG's...nah, I'll pass. Besides, if I want a sandbox RPG, I'll take Mount and Blade over TES any day. What you can do in TES, you can do in M&B anyway. It's not like TES has good characters or story and I'm pretty certain that most only play it for the exploration which M&B offers along with a better combat system and more character customization choices.

[HolyTemplarKnight]

Jesus Christ. What's wrong with this forum?

BTW, those two posts above made by me were directed at you anon.

[aron the dwarf]

Well HTK, I actually know about the guy taking Snowblind to court (XD yeah I kinda laughed) and yes, I admit to once advising a guy to buy Skyrim instead of WITN but that was just because I like Skyrim more.

I personally enjoy sandbox games but saying that Mount&Blade is better than Skyrim is a bit over-the-top. It's a fun game and an interesting concept but there is NO storyline and the goal is the same (take over everything). The M&B combat is despicable, even worse than in TES and there is very little character customization, not to mention poor graphics. And you can't explore (except if you count clicking on a map to move a horse around exploration) Also, I think you expect too much from games, TES in particular. They are completely revolutionary and possibly the best sandbox games yet. (I have never tried Dark Souls...is it available for PC?) Anyway, if you don't like TES than that's fine by me. As for my original post, I didn't mean people were literally saying that WITN's bugs are justified by Skyrim's bugs, what I meant is that this message was coming across very bluntly.

Another thing, and sorry this is off-topic. Has it ever occurred to you guys that the reason smaller companies care about their fans more than the big ones (I've found no evidence of this by the way) is that they NEED their fans to buy the games more than the big ones? I'm just sayin'.

P.S; Why is everyone double-posting?

[aron the dwarf]

Kindrebay

Whatever do you mean about the alcohol industry??!! One can still find quality vodka if one searches for it!

[crill]

This forum has been screwed up lately. People double post cause they can't see their comment. Posts disappear. Even threads vanish temporally.