This game is objectively bad. Why high ratings?

[Dean Winchester]

Combat is bad. Kind of self explanatory, you know it's true. Still in my case I was going for a sort of archer/ranger build. The archery is clunky and janky so I had no desire to keep going.

The intro is too long, typical of a bethesda game.

The whole game is janky. Especially the dragons which are supposed to be these epic fights but they look ridiculous and have seriously jarring physics.

The AI is really bad.

It's not an RPG. You play as the dragonborn. You could attempt to be an evil sorcerer wiping out villages but in the end you're still some dragonborn hero. The world isn't going to respond to your actions aside from bounties. You can kill many people in a village and you won't be treated any differently by anyone.

The guilds and most of their missions are bad, repetitive, uninteresting.

The story is not compelling. The game has like 10 voice actors which hurts immersion to hear the same people over and over.

The civil "war" is bad. There isn't even much evidence that it's happening. Now if there were battles going on with hundreds of soldiers, and you yourself could influence these battles I would understand. One could be forgiven for not realizing that there even is a war.

It's repetitive. You're going through nord tundra or nord dungeons fighting draugr or bandits most of the game. And considering that the combat is mediocre this is not a good experience..

Why high ratings?

[GrimCat]

You two need to stop flirting and get a room already.

[MancakeBR]

I loved Arena despite not getting far, though I wish for a remaster of that game (too much of a pain to get DosBox running it). I loved Morrowind, spent thousands of hours just replaying the game. Loved Oblivion spent even more hours on it than Morrowind. I also loved Skyrim cause it gave me the Morrowind feel to it regarding the dungeons. Well not entirely true, but still.

But the biggest issue I see, we can't compare games from older times to the times of today. Its an unfair comparison, especially when genres change over the years and new standards that are set. It's almost like saying that people who owned slaves were terrible people and you compare the standards from then to today's. It's simply unfair to judge everything like that.

Does Skyrim have issues and bugs? Yeah of course, especially the randomly generated quests for Words of Power where you have to use a console command to complete the quest. In terms of Combat, it's actually pretty good for its time of 2011, then given how popular the game was, it gained 2 new versions since release. If it wasn't popular, this game wouldn't have 3 different versions made. That should alone show you that this game is popular, even if you don't understand it.

[MortVent]

引用自 udUbdaWgz：

standard whingefest about feelings being facts

No I don't need to wait for the BS when you use subjective terms to try and describe the use of mods.

That's like asking if sprinkles make donuts or ice cream better...

It depends on the person as many prefer vanilla. So mods don't make the game better, more fun, or improve the game for them...

Where others prefer to have hundreds of mods. So yes they make the game better, more fun and improve it for them..

IF it was an objective thing, it wouldn't matter what they prefer. It would be a simple yes.

I know it's hard to understand when you've never been called out on the BS

[MortVent]

引用自 udUbdaWgz：

mort-

You have proven beyond all doubt that one cannot have a rational discussion with you.

You constantly use faulty logic and attempt to reroute and bypass all points of discussion.

Your inconsistencies and incoherent meanderings make it impossible for intelligent and proper discourse in the argumentative process.

You constantly belittle yourself with ad hom spew.

You foolishly keep lying about and misrepresenting what people say.

You keep arguing with yourself about figments of your own creation.

have a great day

First you would have to be rational in your posts, which you have not been.

You constantly avoid reality that you are using measurements that are subjective

Does red paint make a car go faster?
Does red paint make a car look better?
Does adding fuzzy dice make the car good?


Can you tell which of those questions can be answered objectively?