It’s worth noting that this guy is talking not of old Bethesda but modern Bethesda. The writing team behind Morrowind and half of Oblivion absolutely cared about the details that only 1% of people might see. Morrowind especially is a world built around you exploring the world building. It’s not about levelling up (wowee I can miss the flying fuckheads 2% less now), it was about exploring the politics and cultures in the world.
At some point, Bethesda games became about the mechanical exploration, about going over there because that looks like it might be interesting, oh it’s just a cave with combat in it oh well maybe over there will be interesting.
No. Dragon Age: Inquisition, The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, and Baldur’s Gate 3 all draw influence from Skyrim. I think open world games are better because of Skyrim.
Dragon Age: Inquisition and Witcher 3 both began development in the same year Skyrim released. I don't know if I can really say they were influenced by Skyrim because of the timing, but I haven't played either.
Baldur's Gate 3 drawing influence from Skyrim I will have to vehemently disagree with. That assertion just makes no sense at all.
My point was that Skyrim didn’t ruin RPGs because there still exists demand for RPGs and quality content. Without seminal games like Skyrim, you don’t get proper investment in games like BG3.
Without seminal games like Skyrim, you don’t get proper investment in games like BG3.
What are you even trying to say? BG3 wouldn’t exist without Skyrim? did you ever play Diablo 1 or 2? World Of Warcraft during Burning Crusade or Wrath Of The Lich King?
Skyrim didn’t bring anything new. Skyrim is just a drop in the ocean, with no impact on Baldur’s Gate 3, as there were tons of greater and more impactful games before that.
Now we’re talking about money? Do you have the slightest idea of how much of a cash cow WoW have been for Blizzard since 2004? In 2010 WoW had more than 10 millions subscribers. $100m a month, not counting the price of the expansion packs.
What about GTA? 400 millions copies sold.
Skyrim could have failed miserably, you’d still be able to play BG3 in is exact same form as today. Skyrim is no exception. As a matter of fact, Skyrim wouldn’t exist if it was not for previous successful games.
You named two games that are entirely different. Those two made their money on multiplayer. Skyrim is a single player RPG experience that encourages mods. Skyrim’s success as a single player experience enabled games like Dragon Age Inquisition and Witcher 3 and Divinity OS2 to get the funding they needed to become fully realized.
Skyrim is a triple A RPG. I haven’t made one change to my argument. My argument is not even my argument. It’s the “Standing on the shoulders of giants” metaphor. If you like what you see today, then you have to give credit to the works that impacted the current environment.
BG3 has nothing to do with Skyrim. The gameplay has nothing to do with it. The story has nothing to do with it either. BG3 exists because of BG1 and BG2. You would know that if you’ve ever played one of those game. But you didn’t because you are to young to know shit. As a matter of fact, every Larian’s game exists because of Baldur’s gate. The world didn’t begin the day you grab your first controller you know?
Now, if we stop talking about gameplay and talk about money like you did, BG3 never had to wait for Skyrim to be a success, as there were tremendously successful games before Skyrim already.
Keep repeating yourself if you like, it won’t change how wrong you are.
Why is BG3 not BioWare if it evolved on its own merits? You don’t even have a point you’re trying to make. You just want to tell me that I’m wrong. In order for me to be wrong, one of the most influential games ever would have to have zero influence on the development, funding, or reception of Baldur’s Gate 3. You don’t have any argument because I literally can’t be wrong about it.
If Larian tried to make a game that wasn’t Skyrim, it’s still a positive impact that Skyrim had.
If Larian wanted to make one of the best RPGs, then they’d have to make it better than Skyrim. Net impact, good.
If Larian wanted to make a business case for why they deserved $100M to develop, then they pointed to the success that Skyrim had as validation.
If you think that no one in the 6 years of development compared the game to Skyrim in any way whatsoever or any game inspired by Skyrim, then you have an opinion so dumb that it’s not worth talking to you.
You admitted that you don’t have a point. Lol. I’m going to go play a rogue/fighter/wizard and fight dragons and have my choices impact the outcome and be a dragonborn and have mods.
At this point I’m expecting you to tell me that BG3 copied Skyrim because there are Elves and Dwarfs and Dragons in both of them…
You do realize that the Mother figure in both Skyrim and Baldur’s Gate is a representation of Lilith, first wife of Adam and mother of all demons right? Which is a figure at least as old as the fucking Old Testament? Right? Have you ever heard about Dante’s Hell?
Now, do you realize how ignorant you look like right now?
You seem like a decent person. A lefty who loves cats? Definitely my jam. But man, you’re just terrible at arguments.
You can’t just spit opinions and expect people with actual knowledge to agree with you.
I get it, you love Skyrim and you want to think it’s a genius piece of art which invented everything. But it’s simply not true. It’s a just a rewriting of very old stories. Like almost every RPGs to be honest - and the books LOTR, and the books GOT, and everything Fantasy really - but that’s not the point.
I simply hope you don’t make political arguments the way you led that conversation, because damn that was bad.
I didn’t even play Skyrim until 2020. I think it’s like a B-. You have no idea where I’m coming from opinion wise. I didn’t say an opinion. I’m saying that BG3 was influenced by Skyrim. That’s all I’ve tried to say this whole time.
This is legitimately not an opinion that I’ve tried to convey. It’s insane to me that you think the impact is 0.00000%. It’s not a coherent thought. It’s like saying my uncle didn’t have any impact on me because my dad is older than he is.
I’m not arguing an opinion. I am not mad at this or debating a position. I’m stating a fact and am being told it’s not a fact. I’m shocked that you don’t understand what I’m trying to say. If you think I’m arguing, then you must not understand what I’m trying to say.
If you are upset by what I’m saying, then I am genuinely concerned. I don’t know what part of what I’m saying can be so wrong that you feel the best to argue. This is surreal to me. Can you acknowledge what I’m trying to say?
My entire statement is “Skyrim had a non-zero impact on Baldur’s Gate 3”. Do you understand that is what I’m saying?
Or maybe you’re just so unbelievably stupid you don’t even know what the Old Testament is ? Gotta admit « Old Testament RPG » is a fun way to talk about the Bible.
Divinity OS2 to get the funding they needed to become fully realized
Divinity
Get the funding they needed
Lol don’t talk out your ass just cuz your point is running out of steam. I don’t wholly disagree that Skyrim wasn’t a massive impact in gaming, but it wasn’t this massive turning point for RPGs to suddenly become popular.
Skyrim was an ambitious project that somehow didn’t bite Bethesda in the ass. It taught tons of valuable lessons including laying the grounds for the great open worlds we have now. Nobody in 2011 was imagining games having the scale of open world we see in shit like Elden Ring, but Skyrim showed a glimpse to the future.
The flip of that being that Skyrim didn’t save RPGs from disappearing and they were already a massively popular genre and to say that future RPGs relied on its success, especially 12 years down the road, is a huge overstatement that reeks of fanboyism.
I think we made some progress in my point, so I just want to try to drive it home. The original argument was “Skyrim was a blight on the games industry.”
The reason I am trying to say that “Skyrim is influential on modern RPGs” is to disagree with the blight comment. I believe there are many ways that modern RPGs benefit from Skyrim’s contribution to the genre.
If Skyrim were truly a blight, we’d have more like the new Assassins Creed where it’s a massive world with little content to discover. To me, the problem with that argument though is that Skyrim and Assassin’s Creed are still pretty fun without the narrative content.
FWIW, one of the lead developers of Dragon Age Inquisition confirmed that a lot of decisions around that game were EA wanting them to make Skyrim (for instance, the addition of mounts) Source: youtu.be/4Q5_RsII_Ho?si=a9CTmyHpEpgfuPTe
Skyrim is a great game.... for its time. Todd Howard is the blight on the games industry for putting so many resources toward so many Skyrim remasters/re-releases/money grabs. Even if he outsourced all that work, those are dev houses he could have spent their time helping Bethesda actually fill their huge open worlds and perhaps get the same feeling of "every decision actually matters" that Larion did.
It’s good in some ways. I was disappointed in the removal of attributes and how the equipment stats were kind of simplified and boring. The lack of proper stat scaling, since there’s no stats.
I was also sad to see spellmaking go.
There’s still plenty of good in it, don’t get me wrong.
I think a very good distinction is the open-worldness of Elder Scrolls. When you have a virtual map spanning hundreds of acres, all of which you can visit, means the content gets thinned out and walking/climbing/riding around turns into a grind. Not every corner of BG3 has some amazing secret stowed away but I can’t think of any place I’ve visited so far that felt like a waste of my time.
Have you been able to try it? If a friend has a copy, or if you can rent/buy it and then return it, I would try it if you can.
I used to also be very against playing anything turn-based. I thought it was odd and unrealistic. In older games, that was definitely the case at times.
This game though, it draws you right in. You can be very creative with how you fight your enemies, and there is nearly always something new to discover. In my opinion, this game’s turn-based mode is more of a strategy game than it is a click and fight. I kind of love that about it.
I initially started playing on my girlfriend’s insistence, but sometimes I find it very difficult to put down.
I hope this doesn’t come off as pressuring you to play. I’m still kind of shocked I like a turn-based game now, to be honest. I thought that I would always dislike them.
Do you have an exemple of a turn-based game that lacks strategy? The closest that I can think of are the JRPGs, but even them have a bit of strategy IMHO. All turn-based games are strategy games in my opinion.
For me turn based is great because you can chill and think about your next move. You don’t have to rely on instinct. I love me some soulslike but sometimes just chilling is great.
So you have turn based allergies? Have you noticed that all those so called non turn based games have things like cool downs and reloads which are just turn based in disguise? Actually real life also takes turns which we call “days” to lie to the turn based haters. They never knew we were all in a turn based game from the beginning.
What a weird reply and dedication to turn based. But no, I despise it, final Fantasy made me hate turn based and not a single turn based game has been able to undo that hate.
Love people down voting you for having an opinion. Some people don’t like turn based, that’s that. I enjoyed BG3 but I just can’t bring myself to start another game, maybe in a couple months or a year. Trying to get through the main storyline in starfield so I can move on to some of the new games coming out, but I keep getting sidetracked.
I played DOS:2 so knew exactly how combat in bg3 would be. Just has a coat of d&d paint is all.
Add comment