Shall we talk about Skyrim?

[Ian]

Has there been any confirmation of which guilds/factions will be in Skyrim? After Dark Brotherhood was so good in Oblivion I'd like some more of that.

[gundrea]

How else do you expect to get good at jumping though? In the real world you gotta practice your vaults, gotta do your jumps and gotta work those muscles with exercises like skipping.

At least in Elder Scrolls it lets you train while you go rather than having to pay for a gym(or get run off property for hopping all over it)

[Skalpadda]

@Ian: DB, Thieves, Warriors and Mages I've seen for sure.


How else do you expect to get good at jumping though? In the real world you gotta practice your vaults, gotta do your jumps and gotta work those muscles with exercises like skipping.

Or you could of course just assume that your character is reasonably fit from the start.

[Smashbox]

Dark Brotherhood also confirmed according to a few sources.

[Unaco]

As far as I know, there are the 'standard' 3 (Fighters, Thieves, Mages) and the Dark Brotherhood. There are also some ancillary Guilds/Factions, including the Imperial Legion and the Rift Guards.

[Ian]

Hopefully the warrior's guild is a bit better this time. Dark Brotherhood had an awesome story while DB and Mage's guild gave you some nice rewards for getting to the top whereas I just remember the warrior's guild being a minor let-down from start to finish. What even were the rewards for getting to the top of it? I remember you got that big office and a desk and have forgotten anything else there may have been.

[duff]

Sadly I spoilt things for myself a teeny weeny bit by watching a video on PC Gamer called 'the sounds of Skyrim' or something like that, so if your looking to go into the game totally blind then I'd avoid that.

[Nalano]

The Tom Francis PC_gamer preview, that someone linked a few pages back, gives some details on the levelling system. Sounds like it's quite similar to previous TES Games... use a skill to improve it, enough skills increased == Level Up. But, there is the Perk system now, which is apparently quite nice... flexible, loads of scope and different choices, some perks have requirements, lots of opportunity for fun & powerful high level characters.

Yes, but do the enemies level up along with you? That broke Oblivion and PC Gamer doesn't say if it's evident here.

[Dugular]

I've had my concerns since Oblivion's bizarre monster auto-levelling which destroyed the point of levelling up, but I just have to say, after seeing that gameplay video of the fight with the dragon, I don't care if Skyrim has a design decision which causes a stick to protrude out the screen and molest me with it repeatedly, I WILL play that game to the end.

[Vexing Vision]

Nalano: Bethesda has repeatedly stated that the enemy will level more akin to FallOut 3 than Oblivion.

As I have never played FO3 (no, seriously), I have no idea what that actually means.

[Althea]

As I have never played FO3 (no, seriously), I have no idea what that actually means.
That means enemies don't wholly depend on your level. If an area has low-level creatures, it will continue to have them.

[Nalano]

That means enemies don't wholly depend on your level. If an area has low-level creatures, it will continue to have them.

I think FONV was better at that than FO3 - FO3 still did the "radscorpions until level X, then giant radscorpions until level Y, then albino radscorpions from then on" schtick, especially when you were tooling through the city (where they'd do it with super mutants) - but something's better than nothing.

[Althea]

Of course, Nalano, but I think overall Fallout 3 was perhaps a bit better balanced. You still faced weaker enemies at highest level, and the most powerful ones still faced a challenge, but in my opinion New Vegas got that wrong. At level 50, Deathclaws and Legion Assassins are just... Ugh. Ridiculous. I dread to think what they're like on Normal/Medium or above at that level.

[Nalano]

Of course, Nalano, but I think overall Fallout 3 was perhaps a bit better balanced. You still faced weaker enemies at highest level, and the most powerful ones still faced a challenge, but in my opinion New Vegas got that wrong. At level 50, Deathclaws and Legion Assassins are just... Ugh. Ridiculous. I dread to think what they're like on Normal/Medium or above at that level.

Even with all the DLC, how the hell do you get to level 50?

[Drake Sigar]

I'm not sure why level scaling gets such a bad rap while the old way of employing glorified bouncers to keep the player out of certain areas is so highly praised. The latter was a simple technique used to provide an illusion of freedom, when in actuality the player was following a linear path. There's nothing wrong with linearity, but this is Elder Scrolls, surely being able to do whatever you want is the main selling point of the game.

(Disclaimer: This statement only applies to those who have a problem with the concept of level scaling itself)

[Althea]

Even with all the DLC, how the hell do you get to level 50?
New Vegas' cap is 30, the DLC takes you to 50. It's not that hard, really.

[Nalano]

I'm not sure why level scaling gets such a bad rap while the old way of employing glorified bouncers to keep the player out of certain areas is so highly praised. The latter was a simple technique used to provide an illusion of freedom, when in actuality the player was following a linear path. There's nothing wrong with linearity, but this is Elder Scrolls, surely being able to do whatever you want is the main selling point of the game.

(Disclaimer: This statement only applies to those who have a problem with the concept of level scaling itself)

To provide a FONV example, a straight shot from Goodsprings to New Vegas pits you against either Deathclaws or Cazadors, depending on if you go a North or Northwesterly route, which, if you're a low level character, will fuck up your day. However, you can still finagle your way around them and/or find alternate routes - including one going east from Sloan - and that won't break the game.

Of course, FONV's level-up system will also practically make you overpowered no matter what progress path you take, so after a dozen hours' play, there's nothing the game can throw at you that you can't handle.

Oblivion screwed that up by tying your level to your skills and then making skill-ups be determined by actually doing things with those skills. By doing so you could, effectively, have had no increase in combat effectiveness but have leveled up several times, leading to overpowered enemies the world over and thus a broken game. Conversely, if you understood how broken Oblivion was, you'd make it a point not to put designate your primary combat skills as your primary skills, and effectively be a god while still at level one. Game balance was thrown out the window.

I'd much prefer a world where enemy difficulty is static and levels are nonexistent: You skill-up certain abilities independent of level. Barring that I'd prefer a world where enemy difficulty is static and levels are dominant: You don't skill-up but simply level-up. Tying enemy difficulty to level and then having a hybrid level-up system fucks everything up.

It's a work/reward thing: By leveling up I should be able to take on harder enemies, which opens up more areas to explore, or at least be able to fight my current enemies with greater ease. By leveling enemies up with me, you're actively punishing me for leveling up.


New Vegas' cap is 30, the DLC takes you to 50. It's not that hard, really.

I'm aware that it's technically possible, but you'd run out of things to do before you got there.

[Althea]

I'm aware that it's technically possible, but you'd run out of things to do before you got there.
Hasn't happened for me. Still got a few things to do.

[Wizardry]

I think the difference is (analogy coming up), Wizardry's dialogue mechanics are like opening doors by picking a lock, whereas scripted skill checks are like needing the right key.

Sure, for any one event the difference is null, but looking at it in terms of the gameworld at large, the latter depends on developers having prepared keys for every lock you might come across, whereas the former just requires the locks to be placed and the rest'll take care of itself.

Dialogue mechanics like Wizardry's defending make way for more freedom, less hand holding "here's the game we want people to play".
Sort of. Hunting down the right key for the right door is more adventure gameplay that RPG gameplay, because it's a puzzle the developers have hand-crafted and your character's skills play no part in using a key with a door. The alternative way is to just get developers to plonk down doors into the game world and allow the player themselves to pick them if they are locked, lock them if they are unlocked, bash them down, magically seal them and magically unseal them. That way, instead of a door being used primarily to force the player to go somewhere specific to fetch a key, you get emergent gameplay where the player can use doors to seal enemies in, all depending on the set up of the player's character. For example, a strong and physical character may be able to bash doors down, while a sneaky rogue type may be able to lure enemies into a room, stealth out of it and jam the lock shut. A magic user, on the other hand, may be able to cast magical seals over doors to keep anyone other than fellow mages from opening them.

http://codex.ultimaaiera.com/wiki/Magic_Lock
http://codex.ultimaaiera.com/wiki/Unlock_Magic

[Nalano]

Sort of. Hunting down the right key for the right door is more adventure gameplay that RPG gameplay, because it's a puzzle the developers have hand-crafted and your character's skills play no part in using a key with a door. The alternative way is to just get developers to plonk down doors into the game world and allow the player themselves to pick them if they are locked, lock them if they are unlocked, bash them down, magically seal them and magically unseal them. That way, instead of a door being used primarily to force the player to go somewhere specific to fetch a key, you get emergent gameplay where the player can use doors to seal enemies in, all depending on the set up of the player's character. For example, a strong and physical character may be able to bash doors down, while a sneaky rogue type may be able to lure enemies into a room, stealth out of it and jam the lock shut. A magic user, on the other hand, may be able to cast magical seals over doors to keep anyone other than fellow mages from opening them.

In order to weave all that into a narrative that answers the question, "why in the hell should I care about this door that I'd do any of these things," the developers would have to do ten times the writing they currently do.

Writing that, consequently, will never be seen by 90% of the player base.

This will never happen. You'll either have a door with all these options but I don't care, or a door that I care about but is strangely invulnerable to tampering.

[Wizardry]

In order to weave all that into a narrative that answers the question, "why in the hell should I care about this door that I'd do any of these things," the developers would have to do ten times the writing they currently do.

Writing that, consequently, will never be seen by 90% of the player base.

This will never happen. You'll either have a door with all these options but I don't care, or a door that I care about but is strangely invulnerable to tampering.
I can't comprehend this.

[Kelron]

I'm not sure why level scaling gets such a bad rap while the old way of employing glorified bouncers to keep the player out of certain areas is so highly praised. The latter was a simple technique used to provide an illusion of freedom, when in actuality the player was following a linear path. There's nothing wrong with linearity, but this is Elder Scrolls, surely being able to do whatever you want is the main selling point of the game.

(Disclaimer: This statement only applies to those who have a problem with the concept of level scaling itself)

Limited level scaling (something like Morrowind used) is a good idea. Scaling anything and everything like Oblivion makes the game world dull. It all comes back to my main gripe with Oblivion - Bethesda were so intent on giving the player freedom that they removed any consequences of your actions. Putting a powerful monster in a dungeon would stop you going there until you levelled up, so they make it always the same level as you. Having a Fighter's guild mission that pissed off the Mage's guild would stop you doing all the quests for both, which is apparently not acceptable.

Oblivion, for me, was not a game that produced interesting stories. The scaling was a big part of that. Any trip to a dungeon amounted to "I walked in, killed some vaguely challenging bandits and recovered loot appropriate to my level". Areas with monsters more powerful than the player do not necessarily restrict freedom, they can create an arena for more interesting events. If I'm walking around in my rags and encounter a steel plated bandit, I still have the options to use stealth or magic to slip by him and take whatever he's guarding, or lure him into a trap. Even if I have to flee for my life, that's still another aspect of the game.

[Nalano]

I can't comprehend this.

Which is the crux of six months' worth of arguments, methinks.

[PeopleLikeFrank]

Which is the crux of six months' worth of arguments, methinks.

Well in this case, he's got a point in that he described something entirely mechanical, and you responded by saying that it creates difficulty for crafting narrative. You don't have to care about the described door in any narrative sense - it could be anything from just a locked room with goodies in it to part of of a massive open-world city like Introversion's to one of the many doors that obstruct your path through a level in an otherwise linear game like Deus Ex. There's a million potential mechanical reasons why you'd care.

(This did particularly bother me about DX:HR. In DX1 you could blow up a door, pick it, bypass its electronic lock, or hack an attached computer system (usually a subset of those of course). In HR, you can either hack the door or not.)

[Nalano]

Well in this case, he's got a point in that he described something entirely mechanical, and you responded by saying that it creates difficulty for crafting narrative. You don't have to care about the described door in any narrative sense - it could be anything from just a locked room with goodies in it to part of of a massive open-world city like Introversion's to one of the many doors that obstruct your path through a level in an otherwise linear game like Deus Ex. There's a million potential mechanical reasons why you'd care.

In other words, all those different ways of solving the problem are ultimately superficial because the narrative is linear.

At which point, why bother?

[Wizardry]

On the more grindy skill-levelling: “we’ve solved most of that” and “got rid of some skills like Athletics and Acrobatics. Who makes a character that is like “I am someone who doesn’t run?”
What an idiot. Skills aren't binary. It's not about who runs and who doesn't run. It's a scale. Some people are better at running than others. Some people are better at jumping than others.


Or you could of course just assume that your character is reasonably fit from the start.
And you could assume that your character is a good magician at the start. And that your character is a good melee combatant at the start etc.

[Wizardry]

In other words, all those different ways of solving the problem are ultimately superficial because the narrative is linear.

At which point, why bother?
Where does this come from? I don't understand your reasoning. Sealing a door to a corridor behind you so that enemies can't surprise you from behind is useful. Locking a bunch of powerful enemies into a room is useful. Bashing down a door to find a treasure room is useful. Picking the lock of the back door to the local weapon store at night to steal weapons is useful.

What does linear narrative have to do with any of this?

[Kelron]

In other words, all those different ways of solving the problem are ultimately superficial because the narrative is linear.

At which point, why bother?

Why bother having sidequests? Why bother having different stats and character classes? Why bother having multiple weapons? None of it really matters if the narrative is linear, right?

[PeopleLikeFrank]

In other words, all those different ways of solving the problem are ultimately superficial because the narrative is linear.

At which point, why bother?

Because emergent gameplay is fun?

[Nalano]

What does linear narrative have to do with any of this?

How does making thirty different ways to open or close a door make for better gameplay? Do different things happen if I choose Option A as compared to Option Theta? If so, who designs those things? Or is it all just procedural? And if so, why should I care about a glorified dungeon romp?

Locking a bunch of monsters in a room as compared to killing them is a superficial difference. Setting traps and funneling enemies into them rather than gunning them down outright is a superficial difference. Getting into a room with treasure rather than skipping it is a superficial difference. Hell, you can do most of those things already, even in the most linear of RPGs, and the end result is rather masturbatory.

To make things that actually make a difference in the general scheme of things, you'd have to plot out possible ways for the situation to go and write their results. If you don't, and instead rely upon procedural development - like how Bethesda plans dungeons - then everything becomes samey and equally pointless.


Why bother having sidequests?

Who writes the sidequests? Or are they all just "go to dungeon X and kill Y monsters?"

Because we can do without those.

[Wizardry]

My brain just exploded.

[kraze]

Nalano is correct.

When his crappy game is so easy it allows even the most weakest character possible to gun down a room full of enemies why bother with nonlinearity?

Using brains to find a way out of multitude of offered ones to survive against stronger enemies or overwhelming numbers of weaker ones? That's so last millenium.

[sinister agent]

Oblivion, for me, was not a game that produced interesting stories. The scaling was a big part of that. Any trip to a dungeon amounted to "I walked in, killed some vaguely challenging bandits and recovered loot appropriate to my level". Areas with monsters more powerful than the player do not necessarily restrict freedom, they can create an arena for more interesting events. If I'm walking around in my rags and encounter a steel plated bandit, I still have the options to use stealth or magic to slip by him and take whatever he's guarding, or lure him into a trap. Even if I have to flee for my life, that's still another aspect of the game.

I agree with this. You don't have to lock a player out of everywhere with tough enemies - you can just have those areas be far more dangerous and more likely to get you killed. But a good, careful bit of sneaking or a very well-planned ambush on a monster (for example) could be good high-risk options, even if the result was more often than not having to leg it. You can argue that this can unbalance the game, but it doesn't have to, necessarily.

A few mods for Obliv and Fallout 3 did stuff like this. I had a great time being hopelessly outclassed in Fallout 3. Taking down half a dozen raiders made me feel like a total badass, whereas in the vanilla game I was one-shotting mutants by the dozen after a few hours.

[Nalano]

Nalano is correct.

When his crappy game is so easy it allows even the most weakest character possible to gun down a room full of enemies why bother with nonlinearity?

Using brains to find a way out of multitude of offered ones to survive against stronger enemies or overwhelming numbers of weaker ones? That's so last millenium.

Hiya sockpuppet.

Your character will have skills. All characters have skills. But to make all problems solvable by all skills and to have no substantive difference in how that plays out - other than the immediate obstacle climbed - means that it doesn't matter if you sneak or gun or talk your way through. It all results in the same thing.

To have there be substantive differences in which you choose, somebody has to plot and design long-term results to your decisions. If you go in guns ablazing, for instance, alarms blaze, your name gets plastered on Wanted Signs, etc. Somebody has to write that. The mechanics alone are not enough. But the only way to have that sort of reaction is to write it, and writing it means there will be limitations - because developers do not write for every possible contingency - so you either have memorable consequences OR you have infinite freedom.

[lasikbear]

I agree with this. You don't have to lock a player out of everywhere with tough enemies - you can just have those areas be far more dangerous and more likely to get you killed. But a good, careful bit of sneaking or a very well-planned ambush on a monster (for example) could be good high-risk options, even if the result was more often than not having to leg it. You can argue that this can unbalance the game, but it doesn't have to, necessarily.

A few mods for Obliv and Fallout 3 did stuff like this. I had a great time being hopelessly outclassed in Fallout 3. Taking down half a dozen raiders made me feel like a total badass, whereas in the vanilla game I was one-shotting mutants by the dozen after a few hours.

I managed the same experience in fallout 3 by going for a blind speed run build with a friend. Conversation, small guns, repair as the main skills. Also maybe heal (not sure about skill names this was when it had just came out). Made it so we avoided so much combat and extra xp we were hopelessly outclassed by supermutants and the like. Had to become drug addicts and use everything we could for every fight. Was awesome except we didnt realize we wouldn't be able to continue once we finished the main story.

[Nalano]

as awesome except we didnt realize we wouldn't be able to continue once we finished the main story.

Broken Steel fixes that.

[Skalpadda]

And you could assume that your character is a good magician at the start. And that your character is a good melee combatant at the start etc.

Sure you could, if skilling up your magic or melee was boring and awkward and was fairly likely to screw up the levelling system there's not much reason to have it in as a mechanic. What exactly are you trying to say?

[Wizardry]

Sure you could, if skilling up your magic or melee was boring and awkward and was fairly likely to screw up the levelling system there's not much reason to have it in as a mechanic. What exactly are you trying to say?
I'm trying to say two things, actually. One is that Todd Howard's reason for removing those two skills is absolutely stupid. Your reason is far better. The other is that the two skills would be good for removal if the speed and agility attributes weren't removed too. Making your jump height and running speed dependent on your primary attributes rather than skills would be a decent enough substitute, but it's just a shame the attributes were ripped out of the game too.

[Berzee]

See, me, I rather enjoy making a guy who can run and jump ridiculously well at the cost of being kind of bad at everything else. (I did this is Morrowind and attempted with less success to do it in Oblivion). I hope there are at least some perks related to acrobatics in Skyrim (or a school of magic that focuses on it) because I would hate to be shackled to the basic run speed and jump height forever. Especially with all those mountains, I'm sure jumping 20 feet in the air would be tremendous fun.

[Jeremy]

@Wizardry

What would be nice if there was an actual reason to have those skills in the first place. I also agree that Todd's reasoning for that is silly, of course every human being can run (mainly), but their speed, agility, endurance, etc. is all variable. As it stands, my puny level 1 mage will be able to run just as fast as a lvl 20 warrior. Granted, there might be some perk or something that allows for those kinds of abilities too.

[sinister agent]

I'd be quite surprised if there are no spells or the like that boost your speed or jumping height. There's been no indication that the speed stat doesn't make you move a bit faster.

[Wizardry]

There's been no indication that the speed stat doesn't make you move a bit faster.
But the attributes have been removed.

[sinister agent]

Did you know that I'm an idiot?

[Unaco]

There are definitely Perks that change your speed (and the flow of time). I remember reading about the possibility to make an Archer who can slow down time, knock opponents off their feet with their arrows, and move like the wind between shots. It might have been in the Tom Francis preview.

[Wizardry]

There are definitely Perks that change your speed (and the flow of time). I remember reading about the possibility to make an Archer who can slow down time, knock opponents off their feet with their arrows, and move like the wind between shots. It might have been in the Tom Francis preview.
Yeah but that's not exactly the same thing. A perk is binary, either you have it or you don't. Perhaps there are perks that cumulatively affect some basic statistic, in which case it's slightly more than binary. Perhaps there are multiple levels for a particular perk, which also adds some variance. But this is no substitution for having skills and attributes measured on a large scale (0-100).

If it is a direct substitute, why even bother with skills in the first place? Remove blade and blunt and add in some perks that deal with damage boosts for blade and blunt weapons.

To me Bethesda doesn't quite know what it's doing with The Elder Scrolls character system. Perhaps it's their goal to remove all public numerical data entirely and have some giant talent tree.

[sinister agent]

I suspect they're just trying to remove the more mundane and kind of pointless skills (athletics in theory is worthwhile, but in practice, it means you move at an excruciating pace unless you specialise in it, and if you do, it has no actual benefits so screws up your levelling. You weren't rewarded for having athletic skill; you were penalised for not having it, which is a sign of Bad RPG, BAD), and introduce more of the Fallout-style perks, to make levelling up more interesting and more about a character whose expertise is manifested in their abilities, not in just adding a few numbers to an arbitrary scale.

I don't think they're clueless at all. They seem to have a pretty clear plan to me.

[Wizardry]

I suspect they're just trying to remove the more mundane and kind of pointless skills (athletics in theory is worthwhile, but in practice, it means you move at an excruciating pace unless you specialise in it, and if you do, it has no actual benefits so screws up your levelling. You weren't rewarded for having athletic skill; you were penalised for not having it, which is a sign of Bad RPG, BAD), and introduce more of the Fallout-style perks, to make levelling up more interesting and more about a character whose expertise is manifested in their abilities, not in just adding a few numbers to an arbitrary scale.
The increase in active abilities to spam coincides with the downfall of the genre. I'm not sure how "I've leveled up and suddenly gained a new ability!" is somehow better than "I've improved!"


I don't think they're clueless at all. They seem to have a pretty clear plan to me.
There used to be skills for climbing, dodging, backstabbing, orcish, pickpocketing, medical, streetwise and much more. I never did understand the reason why Bethesda cut them completely.

[sinister agent]

Would you rather be able to do more things as a result of becoming better at something, or be able to do exactly the same things 2% more efficiently?

[TillEulenspiegel]

There used to be skills for climbing, dodging, backstabbing, orcish, pickpocketing, medical, streetwise and much more. I never did understand the reason why Bethesda cut them completely.
One of my favorite moments of silliness in Daggerfall was creating a character with Running, Jumping, and Climbing as primary skills, calling him The Tick, climbing up buildings and jumping from rooftop to rooftop.

Even when playing my main thief character, I'd make a point of climbing around everywhere, trying to find the tallest building in the world. I think there was a huge tower or palace in one of the desert cities.

Daggerfall was so huge, so ambitious. Unfinished and broken, but ambitious. I miss that about Bethesda.

[Wizardry]

Would you rather be able to do more things as a result of becoming better at something, or be able to do exactly the same things 2% more efficiently?
Obviously the latter.


Daggerfall was so huge, so ambitious. Unfinished and broken, but ambitious. I miss that about Bethesda.
As do I.

[Stormbane]

Daggerfall was so huge, so ambitious. Unfinished and broken, but ambitious. I miss that about Bethesda.

If there is one thing Bethesda do not lack it is ambition. The Elder Scrolls games are extremely ambitious, especially today when you can make a 6 hour linear shooter and expect billions in revenue. Name one game not vying for a monthly subscription that is more ambitious.

This is my understanding of level scaling: When you first enter a cell that cell is set to your level. If you return to that cell when you are high level the creatures will still be at the level you initially saw them at. The cell level scales creature levels.
Cells have creatures with minimum and maximum levels so you can still expect challenges when entering a cell for the first time. This also ensure that at low levels there is a chance you will enter a dungeon to find very high level scary monsters.

Also someone mentioned slowing down time and running speed. The archery tree has a perk that slows down time while you aim. It's also of note that while using bows there is now a melee action with the bow.

The running speed is decreased based on the weight of your armor but there are perks to get around that.

Finally here's a cool little thing I saw in one of the play throughs. The Nord racial skill its a battle cry that makes enemies flee for 30sec (usable once per day). When the player used the battlecry in a dungeon room it sent out a shock wave and the fire scones hanging from the roof (all the way across the room) fell down and shattered on the floor creating pools of fire. It was very impressive.

[Fiyenyaa]

This has been said in this thread already I think, I'd be happy if every first-person RPG-type just stole Dark Messiah's melee combat. Though a hefty element of that is probably the physics rather than the actual combat.

This needs to be said more often.
Dark Messiah's combat was what changed it from a silly game with a silly story into a really fun game with a silly story. The was something satisfyingly visceral about it.
Also, in first-person games from now on: if I look down, I want to be able to see my character's body instead of the blank space in between the floor and my character's presumably floating eyes and hands.

[TillEulenspiegel]

If there is one thing Bethesda do not lack it is ambition. The Elder Scrolls games are extremely ambitious, especially today when you can make a 6 hour linear shooter and expect billions in revenue. Name one game not vying for a monthly subscription that is more ambitious.
Dwarf Fortress, by about a billion times. And it's even free. Just read the development blog (http://bay12games.com/dwarves/); the amount of innovation is incredible, and it's still growing.

Bethsoft still make large, pretty worlds packed with lots of content. But that's about it. Their gameplay complexity has only gone backwards, and just because that's true of the rest of the market as well isn't really an excuse. They're not trying big new things, which is exactly what Daggerfall did in dozens of ways. They've cut out a ton of features since then.

[DigitalSignalX]

When does Dwarf Fortress come out on xbox?

[Wizardry]

Bethsoft still make large, pretty worlds packed with lots of content. But that's about it. Their gameplay complexity has only gone backwards, and just because that's true of the rest of the market as well isn't really an excuse. They're not trying big new things, which is exactly what Daggerfall did in dozens of ways. They've cut out a ton of features since then.
To be fair, Bethesda today aren't the same company. The Daggerfall guys left before Morrowind was released.

[Wulf]

@The OP

Dragon Knight Saga being classified as a low budget knock off? Yep. Another blow to my faith in people. (Or maybe I should just reclassify that as just straight, white, and entirely far, far too average and simple-minded gamers, just to perform a beautifully executed counter-piss off. :P)

Seriously, I just don't know how anyone could put down a game as bewitching and sublime a game as DKS is. It astounds me. There are certain groups of people I will never understand at all. You give them a beautifully told story, emotionally compelling, well written, clever, funny, warm, adventurous, dramatic, and thrilling, and it's just a low budget knock-off. You show them some thick-witted, testosterone-riddled, steroid-pumped brute grunting threats at a sorry excuse for a dragon with the artificial intelligence of a chicken, and they'll accumulate a pool of saliva in their lap within picoseconds.

Outstanding.

And how Dragon Knight Saga (a much more linear tale) is even like Bethesda's open world snorefests, I will never know. Good grief. Really, shunning something just because it doesn't have a massive marketing campaign replete with mad bling is worse than whatever it is that Wizardry does. And that's saying something. It'd be just like hating on Portal 2 solely because it's mainstream.

Y'know what? I'm disappointed. Disappointed I say. Utterly disappointed. You disappoint me. :|

[Wizardry]

Wulf and I are like polar opposites who hate the 99% who sit in the middle. Weird.

[vinraith]

What's hilarious is, I think Wulf just talked me out of ever picking up DKS. Between the linearity, a game entirely focused on an authorial narrative, and of course the general dickish attitude (which isn't the game's fault, of course), would someone like to tell me why I shouldn't pull this one off the pertinent wishlists?

[Stormbane]

Dwarf Fortress, by about a billion times. And it's even free. Just read the development blog (http://bay12games.com/dwarves/); the amount of innovation is incredible, and it's still growing.


Innovation does not equate to ambition. From a game developers perspective ambition equates to the amount of effort required to make a game. Dwarf fortress is a classic example of lack of ambition. Tarn Adams lacks the ambition to even make an effort at an user friendly interface or some rudimentary graphics, whatever his reasons. DF may be an amazing feat of innovation and gameplay but it is hardly an ambitious project. If you were a programer or an artist you would quickly realize that crafting Skyrim requires infinitely more effort than crafting DF.

Bethesda can be accused for a lack of innovation (which I can excuse in today's gaming environment), you can accuse them of bugs and lack of polish. You cannot accuse them of lack ambition.

[The Mechanical Aggressor]

@The OP

Dragon Knight Saga being classified as a low budget knock off? Yep. Another blow to my faith in people. (Or maybe I should just reclassify that as just straight, white, and entirely far, far too average and simple-minded gamers, just to perform a beautifully executed counter-piss off. :P)

Seriously, I just don't know how anyone could put down a game as bewitching and sublime a game as DKS is. It astounds me. There are certain groups of people I will never understand at all. You give them a beautifully told story, emotionally compelling, well written, clever, funny, warm, adventurous, dramatic, and thrilling, and it's just a low budget knock-off. You show them some thick-witted, testosterone-riddled, steroid-pumped brute grunting threats at a sorry excuse for a dragon with the artificial intelligence of a chicken, and they'll accumulate a pool of saliva in their lap within picoseconds.

Outstanding.

And how Dragon Knight Saga (a much more linear tale) is even like Bethesda's open world snorefests, I will never know. Good grief. Really, shunning something just because it doesn't have a massive marketing campaign replete with mad bling is worse than whatever it is that Wizardry does. And that's saying something. It'd be just like hating on Portal 2 solely because it's mainstream.

Y'know what? I'm disappointed. Disappointed I say. Utterly disappointed. You disappoint me. :|

This is brilliant. A succinct summary of the mainstream games industry.

@The OP:

You really can't expect a thread full of warmth and excitement towards Skyrim when you've just insulted every other recent game in the same genre that wasn't as heavily marketed and funded. Your protests that you wanted this thread to be negativety-free seem silly when you start of the thread like that.

[Berzee]

I am looking forward to talking to that man who sits by the stone sharpening-wheel,
just like in all the trailers. In actual fact, I am looking forward to that.

[DigitalSignalX]

... tell me why I shouldn't pull this one off the pertinent wishlists?

Wulf might have gone a bit overboard with the praise, but it honestly is a good game, well worth the experience. The OP shouldn't have compared to it. The technical and mechanical game play differences between DKS and a sandbox oblivion/skyrim shape the narrative. That's not a bad thing, but you wouldn't criticize Mass Effect for not being the same as Borderlands.

(which makes me realize, why are there so few sandbox sci-fi games?)

[vinraith]

Wulf might have gone a bit overboard with the praise, but it honestly is a good game, well worth the experience. The OP shouldn't have compared to it. The technical and mechanical game play differences between DKS and a sandbox oblivion/skyrim shape the narrative. That's not a bad thing, but you wouldn't criticize Mass Effect for not being the same as Borderlands.

(which makes me realize, why are there so few sandbox sci-fi games?)

The purely linear characterization is accurate, though?

[Wizardry]

(which makes me realize, why are there so few sandbox sci-fi games?)
There's loads of them...

[vinraith]

The sad truth is that I'm not aware of many sandbox RPG's period, regardless of setting. Wizardry may be able to give me a list of older games that fit this description (and I'd welcome one) but very few developers are making contemporary ones. Part of the reason I get excited about a new Bethesda game, despite the fact that they increasingly need mods to make them a game I want to play, is simply that no one else is really doing this kind of thing anymore.

[Wooly Wugga Wugga]

You really can't expect a thread full of warmth and excitement towards Skyrim when you've just insulted every other recent game in the same genre that wasn't as heavily marketed and funded. Your protests that you wanted this thread to be negativety-free seem silly when you start of the thread like that.

You'll notice that as soon as people called me a jackass for doing this on page one I apologised, explained myself better and dropped that schtick.

As for why I disliked the game let me explain. The game was flakey, buggy and broken for me. I was enjoying the game until you get the dragon powers. At that point the game fell apart which was hugely disappointing because you'd think that would be when it gets good. Firstly, instead of letting you enjoy being a dragon by giving you freedom they dump you in a map where most of the area is off limits, they don't explain what you are supposed to do so you're completely lost flying around in circles getting slowly killed by arrows, they have this annoying mechanic where land based enemies disappear and and get replaced by flying enemies. I kept getting a bug that when I turned into a dragon and back into a human none of the land based enemies respawned so the world was suddenly empty. It's a copout not to let you kill the high level land based enemies when you're a dragon.

[DigitalSignalX]

The purely linear characterization is accurate, though?

Yes, not quite as narrow as a corridor shooter, but it basically loads a map/level and all your quests are done in that area, then you move on to the next. Toward the end, they get kind of big to accommodate the flying bits, but you'd be lucky to walk straight for two or three minutes without hitting the edge of a map.

The only open world/sandbox sci fi games (that are not MMO's) I can think of is the Fallout Series. Some that come close, Borderlands, Red Faction series, Scrapland, and the upcoming Prey 2.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5h2TkpFEsn8?hd=1

[Nalano]

You'll notice that as soon as people called me a jackass for doing this on page one I apologised, explained myself better and dropped that schtick.

As for why I disliked the game let me explain. The game was flakey, buggy and broken for me. I was enjoying the game until you get the dragon powers. At that point the game fell apart which was hugely disappointing because you'd think that would be when it gets good. Firstly, instead of letting you enjoy being a dragon by giving you freedom they dump you in a map where most of the area is off limits, they don't explain what you are supposed to do so you're completely lost flying around in circles getting slowly killed by arrows, they have this annoying mechanic where land based enemies disappear and and get replaced by flying enemies. I kept getting a bug that when I turned into a dragon and back into a human none of the land based enemies respawned so the world was suddenly empty. It's a copout not to let you kill the high level land based enemies when you're a dragon.

I played DKII and experienced none of the bugs you did. Roasting folks on land was fun, and the game designers made a point of certain areas that were too small for dragons to fit through (and dragons who died in such places, for that matter). I'm hard-pressed to remember any place that was strangely off-limits to me - the only example I could think of was flying off over the ocean - but overall I enjoyed the humor, the characterization and the storyline.

It's not Oscar material, but it's a fine and dandy game.


and the upcoming Prey 2.

I seriously doubt Prey 2 is going to be as open-world as you think it will. I fully expect Mass Effect-style quest hubs with heavily-scripted missions branching off of them.

[Wooly Wugga Wugga]

I played DKII and experienced none of the bugs you did. Roasting folks on land was fun, and the game designers made a point of certain areas that were too small for dragons to fit through (and dragons who died in such places, for that matter). I'm hard-pressed to remember any place that was strangely off-limits to me - the only example I could think of was flying off over the ocean - but overall I enjoyed the humor, the characterization and the storyline.

I should probably point out that I was playing the original release of the game and not the re-release, and no, after the mess that was the original release I am not rewarding the developers by buying their game again.

[sinister agent]

And how Dragon Knight Saga (a much more linear tale) is even like Bethesda's open world snorefests, I will never know. Good grief. Really, shunning something just because it doesn't have a massive marketing campaign replete with mad bling is worse than whatever it is that Wizardry does. And that's saying something. It'd be just like hating on Portal 2 solely because it's mainstream.

Y'know what? I'm disappointed. Disappointed I say. Utterly disappointed. You disappoint me. :|

Massively presumptuous. I can't stand this default position that liking something that's big-budget is only done because it's got a lot of marketing behind it. I actively avoid as much advertising as humanly possible. I heard of Daggerfall via HOTU. I heard of Morrowind in 2005 via a friend (and I didn't know they were related - partly because I couldn't get Daggerfall to work well, mind). I prefer Oblivion to them both because it is more fun to play. I don't care how many adverts there are - iif they're online, I'll have blocked them, and if they're on tv, I'll already have the tv on mute and be in another room making a cup of tea.

This is an enthusiast site. Few people here like things just because they're famous. Hell, this site makes things famous. By all means, criticise Oblivion or whatever, but ascribing these drone-like motivations to other people's enjoyment is just self-congratulatory nonsense.

Plus, doing a bad job of pushing your game is, unfortunately, just a failure on your part. That's the reality of the world. If you don't want mega financial success or fame, that's absolutely fine, but, y'know, you have to get the word out if you want your game to get a good reception. Blaming other games for having bigger campaigns is (in most cases) a scapegoat. If your game is good, it's up to you to find the audience, and if you find them and get their attention, it doesn't matter how much you spend. Similarly, plenty of games (and films, etc.) have been marketed like crazy and still bombed because they were awful.

Most big budget games are actually quite good. Obvious and derivative and unwelcome in a glutted market perhaps, but it's actually not very common for a genuinely bad game to be very successful. You can't buy your way out of the "terrible game" zone.

People played and liked Oblivion because it was a decent game. Yes, the marketing helped, obviously. But it's still a leading example of a modern first person RPG because it is fun.

[Nalano]

I should probably point out that I was playing the original release of the game and not the re-release, and no, after the mess that was the original release I am not rewarding the developers by buying their game again.

/shrug


Plus, doing a bad job of pushing your game is, unfortunately, just a failure on your part.

Dear god, I hope your views never catch on. Advertising is already a decadently oversized part of publishing budgets already, and seeing MW3 grace my TV screen every ten minutes for a month has been annoying at best.

[Wooly Wugga Wugga]

True story - marketing had nothing to do with my purchase of Oblivion.

Also Wulf is more wrong about everything in that post than he will ever know.

[sinister agent]

Dear god, I hope your views never catch on. Advertising is already a decadently oversized part of publishing budgets already, and seeing MW3 grace my TV screen every ten minutes for a month has been annoying at best.

I may have phrased that poorly, but it's true. Plenty of good things have failed because nobody heard of them. On the flip side, it's possible to over-advertise, I'd have it. Annoying the hell out of people is a bad idea, plus there's sure to be a case of diminishing marginal returns beyond a certain point.

I utterly hate advertising, and think it's a plague on modern society. But some degree of it is, annoyingly, a necessary evil if selling stuff is your goal.

[Wizardry]

The sad truth is that I'm not aware of many sandbox RPG's period, regardless of setting. Wizardry may be able to give me a list of older games that fit this description (and I'd welcome one) but very few developers are making contemporary ones. Part of the reason I get excited about a new Bethesda game, despite the fact that they increasingly need mods to make them a game I want to play, is simply that no one else is really doing this kind of thing anymore.
Well, he said sandbox sci-fi games and not sandbox sci-fi RPGs. Sandbox sci-fi games include lots of space trading games and perhaps even sci-fi 4X games.

Still, onto your point, there are lots of sandbox RPGs in existence. In fact, I would argue that most true non-dungeon crawler RPGs are sandbox games in that you aren't artificially restricted in what you can do and where you can go by the narrative. The Ultima games are the pioneering sandbox RPGs, with imitators like The Magic Candle series* and Deathlord** multiplying the formula by ten. The Might and Magic series is open world, where you can travel the wilderness and go to any town and dungeon you want in any order. Even slightly more restrictive games like Fallout is basically open world as you can head to the final boss straight away (something you can't do in Oblivion). I'm sure even Wizardry VII*** could be classed as open world, even though you are restricted by forest corridors, purely because you aren't guided in where you can go and what you can do, and there are different factions you can choose to work for as well as wondering NPCs. Same deal with Fate: Gates of Dawn****.

In my mind it's mainly BioWare, Obsidian and CD Projekt that seem to be anti-open world, but unfortunately for us that makes up the majority of the "genre" nowadays, with only Bethesda and Piranha Bytes sticking to the freedom of open world games.

* The Magic Candle I: http://jasons.wumple.com/Interests/Gaming/MagicCandle/files/mc1/magic_candle_deruvia.png
The Magic Candle II: http://jasons.wumple.com/Interests/Gaming/MagicCandle/files/mc2/magic_candle_2_gurtex.png
The Magic Candle III: http://jasons.wumple.com/Interests/Gaming/MagicCandle/files/mc3/magic_candle_iii_solian_lands.png
Bloodstone: http://jasons.wumple.com/Interests/Gaming/MagicCandle/files/bs/bloodstone_tarq.png

** http://www.gamefaqs.com/appleii/574838-deathlord/faqs/38942

*** http://www.oldgames.sk/images/oldgames/rpg/Wizardry.7/Map/Wizardry7-Mapd.png

**** http://dungeony.rpghry.cz/fate/fateworl.gif

[Nalano]

I may have phrased that poorly, but it's true. Plenty of good things have failed because nobody heard of them. On the flip side, it's possible to over-advertise, I'd have it. Annoying the hell out of people is a bad idea, plus there's sure to be a case of diminishing marginal returns beyond a certain point.

I utterly hate advertising, and think it's a plague on modern society. But some degree of it is, annoyingly, a necessary evil if selling stuff is your goal.

To an advertiser, there is no such thing as "too much advertising."

As it stands, by condoning the practice, you're just raising the base cost of publishing a game - which will price out indies - on the faulty premise that they should in some way endeavor to maintain parity with the six largest companies in the business.


In my mind it's mainly BioWare, Obsidian and CD Projekt that seem to be anti-open world

No. It's a question of scale.

An open world has hundreds if not thousands of NPCs. To have them all react in unique and interesting manners - to spin a narrative for each by hand, commensurate to the characterization those companies prefer, and plan for all contingencies; to craft a world of that size - would make their games cost an order of magnitude more than they already do.

[sinister agent]

To an advertiser, there is no such thing as "too much advertising."

As it stands, by condoning the practice, you're just raising the base cost of publishing a game - which will price out indies - on the faulty premise that they should in some way endeavor to maintain parity with the six largest companies in the business.

I don't think I've made my point clear.

I'm not condoning massive campaigns - there is such a thing as too much (advertisers often have no sense of perspective. Too much means spending too much, which is always a possibility). I certainly don't want every game pushed the way massive budget games are. You don't have to copy what Tesco are doing to sell milk to the neighbourhood, you know? It's possible to find your audience without just blanket carpet bombing everyone in the world. Sites like RPS are a good example of how to do that - how many games have we all only heard of because RPS took an interest in them?

I'm not saying "it's your fault your game failed because you didn't pay itv for tv time". More "look, you didn't even tell anyone what your game is about", kind of thing.

[Nalano]

I'm not saying "it's your fault your game failed because you didn't pay itv for tv time". More "look, you didn't even tell anyone what your game is about", kind of thing.

When the big companies blare on all channels all the time - and not just on TV - getting a word in edgewise rises in cost accordingly. After all, you're competing for attention.

[BobsLawnService]

Oh, Christ, it's "The bands I listen to are more obscure than the bands you listen to" asshattery again.

[Althea]

Yes, not quite as narrow as a corridor shooter, but it basically loads a map/level and all your quests are done in that area, then you move on to the next. Toward the end, they get kind of big to accommodate the flying bits, but you'd be lucky to walk straight for two or three minutes without hitting the edge of a map.
I dunno, some of those maps were pretty big, and they didn't force you to do quests in a certain order. I could go to the Fjords to do some quests, then back to the Broken Valley, then back to the Fjords, then go in a bunch of caves and so forth. Yeah, it was linear, but no more so than, say, Dragon Age: Origins ever was.

[Nalano]

Oh, Christ, it's "The bands I listen to are more obscure than the bands you listen to" asshattery again.

Not at all. I don't think Dragon Knight II is substantively better because it's unknown. I just agree with Wulf that it's undersold.

That being said, I do prefer something being undersold than oversold.

[Nalano]

Apparently RPG Codex keeps tabs (http://www.rpgcodex.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=1851334) on their own.

[Fiyenyaa]

Innovation does not equate to ambition. From a game developers perspective ambition equates to the amount of effort required to make a game. Dwarf fortress is a classic example of lack of ambition. Tarn Adams lacks the ambition to even make an effort at an user friendly interface or some rudimentary graphics, whatever his reasons. DF may be an amazing feat of innovation and gameplay but it is hardly an ambitious project. If you were a programer or an artist you would quickly realize that crafting Skyrim requires infinitely more effort than crafting DF.

Bethesda can be accused for a lack of innovation (which I can excuse in today's gaming environment), you can accuse them of bugs and lack of polish. You cannot accuse them of lack ambition.

Speaking as someone who values polish in games pretty highly (although I do love Dwarf Fortress immensely, despite that), I'd ask you is polish really a barometer of ambition?
I should have thought that the scope of the game, it's depth, and the freedom it allows you would be a much better indication - someone could make a Breakout-clone which was the most polished and intuitive product ever made, but it'd hardly be ambitious.
The lack of polish in DF is a result of a few things (such as; the game is still in development; the 'team' is extremely small and they are focussing on other things; and perhaps a even a lack of capability in that area - although I've no idea), but I don't think it's particularly linked with ambition at all.

[kraze]

Hiya sockpuppet.

Your character will have skills. All characters have skills. But to make all problems solvable by all skills and to have no substantive difference in how that plays out - other than the immediate obstacle climbed - means that it doesn't matter if you sneak or gun or talk your way through. It all results in the same thing.

a) it plays differently for characters that can't just gun through or sneak through giving a meaning to all kinds of stats.

b) the outcome can also be different. If such game was to be done by some talented people (like, say, Troika - devs of Fallout that wasn't Beth crap). If you've played a thief-like sneaky character and came to that boss he would congratulate you on your sneaky skills and even make you a counter-offer to work for him opening a new quest line (and you would've a choice whether to accept there too). Likewise if you just cut through enemies gunning them down such contract would've been impossible because you killed a lot of his "family". And with a little more talent you can branch it out more and more. Like if your character is good enough at noticing hidden doors you could've found a backdoor to the office of that mob boss and warn him (with a good persuasion roll) that you were sent to kill him - as a result he tells you that for you to get out of here alive and maybe even get a reward you can set up a meeting with the guys who hired you for peace talks (during which he plans to eliminate your client). And you can go and warn your client (meaning the mob boss will sent his goons after you throughout the following game for betrayal) or tell him a lie (with a good persuasion roll) that when they meet causes both factions to be eliminated. Possibilities are endless.

Today and especially in Bethesda games you just blindly follow the quest compass, killing everyone on the way to see quest complete message. And that's all there's to their hiking simulators. It doesn't matter which stats you choose since you will be killing everyone and following linear quests. Dialogues in their games are nothing but dust in the eyes since quest ends the same or in rare cases A or B.



To have there be substantive differences in which you choose, somebody has to plot and design long-term results to your decisions. If you go in guns ablazing, for instance, alarms blaze, your name gets plastered on Wanted Signs, etc. Somebody has to write that. The mechanics alone are not enough. But the only way to have that sort of reaction is to write it, and writing it means there will be limitations - because developers do not write for every possible contingency - so you either have memorable consequences OR you have infinite freedom.

That wasn't the problem 10 years ago. The problem now is that all those Biowares, Obsidians, Bethesdas and CD Projekts have utterly talentless designers. And besides why spend time on making a good game when you can just make a grey mess that's their games and people will happily buy it regardless.

The contingency these devs write now for are the people who hate RPGs with passion. Thus you can't tell a difference between what's called "RPG" today and shooters.

[Okami]

Apparently RPG Codex keeps tabs (http://www.rpgcodex.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=1851334) on their own.

My life's plan is to become the richest person in the world. With that money I'll find out the real life identity and adress of each and every person on rpg codex, go to their homes and punch them in the face.

[Drake Sigar]

My life's plan is to become the richest person in the world. With that money I'll find out the real life identity and adress of each and every person on rpg codex, go to their homes and punch them in the face.
Better to kidnap the subject and force them to live in an environment where they harm themselves with their own elitism. The spring-loaded barbed wire-wrapped boxing glove could trigger every time they used the word 'fag' for starters.

[TillEulenspiegel]

If you were a programer
Heh.

I really don't want to get into a terribly dull semantic argument, so I'll leave it at this: I was talking about ambitious game design. Rehashing an old proven formula with minor tweaks is about as cautious as it gets.

[Unaco]

Divinity II - DKS had really, really, really, really appalling combat. People in this thread have complained about Oblivion's combat... DKS's involves pressing LMB and occasionally pressing one of the number keys to do something special, all the while resisting the urge to hit your head against a wall. No timing, no planning, no movement... just hit LMB, and if you're nearly dead hold S to run away.

Game is charming and all, some decent voice acting, and some of the Dungeon's had some atmosphere. But the rest is strictly mediocre at best and completely laughable at worst.

[Althea]

Divinity II - DKS had really, really, really, really appalling combat. People in this thread have complained about Oblivion's combat... DKS's involves pressing LMB and occasionally pressing one of the number keys to do something special, all the while resisting the urge to hit your head against a wall. No timing, no planning, no movement... just hit LMB, and if you're nearly dead hold S to run away.
Yeah, it has dungeon crawler combat, so what?


Game is charming and all, some decent voice acting, and some of the Dungeon's had some atmosphere. But the rest is strictly mediocre at best and completely laughable at worst.
Disagree. The visuals can be absolutely stunning, Kirill Pokrovsky created one of the single best soundtracks I've ever heard for it. Yeah, it wasn't flawless, but I had much more fun with Divinity 2 (pre-DKS, I must add) than with many other games that I've played.

[Unaco]

Wulf and I are like polar opposites who hate the 99% who sit in the middle. Weird.

So... You're both extremists. One of you is like Rush Limbaugh, and the other like Jane Fonda, and you're just polarising everything and pulling all of us apart, and preventing any sort of consensus and middle ground.

That could be my new sig... "Wulf: The Rush Limbaugh of videogames."

[Unaco]

Disagree.

OK... Let's agree to disagree.

[Unaco]

Today and especially in Bethesda games you just blindly follow the quest compass, killing everyone on the way to see quest complete message. And that's all there's to their hiking simulators. It doesn't matter which stats you choose since you will be killing everyone and following linear quests. Dialogues in their games are nothing but dust in the eyes since quest ends the same or in rare cases A or B.

Just because this is how you play it, doesn't mean it's how everyone plays these games. That's the great thing about them... there is lots of choice and ways to play it.

[jp0249107]

I posted once in this thread to express excitement over skyrim, I've been bored and read all 18 pages of....I dunno..."discussion"...and come to this conclusion

348

[Keep]

HI RPS COMMENTATORS *waves*

Hello Ed123!

[Joseph-Sulphur]

Apparently RPG Codex keeps tabs (http://www.rpgcodex.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=1851334) on their own.
The people on RPG Codex thought you two were going too far. TAKE THE FUCKING HINT.

[Wolfenswan]

Will we have a RPS/RPG-codex dance duel ala west side story?

Wizardry can be our Maria but I've no idea who'll be the codex's Tony.

[Malawi Frontier Guard]

I think Wulf's post was the highlight of this thread. I'm sorry everyone, you can go home now. This thing about doors and maps or whatever was nice, but you can't compete with that.

[vinraith]

Still, onto your point, there are lots of sandbox RPGs in existence... <snip>

That was extremely useful, thank you.

[Wizardry]

No. It's a question of scale.

An open world has hundreds if not thousands of NPCs. To have them all react in unique and interesting manners - to spin a narrative for each by hand, commensurate to the characterization those companies prefer, and plan for all contingencies; to craft a world of that size - would make their games cost an order of magnitude more than they already do.
Not so sure about this. Ignoring the old Ultima games where each NPC has only a handful of lines of dialogue to spill, Ultima VI and VII have a very large amount dialogue, while only having a small number of writers in comparison to today's "RPG" developers. Ultima VII has over 270 NPCs and each one plays some specific role in the game, with their own dialogue and their own portrait.

If it was possible back then with a much smaller development team, it must be far easier now.

[Wooly Wugga Wugga]

Not so sure about this. Ignoring the old Ultima games where each NPC has only a handful of lines of dialogue to spill, Ultima VI and VII have a very large amount dialogue, while only having a small number of writers in comparison to today's "RPG" developers. Ultima VII has over 270 NPCs and each one plays some specific role in the game, with their own dialogue and their own portrait.

If it was possible back then with a much smaller development team, it must be far easier now.

And how long does it take to paint a single 320*200 static sprite and writing a few lines of dialog as opposed to modeling a character, animating it and texturing it for modern screen resolutions and recording them?

*sigh*

[Wizardry]

And how long does it take to paint a single 320*200 static sprite and writing a few lines of dialog as opposed to modeling a character, animating it and texturing it for modern screen resolutions and recording them?

*sigh*
*sigh*

Bethesda use the face gen thing for the NPCs in the game, which takes even less effort the drawing sprites. On top of that, all characters use the same set of animations, meaning that NPCs don't have custom ones. In other words, none of your points are valid.

[Machocruz]

Some of you were discussing the effects of arrows on a metal shield. I haven't played Mount and Blade, and though they are not PC games, in Demon's/Dark Souls (which I consider the current standard for action-RPG combat), arrow hits deplete stamina, depending on your shield. You can become completely staggered if your End stat is low enough, which is representative of how a very weak person would react under that kind of force.

[sinister agent]

So, that Skyrim, eh? I heard it's a game that's coming out next week.

I think it'll be fun. Who's with me?

[apricotsoup]

Very much looking forward to it, sure it's hardly going to be the greatest game but I do love a little bit of exploration in these worlds.

[Cable]

oh me me pick me i'm excited!

[Joseph-Sulphur]

*sigh*

Bethesda use the face gen thing for the NPCs in the game, which takes even less effort the drawing sprites. On top of that, all characters use the same set of animations, meaning that NPCs don't have custom ones. In other words, none of your points are valid.
You completely ignore the gigantic time and money sink that is voice acting.

[Wizardry]

You completely ignore the gigantic time and money sink that is voice acting.
No I don't. Mass Effect has more lines of dialogue than all the Ultima games combined. So what's your point?

[Ian]

Apparently RPG Codex keeps tabs (http://www.rpgcodex.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=1851334) on their own.

Good grief.

[Ian]

So, that Skyrim, eh? I heard it's a game that's coming out next week.

I think it'll be fun. Who's with me?

Stop trying to discuss the game, thread-derailer!

[sinister agent]

Actually, that reminds me. It surprises me how many people here have said they'll be playing as a lizardguy or mancat. I always assumed they were options nobody really bothered with (although I couldn't say why, other than that I didn't like them). Is there a particular reason people go for them, or is it just a "hey, why not?" sort of thing?

[Wizardry]

Actually, that reminds me. It surprises me how many people here have said they'll be playing as a lizardguy or mancat. I always assumed they were options nobody really bothered with (although I couldn't say why, other than that I didn't like them). Is there a particular reason people go for them, or is it just a "hey, why not?" sort of thing?
Furries. Scalies.

[Serenegoose]

Actually, that reminds me. It surprises me how many people here have said they'll be playing as a lizardguy or mancat. I always assumed they were options nobody really bothered with (although I couldn't say why, other than that I didn't like them). Is there a particular reason people go for them, or is it just a "hey, why not?" sort of thing?

Not many games give me the option to play as something weird. Cat people and lizard people are thoroughly on the tame-as-hell end of weird, but they're certainly a bit more different than 'human with different shaped ears' or 'smaller than average human' or 'green skinned human' or any other vaguely different human that I'm tired of playing as. I'm bored of human.

[Anthile]

So, that Skyrim, eh? I heard it's a game that's coming out next week.

I think it'll be fun. Who's with me?

Nah, man, haven't you heard the news? RPGs are dead and so are FPSs. That means Skyrim is dead twice.

[Joseph-Sulphur]

The people on RPG Codex thought you two were going too far. TAKE THE FUCKING HINT. Actually, it's exactly the opposite. Keep fighting the good fight guys.Someone on rpgcodex.net posted this. And you know what, now that I think about it, they are completely fucking right. Wizardry and others like him are turning this board into complete shit. Your smarmy put downs and overt condescension don't add anything to the discussion, no matter how you try and justify them with pathetic excuses about how it somehow adds to the debate.

It doesn't. You insecure, sad little people do nothing except belittle people for their opinions and scare away posters who might actually contribute something constructive. You all know who you are. I don't know what it is about RPS that attracts self important, arrogant know it alls but either start playing nice or leave before you turn RPS into another bile filled cesspool of a board.

[Unaco]

Edit: Wizardry's post that this was in response to seems to have been deleted.

Can we stick on topic now please?

[sinister agent]

C'mon guys... FFS. Stop derailing the thread. Stay on topic. Take your childlike whining to PM, please.

I'm sure Cameron has more important things to d... oh wait.

Yeah, good idea, do it.

[sabrage]

You know what? I do hate RPGs.

And that's ok, because I still get to have more fun than you.

[Hatman]

Someone on rpgcodex.net posted this. And you know what, now that I think about it, they are completely fucking right. Wizardry and others like him are turning this board into complete shit. Your smarmy put downs and overt condescension don't add anything to the discussion, no matter how you try and justify them with pathetic excuses about how it somehow adds to the debate.

It doesn't. You insecure, sad little people do nothing except belittle people for their opinions and scare away posters who might actually contribute something constructive. You all know who you are. I don't know what it is about RPS that attracts self important, arrogant know it alls but either start playing nice or leave before you turn RPS into another bile filled cesspool of a board.
Posted in the same thread as Wizardy made a huge informative post with citations and footnotes to share his love and knowledge of old RPGs with someone. Does "constructive" now equal "repeating the same opinions as everyone else and never saying anything outside the status quo"?

All I see from Wizardry's "opponents" is exactly what they're accusing him of: belittling, insulting, making horrific threats of violence and torture, all for daring to have the wrong opinions, and they go way over and above anything he's said himself. But he's the narrow-minded and hostile one, because... just because.

[Unaco]

Hatman. Please, stop derailing the thread. Stay on topic.

On the subject of Wizardry... it isn't his opinions that people, at least myself, object to. It's the way he puts those opinions across, somewhat condescendingly and repeatedly.

[sinister agent]

Oh for the love of...

This is a thread about Skyrim. Talk about Skyrim. Nobody cares about the same bloody conversation about bloody 1980s RPGs that happens every single time anyone mentions a game made in the last 15 years, or why so many people are tired of exactly that. Move on, please. Either talk about Skyrim in here, or have your tedious shoving match somewhere else.

[KauhuK]

Because Play.com delivery has gotten slower I cancelled my preorder for Skyrim from there. After that I went to preorder the game from VPD for 32,40€. Not a bad price if you ask me.

[sinister agent]

Somebody bought me a gamestation gift card absolutely ages ago, and it's been on my desk all year, waiting for me to remember to take it with me when I go into town. You can't use them online, annoyingly. But as it's the only way I'll ever get any use out of it, I might be using it to buy Skyrim soon after release (I'm giving it a few weeks, though, obviously. I'm not paying a premium to be a beta tester).

I can't even remember the last time I went to a gamestation. I think it was in Leamington in 2008, when someone I was with traded in £1,000 worth of stuff for about £600 worth of stuff, and was showing off what a good deal he'd got on it because he got £100 in cash. Dolt.

[Ishmael]

Hatman. Please, stop derailing the thread. Stay on topic.

On the subject of Wizardry...

Hahahahahaha.

[Joseph-Sulphur]

Posted in the same thread as Wizardy made a huge informative post with citations and footnotes to share his love and knowledge of old RPGs with someone. Does "constructive" now equal "repeating the same opinions as everyone else and never saying anything outside the status quo"?

All I see from Wizardry's "opponents" is exactly what they're accusing him of: belittling, insulting, making horrific threats of violence and torture, all for daring to have the wrong opinions, and they go way over and above anything he's said himself. But he's the narrow-minded and hostile one, because... just because.
He clearly has a genuine love for old games that most of us know nothing about, so he could be an excellent poster if he just posted about the games without aggressive personal insults.

[Wizardry]

He clearly has a genuine love for old games that most of us know nothing about, so he could be an excellent poster if he just posted about the games without aggressive personal insults.
I really, really want to stay out of this thread for a day or two to let things settle down, but I don't like being accused of "aggressive personal insults". Can you show me which of my posts are guilty of this?

[jquinn914]

I respect Wizardry's opinions and they probably disagree with mine half the time. He doesn't do anything wrong, generally, he's usually just the victim of the new gen gamers that throw masked or outright insults at anyone that disagrees with their opinions. As for Skyrim, I did not enjoy Oblivion but from what I've seen Skyrim is an improvement in most areas that Oblivion fell short.

[Owen]

I never understood why people get so emotionally attached to what other people think about their choice in videogames. So someone on a forum doesn't like a game you do.

Who cares?

Have an insightful adult conversation about your differences of opinion or just move on. Same with the people getting apoplectic over Uncharted 3 getting an (omgomgomg) 8 / 10. I joined these forums hoping for some anti-internet with my internet, but mostly it's just been internet :(

In order to not derail too much, yeah I'm looking forward to this.

[thegooseking]

I never understood why people get so emotionally attached to what other people think about their choice in videogames. So someone on a forum doesn't like a game you do.

Priming effect. Being exposed to negativity about a game reduces one's enjoyment of said title. It's science.

[agentorange]

You're all wrong.

[Smashbox]

I read every word. Regretful, to say the least.

[Berzee]

Can we take the amount of not-Skyrim discussion in this thread as an indication that Skyrim isn't really one of those games that you COULD have a 19 page anticipatory discussion about? =P

I mean, there really isn't that much to say except very general things. Especially because they haven't given us any info about perks and stuff like that yet. Which is a little weird...I suppose this isn't the kind of game where any particular point spent is meant to be fascinating, but I'd still like to read about them.

[Nalano]

Can we take the amount of not-Skyrim discussion in this thread as an indication that Skyrim isn't really one of those games that you COULD have a 19 page anticipatory discussion about? =P

Personally, I vote we take off and nuke the thread from orbit.

It's the only way to be sure.

[Stormbane]

Can we take the amount of not-Skyrim discussion in this thread as an indication that Skyrim isn't really one of those games that you COULD have a 19 page anticipatory discussion about? =P

I mean, there really isn't that much to say except very general things. Especially because they haven't given us any info about perks and stuff like that yet. Which is a little weird...I suppose this isn't the kind of game where any particular point spent is meant to be fascinating, but I'd still like to read about them.

http://elderscrolls.wikia.com/wiki/Perks

Now I wouldn't dare to post here without commenting on Wizardry. I for one think he enjoys all the attention despite his feeble protests.

[Wooly Wugga Wugga]

Actually, that reminds me. It surprises me how many people here have said they'll be playing as a lizardguy or mancat. I always assumed they were options nobody really bothered with (although I couldn't say why, other than that I didn't like them). Is there a particular reason people go for them, or is it just a "hey, why not?" sort of thing?

I personally like playing them because they are more unusual choices for characters to play. It's a change from orc/elf/dwarf/halfling/human which are represented in just about every single fantasy game ever made.

[Berzee]

http://elderscrolls.wikia.com/wiki/Perks

Goodness me they DO exist! Thanks =) This will be tomorrow's reading.

[Unaco]

280! That's quite a number, considering Fallout 3, with all DLC/Expansions only had 95 or so.

[Unaco]

*sigh*

Bethesda use the face gen thing for the NPCs in the game, which takes even less effort the drawing sprites. On top of that, all characters use the same set of animations, meaning that NPCs don't have custom ones. In other words, none of your points are valid.

The majority of NPCs will use the same or similar animations, but there may be custom animations for certain NPCs... Not to mention all of the other monsters/creatures that require animation. Also, the Face Gen thing doesn't just produce 1 new face every 20 seconds, it does require work to produce a decent and fitting face (which is something Skyrim and the new engine seem to be getting right this time) so I don't think we can say, definitively, that it takes even less effort than drawing sprites. There's also balance... Maybe, if sprites are these labour intensive, time sinks that require Herculean efforts to achieve that was OK, because they spent less time on modelling/drawing and animating other things. Whereas in Oblivion/SkyRim where everything is 3D and requires modelling and texturing and animating, and there's a lot of variance (lots of different rocks, trees, shrubs, foliage, unique buildings and structures) they are freed from the necessity to slave over the drawing of sprites, and can dedicate time to these other things. Then there are things like voice acting, producing the routines for the NPCs, all those sorts of things, and remembering animating is very time intensive, which all take time.

In other words, I don't think anyone's points are invalidated here. Less effort and time and dedication didn't/hasn't gone in to either game.

[Ishmael]

I don't think anyone thinks that Skyrim took less resources to make than an Ultima game, that's preposterous. We know that Bethesda has the resources to make a huge game world with lots of NPCs because that's what they actually do. The only issue is that while the game has a boat load of content a lot of it is quite generic. I think this is a poor tradeoff, and I think Wizardry's original point was about what the Ultima series achieved in terms of unique NPC interaction with extremely limited resources, the implication being that Beth could do a lot better in this regard without sacrificing that much. (of course the real obstacle to this is the requirement for full voicing which isn't going away.)

[Wizardry]

I don't think anyone thinks that Skyrim took less resources to make than an Ultima game, that's preposterous. We know that Bethesda has the resources to make a huge game world with lots of NPCs because that's what they actually do. The only issue is that while the game has a boat load of content a lot of it is quite generic. I think this is a poor tradeoff, and I think Wizardry's original point was about what the Ultima series achieved in terms of unique NPC interaction with extremely limited resources, the implication being that Beth could do a lot better in this regard without sacrificing that much. (of course the real obstacle to this is the requirement for full voicing which isn't going away.)
Yeah. That's it.

[Unaco]

I don't think anyone thinks that Skyrim took less resources to make than an Ultima game, that's preposterous. We know that Bethesda has the resources to make a huge game world with lots of NPCs because that's what they actually do. The only issue is that while the game has a boat load of content a lot of it is quite generic. I think this is a poor tradeoff, and I think Wizardry's original point was about what the Ultima series achieved in terms of unique NPC interaction with extremely limited resources, the implication being that Beth could do a lot better in this regard without sacrificing that much. (of course the real obstacle to this is the requirement for full voicing which isn't going away.)

We don't know for definite that the boat load of content will be generic. Still have to wait and see on that... maybe we'll be surprised, get something a little closer to Vvardenfell than Cyrodiil. We might also end up with more and better unique NPC interaction as well, with the new individual disposition system.

Again though, I think it does come down to a question on balance... what are the devs priorities, what do they spend their development time doing etc. They probably could do a lot more in regards to NPC interaction... but they would likely have to sacrifice the full voicing, something I wouldn't have a problem with, but they may not want to do.

[Nalano]

We don't know for definite that the boat load of content will be generic.

We only have their track record to go on, and in that every single game since Morrowind had a boatload of generic content.

[Binho]

Skyrim is the game I'm looking forward to the most this year. I know there are other open world games, but I never managed to get in to Risen, Gothic, etc. - they feel much more constrained than TES games, and I never really got in to the lore. The older games Wizardry likes I find technically interesting, but the lack of a 3d detailed world puts me off - sorry, but visuals to me are just as important as Gameplay. TES is one of only two modern RPG worlds I'm interested in, Mass Effect being the other. Whose lore I find interesting and want to learn more of.

Sure, there are a lot of gameplay problems, and things that bother me about their world-building (especially the dramatic lack of infrastructure). In the end though, it's one of the very few RPG's out there taking a 'realistic' (i use that term loosely) approach to their world building. Where the structures, clothing and artefacts look more or less plausible while still being more or less fantastical. I find that look personally more appealing than your average Rift, GW2, kingdoms of Amalur or other anime/comic book inspired art style. I do wish it was more colorful though - the real middle ages were a lot more colourful than popularly imagined.

For me, that's enough to make it a day one purchase, despite the gameplay and possible technical issues. There just aren't enough games that tick off those checkboxes of an open, 'realistic' world with interesting lore to me.

Not to mention it's one of the few games which still actively support modding! I've spent almost as much time in the TES construction kits and on TES Nexus as I have in game.

Skyrim? Yes please!

[kraze]

The older games Wizardry likes I find technically interesting, but the lack of a 3d detailed world puts me off - sorry, but visuals to me are just as important as Gameplay.

Beth games and Mass Effect (which is a shooter with interactive cutscenes and not RPG) have horrible gameplay compared to old RPGs so gameplay being important to you isn't true. But graphics is.

[Ishmael]

Beth games and Mass Effect (which is a shooter with interactive cutscenes and not RPG) have horrible gameplay compared to old RPGs so gameplay being important to you isn't true. But graphics is.

::RPG Codex::

[vinraith]

::RPG Codex::

The internet is a damn riot sometimes. "Your opinion is invalid because it's similar to that held widely on a website I dislike."

[Drake Sigar]

Actually, that reminds me. It surprises me how many people here have said they'll be playing as a lizardguy or mancat. I always assumed they were options nobody really bothered with (although I couldn't say why, other than that I didn't like them). Is there a particular reason people go for them, or is it just a "hey, why not?" sort of thing? I play mancat because their night vision and agility make them perfect for the rogue character type, plus I don't see much point in buying a fantasy RPG and then immediately picking human.



I for one think he enjoys all the attention despite his feeble protests.
That's what rapists say about their victims.

[thegooseking]

The internet is a damn riot sometimes. "Your opinion is invalid because it's similar to that held widely on a website I dislike."

Saying that the qualities of modern games don't even qualify under the umbrella of 'gameplay' isn't exactly acknowledging the validity of others' opinions either.

[vinraith]

Saying that the qualities of modern games don't even qualify under the umbrella of 'gameplay' isn't exactly acknowledging the validity of others' opinions either.

Who said it was? It's not nearly so pathetic as responding with "IGN" or the like, though, which would be the equivalent here.

I don't think suggesting that the gameplay is low on the priority list for most Mass Effect fans is unfair, though. Bioware's reputation is built on character, story, and production value. No one's selling that game with "look at this awesome combat system and these cool minigames."

[elfbarf]

beth games and mass effect (which is a shooter with interactive cutscenes and not rpg) have horrible gameplay compared to old rpgs so gameplay being important to you isn't true. But graphics is.

miss miss miss miss miss miss miss miss miss miss miss miss miss miss miss miss

[kraze]

I don't think suggesting that the gameplay is low on the priority list for most Mass Effect fans is unfair, though.
Mass Effect's gameplay is exactly like in every other modern console shooter. Sit behind the box, pop heads of enemies sitting behind the box. If you get hit you just regen health in a jiffy. Repeat for whole 6 hours without any variety, sometimes select how you want to watch the cutscene in the "wheel" which ultimately means nothing as you will end up shooting exactly the same guys in the same linear corridor.

I of course understand how this gameplay may seem impressive - if one's view on games starts and ends with a thought that there were no games before 1 or 2 years ago when he got his first XBawks.


Bioware's reputation is built on character, story, and production value. No one's selling that game with "look at this awesome combat system and these cool minigames."80% of the game is shooting bots in linear corridors. 20% of the game is unskippable cutscenes with bland characters made by writers which Hollywood won't accept even for cheesiest movies. So yeah combat is a pretty damn major part of the game.

Bioware's stories in a nutshell:

The galaxy/universe/world/kingdom is in a grave danger. And only the Chosen One can save them. Joining jedi/spectres/grey wardens he leads his party consisting of gay/lesbians/trannies into the 1st/2nd/3rd final battle with the evil sith/reapers/darkspawn which want to destroy everything for no reason/no reason/no reason.

[Ishmael]

Who said it was? It's not nearly so pathetic as responding with "IGN"

Just a joke mate, you might want to calm down. I'm even sympathetic to the "RPGs are decline" argument, but it probably needs a more detailed critique if it's going to convince anyone, not just the same old spiel.

[CuriousOrange]

Mass Effect's gameplay is exactly like in every other modern console shooter. Sit behind the box, pop heads of enemies sitting behind the box. If you get hit you just regen health in a jiffy. Repeat for whole 6 hours without any variety, sometimes select how you want to watch the cutscene in the "wheel" which ultimately means nothing as you will end up shooting exactly the same guys in the same linear corridor.


That sounds like you have a poor imagination then. I played it throwing zero gravity bubbles around people, hurling them out of windows, into space etc. Throwing boxes into peoples faces. It actually takes that 'console' cover based shooter mechanic and adds choice into the mix, allowing you to play it more to your tastes, allowing some creativity. But yes, it's not a complex RPG. I don't see why that matters. It's not trying to be.

[vinraith]

@kraze

My point was that people primarily purchase Bioware games due to their reputation for character, story, and production value, not for their combat mechanics or mini games. Whether the former or the latter are any good has nothing to do with it.

[sabrage]

I guess my entire counterpoint to the Wizardry "old school or no school" frame of thought is this: Why would I want to explore a world that I think is ugly?

[Wizardry]

I guess my entire counterpoint to the Wizardry "old school or no school" frame of thought is this: Why would I want to explore a world that I think is ugly?
Pen and paper RPGs are ugly because they have bad graphics.

[sinister agent]

You have a lot more patience than I do, Vinraith.

280 perks, though! That sounds like fun. And I'd imagine the modding scene will soon expand that into a bajillion. Funtimes!

[Stormbane]

280 perks and you only get to choose a measly 50. Decisions, decisions.
I'm thinking heavy armor, two-handed with a bit of archery, smithing and alchemy.

[Unaco]

50 is the 'cap' they're aiming for, as far as balance and pacing goes. It's the level they expect you to reach around end game. The mathematical cap is in the 70s... by that I assume after that level is reached, your skill increases won't level you up any more, or it's slowed down so much. That's another thing, you level, and get perks, faster at the beginning, and this slows down over levels.

[Nalano]

"I pick all of her crops and sell them back to her (http://killscreendaily.com/articles/things-i-ate-skyrim), saving one of each to taste for myself. The wheat is edible but unappealing."

>_<

[Stormbane]

"I pick all of her crops and sell them back to her (http://killscreendaily.com/articles/things-i-ate-skyrim), saving one of each to taste for myself. The wheat is edible but unappealing."

>_<
What would you do if a giant muscle bound Nord in a loin cloth with a deranged look in his eyes and insects smeared all over his face offered to sell you your crops?

You would be rigid with fear, give the man your money and repeat the same thing over and over in terror whenever he tried to converse.

[Anthile]

"I pick all of her crops and sell them back to her (http://killscreendaily.com/articles/things-i-ate-skyrim), saving one of each to taste for myself. The wheat is edible but unappealing."

>_<

Well, I'm hungry now.

[Nalano]

What would you do if a giant muscle bound Nord in a loin cloth with a deranged look in his eyes and insects smeared all over his face offered to sell you your crops?

"Sheltered on one side of the island was an elven fisherman, idling casually in his campsite. I attempted to chat him up, but the alien-looking man didn't have much to say besides a weak rationalization for his habit of poaching."

"The place is guarded by the Forsworn—a tribal bunch who attack on sight."

"I stuff my face right there in the middle of the fight and when I've eaten the last crumb, my wounds close. I am healed."

One-liner NPCs. KoS NPC factions. Pause-right-in-the-middle-of-combat-to-use-all-your-potions strategy.

I'm really not seeing how much deeper this open-world gameplay is.

[Berzee]

You have to admit though,
you can make any "I ate this" article funnier by using the word "taste" instead of "eat".

[Unaco]

" I caught some movement out of the corner of my eye and followed it toward a small grave. A bit of cloth held down by a rock flapped in the wind. A skeleton rose from the earth and we fought."

"The dragonflies were much more difficult to capture. They hovered just above the surface of the water, but darted much faster than I could swim."

" I spy an elk shambling in the distance and run after it. I loose and whiff a half-dozen arrows before one finds purchase in the beast's flank. But that doesn't slow him down. I fear that I've lost him when I see a wolf jump from the brush and take my quarry down in one fell swipe."

"I found a small wooden shack near Half-Moon Mill. Inside was a makeshift abattoir with a freshly butchered cattle and some venison arranged on the workbench. A couple of pieces of gore appeared to have been kicked under the bench. Two rabbits hung from hooks. And in the corner, by a bale of hay, rested an enormous troll skull."

Fascinating world building, packed with incidental detail and interaction. I'm seeing as many positives in the article as you're seeing negatives Nalano. KoS factions are in pretty much every RPG... sometimes you can't afford a fight.

[Nalano]

Fascinating world building, packed with incidental detail and interaction.

[...]

KoS factions are in pretty much every RPG... sometimes you can't afford a fight.

"Interaction" is a bit too strong a word. You can't get past the most basic interaction, especially when dealing with NPCs. The shit you quoted sounds not unlike Morrowind.

Point being, it sounds, fundamentally, like a better-looking Oblivion. I think y'all put too much credence in the combat system, such as it is, to see that you're going to basically do the same thing you've done in previous Bethesda games. It's not exactly what I'd call deep.

If that's what you want, fine, I can see the joy in that. I've put hundreds of hours in Morrowind and have purchased Oblivion. But please, for the love of all that is good and holy, stop acting like it's on another level of gameplay.

[Unaco]

But please, for the love of all that is good and holy, stop acting like it's on another level of gameplay.

Where have I acted like that?

[sinister agent]

Where have I acted like that?

i think a few of us have perhaps overdone the "hey, that sounds promising" thing regarding some of the game's features. But then, that's largely in response to the people going EVERYTHING IS TERRIBLE IF YOU LIKE THIS GAME YOU ARE WRONG AND HATE REAL GAMES RARGH ETC. This is partly why it's so hard to discuss complex games these days. People end up pushed into extremist camps based on whether it's the critics or the fans who are being more obnoxious.

I get the impression that even the big fans of Oblivion in here are mostly taking the previews etc. with a pinch of salt, as even the most ardent fans admit the game had its problems and Skyrim probably will too. But aaaanyway. What is it now, a week to go? Woo!

[bussinrounds]

This is why they play Bioware's games

http://sadpanda.us/images/730515-PG789TA.jpg

[sinister agent]

Gosh, how grown up. Well done.

[DigitalSignalX]

Bioware: Strong supporters of rule 34.

[Nalano]

Gosh, how grown up. Well done.

Considering the ridiculous shipping going on in fanfics, that's clearly what us pervs want. :P

[Skalpadda]

Anyone know if there are moose in Skyrim?

[Binho]

Beth games and Mass Effect (which is a shooter with interactive cutscenes and not RPG) have horrible gameplay compared to old RPGs so gameplay being important to you isn't true. But graphics is.

Wow...just...wow. Do they really have horrible gameplay? Less complexity doesn't mean gameplay is worse. I'm going to commit what will perhaps be a cardinal sin here:

I hate old school RPG gameplay. Sure, it's technically interesting with what they tried doing and all. I wish more modern RPG's had higher levels of simulation in their environments. I always found them boring. That's personal taste though, not fact. I think many posters here have trouble distinguishing between the two. I never could get into Arcanum, or the BG games or what have you. I'd get bored pretty quickly of all the stats you had to manage. And the non interactive hits-calculated-by-computer combat. Not that i dislike complex or difficult games. I used to be heavily into my strategy and simulators until games like Oblivion, Mount and Blade and Mass Effect came about which allowed me to experience worlds and create and manage the advancement of a character in a more streamlined and interactive fashion. Yes, I ENJOY ACTION GAMEPLAY! I'm out, and not afraid to say it. Yes, i also prefer FPS gameplay, and I don't see what's wrong with that either. Whether they are true RPG's or not seems to be personal preference. Let's call them action RPG's then.

Also, what would be wrong if I just liked the graphics? I hate how now a days in places like RPS liking a game because of it graphics has become a sin. I like the immersive factor of good quality graphics. Sue me. Gameplay is important, but it's not king. Without infinite resources, it's all part of a balancing act. Does that mean I wouldn't prefer more simulation and in depth gameplay? No. That is something I wish they had more of in many Action RPG's. It is also a fair criticism to level at many TES games. I'll still enjoy Skyrim despite those flaws though.

[squirrelfanatic]

Anyone know if there are moose in Skyrim?I guess this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8-zdRBWSk8) means yes.

[Vexing Vision]

Taking the risk of being anti-elitist, I thoroughly enjoyed Mass Effect + ME2's gameplay. I wish that I had more inventory-management in ME2, and I wish that Charm/Intimidate wouldn't be static auto-successes, but everything else was enjoyed immensely. And I don't feel guilty about it in the least - this makes it "great gameplay".

It's not about the amount of options, freedom or items to play with. It's about the tightness of these elements and how immersive and intuitive they become. Dwarf Fortress, for example, has a brilliant mechanics but actually poor (but still enjoyable) gameplay. Batman: AA had very few mechanics but utterly brilliant gameplay.

This has nothing to do with Skyrim, anyway, which I am very much looking forward to to hold in my hands in four days. Maybe five, as I'm getting the English version. I really, really don't want to suffer through the atrocious localization of Oblivion again.

[Skalpadda]

I guess this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8-zdRBWSk8) means yes.

Hm, looks more like a North American elk to me.

[sinister agent]

That's personal taste though, not fact.

You know how you like the taste of chocolate? Well you're wrong. You actually hate taste and only eat chocolate because you're stupid and don't know anything about the things I like to eat, which are superior because I said so.

As for graphics, no, they're not more important than a game that plays well. However, they absolutely can and do enhance a game that already plays well, can make a great game a fantastic game, and can make a mediocre game much more pleasant to play. And really bad graphics can render an otherwise good game a lot less fun, and perhaps even outright bad (although the latter is rare, especially these days).

The implication that any game with nice graphics has necessarily sacrificed everything else is flat out wrong.

One reason that Oblivion was so enjoyable was that it was gorgeous. It's still a pretty game, despite the unfortunate faces and derivative art direction. Skyrim looks like being even more so, and that will make wandering around in its world more enjoyable. People like looking at pretty things.

[thegooseking]

You know how you like the taste of chocolate? Well you're wrong. You actually hate taste and only eat chocolate because you're stupid and don't know anything about the things I like to eat, which are superior because I said so.

Does anyone actually think chocolate is good? Lots of people like it, therefore it must be bad. How can anyone argue with that evidence?

[Vexing Vision]

Does anyone actually think chocolate is good? Lots of people like it, therefore it must be bad. How can anyone argue with that evidence?

Well, indie-developed chocolate from hand-grown cocoa-beans is obviously far superiour to mass-market chocolate.

(Interestingly though, it's not cheaper. Hmm.)

[Althea]

And if you buy MineChocolate, you're giving a relatively large amount of money to the chocolatiers in the hopes they will finish making a really cool bar for you, but they also let you lick the implements they use.

[thegooseking]

Chocolate is stupid. I prefer cake. Oh, sure, there are some people who claim to like both, and eat chocolate cake, but everyone knows it's only really possible to like one or the other.

[Ian]

Chocolate was much better when I was a kid.

[metalangel]

I am thinking of preordering some chocolate, should I get it from Spar (It comes with exclusive peanuts) or Nisa (caramel).

I heard, though, that if I eat some and want to give the rest to the missus she will have to send the chocolate company 10p before she can eat the wafer inside.

[Wizardry]

It's nice to know that only Wizardry can drag this thread off topic.

[agentorange]

I prefer to roll dice to see if I am allowed to imagine myself eating imaginary chocolate. People who do it any other way aren't really eating chocolate.

[baboonanza]

I like randomly-generated chocolate, there's just so much more variety than the modern mass-market stuff. You never know if you're going to get Raisin & Nut, Honeycomb & Mackerel or Stilton & Chicken Feet

[sinister agent]

I always knew I would unleash a great horror on the world. Somehow though, I didn't think it would be this.

[Keep]

Hey it's perfectly legitimate to like chocolate based on its awesome hi-def packaging. I think that really adds a lot to the experience and I'm fed up of the negative connotations associated with admitting as much.

[Berzee]

Hey it's perfectly legitimate to like chocolate based on its awesome hi-def packaging. I think that really adds a lot to the experience and I'm fed up of the negative connotations associated with admitting as much.

Hollow low-quality Easter Bunny chocolates sell in droves based on that little candy eyeball, rest assured.


Hm, looks more like a North American elk to me.

YOU look like a North American elk.

[Skalpadda]

YOU look like a North American elk.

Only if you shave me.

[DigitalSignalX]

http://randommization.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Chocolate-PS3-controller.jpg

Chocolatification is ruining the sweets industry, dumbing down the complexity of flavors into one generic money grab.

[Althea]

Choc of Duty: Modern Confectionary 3.

[Keep]

Let's get this back on-topic k? I can't wait for Skyrim's open world; I'm sick of carob-bar shooters.

[gundrea]

A man who is sick of First Person Shooters is sick of life.

[sinister agent]

A man who is sick of First Person Shooters is sick of life.

The solution to which is a shooting spree, fuelling more FPSeses. The system works!

[Nalano]

I prefer to roll dice to see if I am allowed to imagine myself eating imaginary chocolate. People who do it any other way aren't really eating chocolate.

You also have to have a high enough Imagination Stat. Bunnies are 15, but Chocolate's like 40.

[jryan]

I guess I haven't been following this as closely as I thought, but the stat reduction is a bit of a surprise. Part of me is feeling let down that I won't be strength-loading daedric armor for super-killer status, but maybe I'm over that.

I guess they will be replacing the carry-weight system from the other games with a tetris-block system for inventory?

In all it seems to fit the idea that your character in Skyrim, unlike in all other games, is physically unique and is "Dragonborn", a class unto itself.

[sinister agent]

I'm personally hoping they'll have a sensible inventory, with backpacks and stuff, and a carrying capacity that doesn't render the idea of economy meaningless after 90 minutes. Not have you magically store 25 swords and 168 potions in your right thigh.

[Smashbox]

I agree with the inventory comments. A Tetris-style inventory does make more sense, especially if you take into account the size of your character's bag(s). I would really like to have the option to let my horse (or better yet, my pack horse) carry things as well.

[Nalano]

Not have you magically store 25 swords and 168 potions in your right thigh.

"Honey, those potions are going right to your hips."

[sinister agent]

Just imagine being a customs official in ... uh... scrollsland. Everyone could have 300 kilos of cocaine on them, but as long as they didn't equip it, you'd never have a clue.

[Smashbox]

You can smuggle money and weapons inside rats in Scrollsylvania.

[Malawi Frontier Guard]

I guess they will be replacing the carry-weight system from the other games with a tetris-block system for inventory?

It is a Tetris-style inventory, but the field is two spaces wide and you only get square blocks.

[acidtestportfolio]

i can't wait for the game with all the wooden animation and all the bad voice acting

[Unaco]

i can't wait for the game with all the wooden animation and all the bad voice acting

Really? Funny sort of game to be anticipating. Must have something else going for it, other than those things. What's the game called? You didn't mention it in your post. Can't leave us all guessing like this.

[acidtestportfolio]

Really? Funny sort of game to be anticipating. Must have something else going for it, other than those things. What's the game called? You didn't mention it in your post. Can't leave us all guessing like this.

i think the game is called 'pinocchio comes alive'

[Unaco]

Never heard of it. Is it a console game? Or for the Iphone?

[Nalano]

It is a Tetris-style inventory, but the field is two spaces wide and you only get square blocks.

So what you're saying is, they're dumbing games down?

[Smashbox]

You think games are complex? Pfffft.

[acidtestportfolio]

Never heard of it. Is it a console game? Or for the Iphone?

it's a game that is played at a fair or in the comfort of your own home

[Nalano]

Just imagine being a customs official in ... uh... scrollsland. Everyone could have 300 kilos of cocaine on them, but as long as they didn't equip it, you'd never have a clue.

Look, we all know that if you're carrying 50 lbs of miscellaneous equipment and don't have a backpack on, there's only a few orifices they could be hiding in.

[Lethys]

Divinity 2 is not a knock-off of Skyrim or Oblivion, so no wonder you weren't impressed.

I'm excited about Skyrim, though.

I agree, I really liked Divinity 2 a lot. My character was broken so it didn't really work out that I ever finished it, but 30 hours for a game I didn't even finish and enjoyed immensely is great.

[The JG Man]

Okay, noob time.

I played Oblivion on the 360 for about 10 minutes, going "Wha?!", dying or losing a weapon or something and then abandoning it to play Gears of War.

I have learnt many errors of my way. (For what it's worth, I didn't rate GoW that well. I stopped playing, only completing it on co-op with my best friend as we sat there making fun of all the characters. That was fun!)

Anyhow, talking to some friends last night got me super interested in Skyrim. Also, when I heard that the pre-order came with a map, I loved the idea that this game is big enough to need a map. I like fantasy, fantasy themed action games and action games. I like going 'swish' with swords. I also am a fan of dragons. Yet I am concerned I will not like this game if I buy it.

Would anyone like to relieve me of my fears, persuading me to join in on the fun so I can pre-order and get a map?

[sabrage]

I'm confused. You said you like swishy swords and dragons; what are you afraid of?

[agentorange]

Also, when I heard that the pre-order came with a map, I loved the idea that this game is big enough to need a map. I like fantasy, fantasy themed action games and action games.

That's not why it comes with a map, it's just another vanity pre-order bonus like a poster or t-shirt; unlike some older RPGs you won't NEED a physical map to be able to navigate the world, especially since there will be a divine flashing arrow to constantly point you in the right direction.

[BobsLawnService]

Just a correction. All physical copies ship with a map. The preorder map is just made of a higher quality material while the pre-order one has the texture of burlap.

[Althea]

And all Elder Scrolls games have shipped with maps, I believe. Morrowind, Oblivion, and Skyrim is no exception. As far as I know, post-release it will just have a standard paper map.

[Taidan]

I think I'm going to have to celebrate the release of Skyrim by spending some quality playing Arena, then working my way back up.

So, uh, if you guys could just avoid spoilers for... Ooo, 6-7 years, I'd appreciate that. ;)

[Vexing Vision]

Only three (plus two for delivery) more days until I get my hands on the high-quality cloth map!

I may never have been so excited for a piece of game merchandise ever since I got hold of my life-sized Warhammer Online Witch-Hunter statue.

No, I don't understand it either, but I am EXCITE.

[sinister agent]

It is a Tetris-style inventory, but the field is two spaces wide and you only get square blocks.

It is a tetris-style inventory, meaning just as you get all your stuff into place, it disappears.

[Anthile]

That's not why it comes with a map, it's just another vanity pre-order bonus like a poster or t-shirt; unlike some older RPGs you won't NEED a physical map to be able to navigate the world, especially since there will be a divine flashing arrow to constantly point you in the right direction.

Personally, I prefer a quest arrow over opening up the editor to search for some NPC I can't find like I did in Morrowind.

[BobsLawnService]

Yeah, the map pointer to quest NPCs is vital in games where NPCs walk around.

[Vexing Vision]

When LOTRO started, one of the most beautiful things was the quest text. The quest text told you where you had to go ("head west until you reach the second hill, then turn north to find Sam"). There were no pointers, only a description of where to move.

It helped immensely increasing taking in the scenery and using it to navigate.

Of course it was patched out later because people got lost all the time. After all, you can't expect people to READ in a computer game.

[Anthile]

Also: http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2011/11/skyrim-dlc-will-be-less-frequent-but-more-substantial.ars

[Althea]

Also: http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2011/11/skyrim-dlc-will-be-less-frequent-but-more-substantial.ars
And again someone (not you, of course) throws Horse Armour back in their face. It was an experiment, so it wasn't guaranteed to work.

Looks like they'll be continuing with what they've done since roughly Knights of the Nine, then. That's good.

[sinister agent]

Personally, I prefer a quest arrow over opening up the editor to search for some NPC I can't find like I did in Morrowind.

That's a bit unfair, though. Morrowind's journal and quest tracking thing was absolutely atrocious.

I think a simple "enable quest/nav arrows" option would solve this, though. Toggle = everybody's happy.

[Vexing Vision]

I think a simple "enable quest/nav arrows" option would solve this, though. Toggle = everybody's happy.

Not entirely true - if the option for a quest arrow is there, there'll be way less emphasis on accurate descriptions. Only if playtesters are forced to play without guided arrows will the directions be worthwhile.

Oh well, not going to happen anyway, but one can dream for Elder Scrolls X :)

[Althea]

Oh well, not going to happen anyway, but one can dream for Elder Scrolls X :)
X?! Why not VI?

[Drake Sigar]

And all Elder Scrolls games have shipped with maps, I believe. Morrowind, Oblivion, and Skyrim is no exception. As far as I know, post-release it will just have a standard paper map.
I didn't get a map with my copy of Morrowind, a particularly galling predicament since unexplored sections of the in-game map are fogged over.

[DigitalSignalX]

My memory isn't firm, but wasn't LOTRO's solution more of a middle ground, where you got an arrow to a general area? After that you had to go back to the quest text for specific landmarks or just wander around some till you found what you needed. If you left the area, the arrow popped back up sending back in the correct direction.

[Vexing Vision]

X?! Why not VI?

Because the world will not be ready for this in the next four years it takes to do Elder Scrolls VI.

Although we may have a new console-generation by then, where screen-text is actually readable. Hmm.

[Althea]

My memory isn't firm, but wasn't LOTRO's solution more of a middle ground, where you got an arrow to a general area? After that you had to go back to the quest text for specific landmarks or just wander around some till you found what you needed. If you left the area, the arrow popped back up sending back in the correct direction.
It depends. If it was a Kill X of Y quest, yes. If it was kill a moving creature, generally yes but often marked too. If it was a particular NPC you had to speak to, no, it was a marker on the map.


I didn't get a map with my copy of Morrowind, a particularly galling predicament since unexplored sections of the in-game map are fogged over.
I see. It depends how you get it. Mastertronic releases don't have it, but the UbiSoft editions should have done. I picked up a double-thickness edition of Morrowind GotY years ago, and it had a fairly big map in it.

[Dugular]

I think I'm going to have to celebrate the release of Skyrim by spending some quality playing Arena, then working my way back up.

So, uh, if you guys could just avoid spoilers for... Ooo, 6-7 years, I'd appreciate that. ;)


Good luck! I'm doing exactly the same, and am currently still on Arena :) Would be nice to share thoughts with someone doing the same! My first piece of advice, don't go down the vanilla fighter route which works well in most RPGs. I recommend Spellsword class for the easiest time.

Also, don't get too excited about exploring Arena's world. It and the side quests are randomly generated (Which is actually a plus in some aspects), but does get dull quickly. On the flip side, it does make you focus more on the main (boring) quest. I know I sound negative, but I'm playing this game from 'da future' in a sense. In its day, it was great :)

Let me know if you do get started.

[Taidan]

My memory isn't firm, but wasn't LOTRO's solution more of a middle ground, where you got an arrow to a general area?

The current implementation is pretty specific as to where things are. I can't remember how it originally was, but I don't think it's changed much. Importantly, there's also a simple check-box right on the map to turn it off if you like, so you can just go by the quest text and local landmarks.

When it comes to guiding people around maps, different solutions will suit different people, so the "Toggle thing" would be just right.

A convincing journal, quest dialogue and map with decent landmarks for those who want to game, immerse themselves in the world and explore their way through, and a big, obvious arrow for the sort of idi... *ahem* for the sort of gamer who likes being led around like a dog on a... *ahem* ...who likes the more guided experience.

[Bristoff]

When LOTRO launched there's was no quest helper at all. Simply a description of where you needed to go to find what you needed to find. On one hand I absolutely loved it since it felt like I was actually questing and not just blitzing through the levels to get to the end game (which didnt really exist), and the quests where mostly very well written and I actually read them.

On the other hand there were some glaring errors or oversights in between, which meant you found yourself searching for something in completely the wrong area. However LOTRO's community (being the very best community in an MMO ever in my opinion) made up for that, as there was always plenty of people in the help channel to guide you.

Man I miss the early days of that game, if only they'd have kept adding decent endgame content I'd still be playing it (and paying).

[PeopleLikeFrank]

Though I know there are mods for this sort of thing, my method of dealing with quest arrows in Oblivion was as follows:

Set active quest to something other than what I'm actually doing.
Ignore arrow and do quest using directions, map & landmarks.


There were generally enough directions to complete most quests without needing the arrow or map markers. I would activate it occasionally to find a wandering NPC.

So yeah, a toggle would work just fine for me in Skyrim. If not, I'll do what I did above. I don't even mind if I get lost - it's what these games do well anyway. If these NPCs needed their quests done in a hurry, they picked the wrong slightly skeevy looking Kahjit-or-Argonian-or-Orc in the first place.

[sinister agent]

Okay, noob time.

I played Oblivion on the 360 for about 10 minutes, going "Wha?!", dying or losing a weapon or something and then abandoning it to play Gears of War.

I have learnt many errors of my way. (For what it's worth, I didn't rate GoW that well. I stopped playing, only completing it on co-op with my best friend as we sat there making fun of all the characters. That was fun!)

Anyhow, talking to some friends last night got me super interested in Skyrim. Also, when I heard that the pre-order came with a map, I loved the idea that this game is big enough to need a map. I like fantasy, fantasy themed action games and action games. I like going 'swish' with swords. I also am a fan of dragons. Yet I am concerned I will not like this game if I buy it.

Would anyone like to relieve me of my fears, persuading me to join in on the fun so I can pre-order and get a map?

Obviously I've not played Skyrim, and this is massively simplistic, but everything I've seen of Skyrim so far suggests that if you enjoyed Oblivion, you will enjoy Skyrim.

I would recommend you get it on PC if yours is capable of running it quite well, simple because it will most likely have trillions of mods available before long, allowing you to change things about it that you don't like.

[The JG Man]

I'm confused. You said you like swishy swords and dragons; what are you afraid of?

I don't know. Screw it, pre-order it I shall!

Also, sorry to prompt a page of map quality discussion.


I would recommend you get it on PC

I was going to. Not to mention it being cheaper or looking better, as well as access to all those mods. Also, my PC surpasses the recommended, which is obviously nice.

[Berzee]

When LOTRO launched there's was no quest helper at all. Simply a description of where you needed to go to find what you needed to find. On one had I absolutely loved it since it felt like I was actually questing.

Quite so! Same with Asheron's Call (by the same people). In AC sometimes they would give you coordinates on a piece of paper, so that you were consulting the map and adjusting your coords...but most of the time it was "go to the hut at these coordinates and then head...you know...west for a bit until you see something suspicious".

When that's done well, I really like it. But I spent a lot of time looking up quest guides on Maggie the Jackcat's website, so I don't know how actually well it was done. ^_^ Even in that case! I think reading accounts from real adventurers past, even if it's printed out from a wiki, puts you more in the adventure than following a green arrow in-game does. =)

I'm liking the Nehrim oblivion mod for that reason -- some, but not all, of the quests, leave you with nothing but a vague landmark for guidance.

[thegooseking]

I pre-ordered it on Steam because I don't care about spending £5 extra for the convenience (especially when my consoletoy Facebook friends were discussing £37 being a good deal) and thought I didn't care about the map.

But then I realised I have a map for Oblivion and a map for Morrowind, and now I want a map for Skyrim, because otherwise it would feel like something's missing.

I also realised I have two copies of both Morrowind and Oblivion. Both my copies of Morrowind are on the PC (one has a map, but no Bloodmoon, while the other has Bloodmoon, but no map -- I only got the second copy because Morrowind Overhaul requires Bloodmoon, and buying the GOTY was apparently cheaper than just buying Bloodmoon), while I have Oblivion on Xbox 360 (with a map) and on Steam (obviously without). I can't see myself getting another copy of Skyrim just for the map. And I don't really use the maps so much. Ok, I did for Morrowind, but it's more a sense of ownership thing than a question of the value of the map in itself.

[Dugular]

Only three (plus two for delivery) more days until I get my hands on the high-quality cloth map!

I may never have been so excited for a piece of game merchandise ever since I got hold of my life-sized Warhammer Online Witch-Hunter statue.

No, I don't understand it either, but I am EXCITE.

Really? Are you sure? I'm in London and GAME emailed me this morning saying they already shipped, so might get it even earlier! Who did you order from?

[Wizardry]

Yeah, the map pointer to quest NPCs is vital in games where NPCs walk around.
No it's not. NPCs don't just "walk around" in games like this. They walk to and from certain places depending on the time of day (and perhaps the day of the week). If it's day time on a week day, you can assume the NPC is at work. If you know where they work you can go there to find them. If you only know where they live but don't know where they work, you can wait for them by their front door. You could even ask other NPCs if they know where that particular NPC lives or works.

I think a highly underused way of guiding the player is to put down markers on the map for locations while removing the marker for the player. It makes far more sense doing it that way. When you ask for directions it should be straight forward getting them to mark it on a map for you. However, how the hell do you keep your current location marked on the map automatically? It makes little sense. Reaching a target shouldn't be about following landmarks to an unknown position. It should be about using landmarks to know your own place in the world relative to the target's position. In fact, if you're trying to find a location that no NPC knows the position of (and therefore can't mark on the map), then the goal becomes even harder as you have two unknowns.

[Shark]

Thanks to Wizardry, my first Skyrim modding projects will be blasting the "you are here" -marker and the quest compass into hand-holding-nirvana.
I also hope they've improved the grab function so I can use dead bodies as makeshift pack horses (talking about morality in games...).

[Unaco]

I'd also appreciate a mod for removing Quest compass. It'll probably be the 2nd or 3rd one I work on.... that's all assuming there won't be an option/toggle for it in the game already.

Speaking of Mods... Does anyone have any solid information on when the Construction Set will be available? I can't remember, with Oblivion, when it was released. I recall it wasn't on the disc, but was on the Elder Scrolls web site, and I also remember jumping into it to crank out a few small tweak mods on the first day of play. I can't remember if I got Oblivion on release day, or slightly after though.

[TillEulenspiegel]

You can't just mod it out. It's a fundamental design issue; the game has very likely been built around the assumption of a quest compass. So quest text is treated more as flavor than anything useful, and you don't have alternate systems for determining where something is.

At least that's how Oblivion was.

[Shark]

You can't just mod it out. It's a fundamental design issue; the game has very likely been built around the assumption of a quest compass. So quest text is treated more as flavor than anything useful, and you don't have alternate systems for determining where something is.

At least that's how Oblivion was.
I was only talking about removing the one on the top of the screen, not the map markers.
Also, I'm sure we can assume that "how Oblivon was" is pretty much how it'll be.

[thegooseking]

You can't just mod it out. It's a fundamental design issue; the game has very likely been built around the assumption of a quest compass. So quest text is treated more as flavor than anything useful, and you don't have alternate systems for determining where something is.

At least that's how Oblivion was.

I do remember one quest in Oblivion where you had to find Weatherleah. There was no compass marker, and the directions you were given were "South of Fort Carmala, north of Hackdirt." In fact, it was southwest of both, so following the directions was useless.

[Vexing Vision]

Really? Are you sure? I'm in London and GAME emailed me this morning saying they already shipped, so might get it even earlier! Who did you order from?

I'm sitting in Germany. I'd rather rip my ears off than play Skyrim with German audio. Skyrim most likely will not come with language packs. So I ordered from the UK, which means adding another day to the delivery, meaning I probably won't get it for the weekend.

OH WELL.


Cloth map....

[sinister agent]

I was only talking about removing the one on the top of the screen, not the map markers.
Also, I'm sure we can assume that "how Oblivon was" is pretty much how it'll be.

I used mods that removed the compass and all unvisited map markers. It was still easy to find most places I needed to get to. You'd be told who or what you were looking for, and if you were given a specific cave or whatever, people would put it on your map, which makes perfect sense.

I'd imagine it'll be quite workable in Skyrim to do the same.

[jryan]

Awe yeeaah boooy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j50u0zUeCmU)

[agentorange]

It makes little sense. Reaching a target shouldn't be about following landmarks to an unknown position. It should be about using landmarks to know your own place in the world relative to the target's position. In fact, if you're trying to find a location that no NPC knows the position of (and therefore can't mark on the map), then the goal becomes even harder as you have two unknowns.

The fact that all the bustling towns and cities in the newer games are only actually occupied by half a dozen people really works against any immersive path finding. If there were more, they could just re-use the system they had in the past TES games, where you would ask a passing citizen "Hey where is *quest location*", and they would give you dynamic directions based on where you were standing. That combined with the fact that you were able to make notes on your in-game map, meant that as you played more of the game you would have a map that eliminated any need for arrows, since a person would say "North West of the Blood Wolf Tavern", and you would have the Blood Wolf Tavern noted on your map.