Black Angel
Grand Inquisitor of the Ordo Hereticus
No, because that removes PLAYER FREEDOM to explore the world at your leisure. One of the things which makes Skyrim a good game. You don't have to deal with Alduin if you just want to play a thief or a wizard and can ignore that quest if you don't want to play it on your second or third playthrough. Skyrim is a toolbox to make your own fun and journeys--making it more story focused defeats the purpose of having fun your way.








Then Alduin isn't as dangerous as you thought. Skyrim was actually a fucking joke only taken seriously by people who've never actually played video games, then. It made it seems like Alduin was this terrible threat that has to be taken seriously and dealt with ASAP, but the entire game was actually designed so that players can just lollygagging.
At this point you even completely ignore all the arguments about how even the NPCs didn't fucking care about Alduin.
'Dragons', 'World-Eater', my ass.
No, I reject your arguments and think your vision of game design would make a horrible game to me. Killing non-essential NPCs just willy nilly potentially leaves the land barren of interesting side characters.

Then don't create sense of danger/urgency if you thought your target audience would be casuals like you who would reload the moment an NPC died.
Again, I repeat, your sense of danger were false. Alduin is NOT a good villain, at all. Hell, maybe not even a villain, just this side figure with EPIC titles meant to be defeated by players whenever they feel like it and want to feel like a badass.
Truth is, the Dragonborn isn't a badass.
It's like that goddamn awful time limit on finding the Water Chip.
I'll turn the question back to you: You SERIOUSLY thought time limits were bad idea AT ALL?Wait, you SERIOUSLY think the time limits from the original 2 games were a good idea? You're not joking. I thought it was universally recorded as a bad idea, including by Tim Cain. Time limits in video games are HORRIBLE ideas.
You're a fucking casual. Stop talking about this as if it were bad idea. At large, the RPG Codex accepted the time limit as what made Fallout 1 great in the first place, and even though Tim Cain said it was a 'bad idea', most fans still mourn the fact they were never utilized and explored for newer games these days.
And FYI the time-limit for Fallout 2 doesn't even fucking work like the way it was in Fallout 1. At most, your village starts to change due to starvation if you neglect finding the GECK ASAP, but it doesn't had as much impact as Fallout 1's.
People like you are the reasons why they no longer make games that do time-limit right. Fucking casuals.
Only when you want to make games where people can lollygag, not when you create a sense of urgency.You want to let people be able to explore at their leisure.
Fallout 1 did it right because the Vault running out of drinking water was important, because in a post-apocalyptic world where everything was dictated by the survival of the fittest, no water = no life. You HAVE to get those Chip ASAP, or fuck off and don't play it if you think it's bad design.
Skyrim was stupid because it made it seems like Alduin was a threat that has to be dealt with ASAP. You even admit that you got this 'sense of danger' and, therefore, sense of urgency to deal with him ASAP. Turns out it was all false, and you can just lollygag to your heart's content.
Like I said, the 'game' was a fucking joke.
Who the fuck said anything about "the actual town to cover the entire map"? I'm asking for accurate representation of settlements when you're making a game in first/third person.Even if they did, I wouldn't want the actual town to cover the entire map. You need to make them smaller so it's easier to traverse them. I, honestly, felt Novigrad was too large to traverse and had way too much in the way of pointless running around streets of houses.
At this point, you're only shooting yourself in the foot by actually asking Bethesda to keep going the way they are going (using that ancient piece of shit engine making 'open-world' games with loading screen, inaccurate settlements represented by mere two-streets and a handful of NPCs) to compete with actually competent developers who make ACTUALLY open-world games with accurately represented settlements populated by actual population.
It's a fucking top-down isometric games. They had to creatively work and design the levels and the maps so you'll only get to the important parts. This is the only point where 'technical limitations' arguments works. Might as well argue why they didn't make the Vault like thisSurely, you don't think it only has five or six people from a Vault of 1000, though, do you?

Instead of only 3 level of floors.
Bethesda, though, had no fucking excuse because they made their games open-world in first/third person perspective, and the advantage of ~15 years of progress in video game technology. It was their fault and THEIR OWN fault for holding on to that piece of shit engine.
Still doesn't excuse Skyrim being a piece of shit for using open-world, first/third person perspective but inaccurately represent settlements with mere two streets and a handful of NPCs.When I went to Cornea as a child in Final Fantasy 1 and saw it only had an Inn, a Clinic, a Potion shop, and a couple of houses, I didn't think it had only five people living there. If I was able to get it at five years old, I certainly was able to get it as an adult.
I pity you now.
Please tell me you're joking. That's insane. Nobody would do that and it would be boring to go through, a bad idea from a game stand-point, and require the players to be morons to necessitate. Nobody actually thinks Diamond City has fifty people. Why would they? It's an abstraction and just because it's in 3d doesn't make it any more likely that way.






























Whatever floats your boat.
No, my argument is that Alduin is a shit villain, and the game is shit because it created this false sense of urgency where the dragons aren't actually a threat because a settlement represented by mere two streets, populated by a handful of NPCs could easily defeat those dragons.Your entire argument seems to be "railroad them into the main quest because of artificial urgency so there's no point in playing ANY of the side content until the main quest is completed."
Like I said, the 'game' is a fucking joke.
Sure, but the game was STILL designed for that. You can be a head of ALL the factions, and only the Civil War that allows you to choose side.Nothing I wrote implied that in Skyrim you can do everything in one playthrough. That's like forgetting the entire Skyrim civil war conflict. However if you pretend that it does not exist, then what you're left is a game structured pretty much like Ultima 7, to stick to my example. In TES setting, though. I understand that if you started playing computer games with Fallout series, you might be a bit disappointed.
Like I said, live-action trailer =/= the game. The live-action trailer doesn't mean Bethesda made good games, and in no way it means Skyrim was good.Back to the dragons: if not for the Skyrim live action trailer, how would we get the idea that dragons generally should wreak havoc and raze the towns, Smaug style. For those of you that are not familiar with the backstory for Skyrim, it turns out that in the ancient times in Skyrim there was a theocracy worshiping dragons and their chief dragon deity Alduin... They ruled, and what you rule you don't destroy, because then you end up the ruler of some desolation only.
And on-topic of lore, I already knew about the Dragon Priests. It raises many questions, now, such as: Why won't the Dragons raid settlements alongside the Dragon Priests, to force the said settlements to worship Alduin or be destroyed?
Oh, that's right, the game was still designed so that the players can just keep lollygagging, and it was also written by a fucking dumbass.