Well as long as we're praising Zelda B)

compare:

Skyrim:


Dark Souls:


Skyward Sword:

(12-23-2011, 02:41 AM)Kat Wrote: I'm curious, does it still look like they are flailing their limbs around and not knowing how to properly use a sword to attempt to attack things in 3rd person mode?

Because that was kinda a minor irk I had with Oblivion that I didn't like tbh.

quoting for next page

(11-15-2011, 12:32 PM)Stabsinthe Wrote: I might be able to get this in a couple weeks
I should be able to run it
omg I am excited.

---

also i'm seconding woppet that this looks like the game oblivion should've been

i still really enjoy oblivion but i find that i have to enjoy it despite its flaws
i can't ever really go to people "DAMN this is a great game". I find it fun but it's got a lot of issues.

This game is interesting and i often suggest this game to my
friends and i am addicted of this game.

Argyle, I don't know if its my internet connection or not, but none of those pictures are working

(12-23-2011, 03:36 AM)Kat Wrote:

(12-23-2011, 02:41 AM)Kat Wrote: I'm curious, does it still look like they are flailing their limbs around and not knowing how to properly use a sword to attempt to attack things in 3rd person mode?

Because that was kinda a minor irk I had with Oblivion that I didn't like tbh.

quoting for next page

i'd say yes and no to that

its a lot better than it is in oblivion (which is reasonable since oblivion-to-skyrim is a gigantic change) but its still noticeably stiff

I wonder what kind of DLC Skyrim will have. I hope it's meaty and massive like Shivering Isles. Maybe they will do Highrock? That seems like a good size province for DLC/Expansions.

I would love to hear anyone else's speculations or hopes for expansions.

More enemies. At first it felt like there was an gigantic amount of enemies to fight in the game, but after playing 150 hours I realize there's not that many at all.

There will probably be more campaigns too, I'd imagine so anyway. Maybe more discoverable places. More weapons and craftables too. God, I want so hard.

(12-23-2011, 03:40 AM)Argyle Bastard Wrote:

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at with these pictures - what I was trying to show in mine was the difference between the kind of designs that Skyrim had versus the more creative designs of Dark Souls and Skyward Sword. By all means, I think your post only cements my point.

(12-24-2011, 03:02 AM)Gnostic WetFart Wrote:

(12-23-2011, 03:40 AM)Argyle Bastard Wrote:

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at with these pictures - what I was trying to show in mine was the difference between the kind of designs that Skyrim had versus the more creative designs of Dark Souls and Skyward Sword. By all means, I think your post only cements my point.

I was getting across that they are in fact creative designs. Traditional dragons and such don't equal generic. :L

Definition of creative: " resulting from originality of thought, expression, etc.; imaginative"
repitition of traditional concepts with little if any deviation doesn't really qualify as "originality of thought" or as imaginative, sorry to say.

When there's no need to drastically change style, that's not being uncreative. Why would they need to completely redesign when what they have works well and looks great? Besides, the traditional European dragon is what I grew up loving and imagining. It's hardly unimaginative. But aside from the personal opinion, you don't have to re imagine a design completely every time, if you have a style that works, there's no need to drastically change it. And Skyrim looks really good, the environment is gorgeous, the dragons are grand, and detail is phenomenal.

...Again, you're not justifying that it isn't uncreative. You're just saying "but it still looks good and works well!" which isn't quite the same thing. Furthermore, having a sense of creativity doesn't require a change in style or aesthetic - they still could have had more interesting creative flourishes, but they chose not to, or were unable to successfully do so. It doesn't have to be overt, it can be subtle and defining. But the fact of the matter is, you cannot argue that Skyrim is something that it isn't, and trying to sidestep it by trying to justify its lack of creativity because it "still looks good" does not, in any sense, make it any more creative.

Ultimately, Skyrim, like quite a lot of western games, has a mediocre-at-best art direction. It is based on a regurgitation of tropes, or, when they do try to do something that isn't literally taken word-for-word from previous things, it ends up like this:

which is really just a vaguer trope with an extra eye or added bumps and ridges; nothing noticeable, nothing meaningful, nothing interesting. It is artistically immature and undeveloped.

creativity =/= fun

yo