Well, I'm surprised I actually finished reading that.

I agree with you completely, it is a sad when they start removing the role-play experience from an RPG, it just does not make any sense.

Well, one thing this thread shows is the true purpose of forums: That everyone may rant and express their mind. And that's all the OP was doing, so I don't know why most people got so hot under the collar.

Another point in the OP though that I don't agree with is that you accused Bethesda of a lie. Surely most of us are mature enough and old enough to realise that when they say "live another life", we don't take it as literal. They weren't trying to fool anybody, they know it's a video game, we know it's a video game. So play and have fun. As much as you are able anyway...

Less than seven months people...

You can't go straight to RP awesomeness with one big leap... You have to take little steps.


yes that is what a good system would look like. Put some psychology in there too:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_psychology

Stats-actions-character all affecting NPC dialogue options and interactions, NPCs affecting one another, propagation of your actions among NPCs with a fame-infamy system, etc etc. You can build up a really good system with all those. There are a lot of things that can be done even now.

Indeed. A 'linear' TES game has far more choices in it than a branching Bioware one, since TES allows you to interpret the world for yourself and steer your character in any direction. 'Choice' in Mass Effect amounts to having the meaning of your character's words and actions shoved down your throat and then being allowed to flail in the general direction of a cliched outcome. Some of their earlier games were slightly better, but still: is a choice between 'good' and 'evil' really a choice, if I don't get to decide what good and evil are?

There are a few on this thread that just seem unable or (arguably more likely) unwilling to acknowledge that. They've taken the position of "any such change must be infinite in extent, and infinite in extent is impossible, so we can't change anything at all, ever." I don't get it, but I've seen it throughout the thread....


The game Bandit Kings of Ancient China - an NES strategy game produced in 1989 - assigned each NPC scores for Integrity, Mercy and Courage. Just as more traditional attributes are used with a range of possibilities to determine, for instance, the amount of damage an NPC could inflict or would suffer at the hands of another, the Integrity, Mercy and Courage scores were used with a range of possibilities to determine the NPC's actions and reactions, including dialogue options and responses.

If it could be done over 20 years ago, there's no reason why it couldn't be done now. And again, there's no need for an infinite range of choices and possibilities - even adding a single additional choice to key points of the game would add a tremendous amount of variety both in gameplay and in character development.

Here's one I realized some time back would've been a huge addition to Oblivion - would've made the roleplaying experience so much better for so many people with minimal investment - when you're talking to Jauffre and he says that you need to go to Kvatch and find Martin, you can say, "No." That's it - it wouldn't even have to provide any justification - leave it up to the player to decide if "No" means "I'm a coward" or "No" means "I'm just not interested in saving the world" or "No" means "I hate you all and hope you die." The result of that "No" would be that Jauffre or Brother Piner or whoever would go to Kvatch instead, and Savlian Matius would close the gate. The game wouldn't have to really deal with that, other than by then starting to produce Oblivion gates, but it's already set up to do that. After a day or two, toggle a gate closed. Then randomly toggle another closed. That'd be Savlian closing them. After a couple of weeks maybe, start toggling the gates at the cities closed. Somewhere along the way, render the Great Gate closed and maybe scatter a few bodies around it. Roll to see if Jauffre and/or Baurus die (which wouldn't make any real difference anyway, since they'd be at CRT if they were alive, and the PC, having blown off the main quest, wouldn't have access to CRT anyway). Then, at some point, toggle in the destroyed Temple and the statue and all that, and boom - the main quest is done and the Oblivion crisis is averted, all while the PC has been out playing alchemist or sneak thief or assassin or whatever it is that s/he wanted to do instead of the MQ. The whole thing could be communicated to the player simply be throwing opened and/or closed gates around here and there, rendering the leftovers of the Great Gate and the Temple, and maybe a few issues of the Black Horse Courier celebrating the Hero of Kvatch and Champion of Cyrodiil, Savlian Matius.

Adding that simple path through the game - which really wouldn't have consisted of anything more than one more dialogue option for the conversation with Jauffre, using the triggers that already exist for opening gates and inserting a few timed triggers to toggle some of them closed, eliminating the NPC dialogue that refers to the PC doing all the work (it wouldn't even be necessary to replace it with NPC dialogue concerning Savlian, though that'd be a good thing), rendering, then toggling closed the city gates and the Great Gate, rendering the destroyed Temple and publishing a few editions of the Black Horse Courier - would've added a considerable amount to the game. It would've provided a much more comfortable way to follow a different path through the nominally "open world" of Cyrodiil for those who chose not to do the MQ than the required one of either making believe that Amulet isn't in your inventory and never going to Weynon Priory, or dropping off the Amulet, then never going to Kvatch. Both of those are cripplingly unrealistic approaches and they both could've been avoided with a bit of dialogue and some triggers to do things that the game is already set up to do anyway.

Again, it doesn't need to be an infinite range of possibilities - it should just be more. Even one more choice at one key point would add to the game, so why not do it?

While I agree that having a "no" option of some sort, or just more options in general are good, and that there should be a way to integrate the MQ into the gameplay experience in a way that doesn't hurry and force you into it, I would have to disagree that selecting "No" should just make the game play itself for you and basically cut you off from the MQ making its events happen automatically. There is a certain degree to which it IS just a game, and the main plot of the game is about "you" being the hero, not Salvian Matius or anyone else, so the story needs you to complete that questline.

More variety and more ways to make things both integrated and natural, yes. But choosing a refusal to do a quest line making the events all "happen" on their own without you doing them? Its "realistic" that the world goes on without you, but its not really good for a game, even one trying to be more believable.

So, to go back to the OP's post, "open world" is a lie. It's not actually open - you're expected to fulfill your prescribed destiny, and the only way you can not fulfill it is to step outside of the progression of the game and just make believe that that smoking hulk of a city up there on that bluff above the road to Anvil doesn't even exist, because you know that if you go up there and talk to Savlian, the MQ is going to be triggered and is going to grab you by the scruff of the neck and drag you along with it. The only "options" in the game are to play it the way it's scripted or metagame into ignoring the script, rather than simply having even a single alternate script.

I mean no offense, but I sincerely have absolutely no idea how anyone could consider that a positive, or even defensible, approach to a purportedly "open-world" game.

I also said there are other ways to add this variety and in a more natural and less-forced way. Its not a problem that can be solved by one fix alone, it would be more overarching. Instead of just "do the quest or don't" as a function of what the game lets you do or by intentionally ignoring it, the game could be more dynamic without requiring infinite options. We've already suggested a more in-depth persuasion and dialogue system. The problem with the OP's post is that while it says a lot, it says nothing. There's nothing really to discuss without specific examples.

Specific examples of how to fix the MQ in OB without just doing it like they had it or not doing it at all can be imagined, they just didn't do so.

Instead of starting with Kvatch burned to the ground before you even leave the sewers and having the Emperor's escape and handing you the Amulet happen at the very beginning of the game, what if Kvatch was intact at the start and you have to meet the Emperor and start his "escape" quest at a later date?

Maybe the Emperor eventually summons you to his chamber via messenger when you get enough fame and are high enough level. You can refuse the summons, but doing so is a crime. Now you have a permanent and non-removable bounty. its a choice if you want to live with that consequence, but you don't HAVE to go. Then, IF you do start the chain of events, have more options for how to complete quests, more dialogue options to show your motivations for why you are agreeing to said quest, and checks on your level and/or skills that delay the next stage in the questline by people not having the appropriate information for you yet and they don't finish researching it until you reach that milestone.

To me, something akin to this is better than for the quest to go away on its own because you refuse it. You can still refuse it, but it will be there later for you when you want to do it.

The "problem" is that even one fix wasn't introduced. There were no fixes, unless you want to count metagaming into ignoring the script entirely. I provided an example of only one thing that could've been done, merely to make the point that even adding one single dialogue option to one key conversation could create a whole new gameplay option with minimal investment. I'm certainly not arguing that that's the ONLY one that should be introduced, nor did I even imply that, so I'm not sure what it is that you think you're rebutting here.


Sure. Again, I didn't argue that my suggestion should be the ONLY thing implemented, nor did I even imply such, so I have no idea what it is that you believe you're rebutting.


Yeah - I've read that recurring complaint. I provided a specific example, to which you've responded as if I argued that that's the ONLY thing that should be done.

I'm not unfamiliar with the tactics employed by those who value giving the appearance of "winning" an internet "debate" more than they do the actual exchange of information and presentation and anolysis of viewpoints. There was a demand for an example. I provided one. Now please address that example honestly, rather than using it in pursuit of some bizarre strawman peppered with diversions.


Certainly. However, the game as written didn't even include a credible approach to not doing it at all. Sure we can discuss any number of options in between those two extremes, but again, the game as written didn't even provide a credible approach to not doing it at all, much less ways to play something between those two extremes. As a starting point, I provided a simple way that they could've provided a credible approach to the extreme of not doing it at all. Anything beyond that is just that - beyond that. I certainly didn't preclude any such thing - I merely started with what would seem to be the most basic alternative to following their script - not following their script.


Sure. You could have ways to postpone the beginning of the single script, but that doesn't provide any alternate scripts - it just affects the point of the start of the single one. I'm not sure how that's pertinent to the subject at hand.


Say what? In the first place, this smacks of the same suggestion I made - merely an option to opt out. You've criticized that for, apparently, not being "natural" enough and being too "forced," and now you're advocating doling out a "permanent and non-removable bounty" for refusal? I could see taking a hit on reputation, but a "permanent and non-removable bounty?" How is that anything other than "forced?" That immediately makes the "option" no option at all, or about as much of a choice as your choice to give me all your money or not if I put a gun to your head and demand it.


How do you start the chain of events now? You've got a permanent and non-removable bounty - you can't even get close to starting it.


Yes. More options are good. That was sort of my point from the beginning - I gave an example of ONLY ONE option in order to demonstrate that the inclusion of even just one option would have a profound effect on the game - certainly, again, not to argue that it's the only such that should be included. Or, for that matter, even that that specific example should be included. Merely, again, to illustrate the effect of adding even a single dialogue option and a few triggers for events that are already a part of the game anyway.


That's fine. Yet again, I'm not advocating that this be the only thing changed, or even that it necessarily be done at all - it was just a specific example (you know - the thing the lack of which people have been decrying) of a thing that might've been added to Oblivion, presented to illustrate the effect the addition of such a thing could have, and specifically to illustrate the potentially profound effect of the addition of one single dialogue option in one key conversation, and that to counter the recurring notion that any change would have to be essentially infinite in scope in order to make a difference.

You are taking reading between the lines to a new and literal level. You've responded to what I've said by taking a single sentence, and providing a paragraph of rebuttal. I wasn't even arguing with your main premise all that much, just the implementation. We seem to agree on the fact that neither OB nor the OP provided alternatives. I was using OB as an example framework for the hypothetical of what COULD have been done differently because I am not psychic and can't determine what specific examples there are to work from in Skyrim or TESVI and beyond...

I agree that adding more options are good things. I'm not strawmaning you... I don't really care to pick apart any "argument" you are making, the only thing I disagreed with you on in any major way was that by choosing not to do the quest, that the quest does itself and just "goes away". While that is more realistic, not all things that are realistic are good for games.

Also, my suggestions for specifics such as the "non-removable bounty" you took issue with are, as all of my forum suggestions with specific example, not fleshed out, written in stone, I think this is the best EXACT thing to do examples. The use of the specific is actually to illuminate the general, not to dictate that my specific example is better than all others. Your general premise was that by selecting no, the quest essentially "vanishes" from your play through. My examples weren't intended to be taken as the gospel best other way to do things, but as a part of a high-level hypothetical for other ways things could be done. Even if my exact examples are terrible, they are only for illustrative purposes such that you can indeed have a lot in between the quest being just taken away, and being shoehorned into it.

If you take such specific offense to one portion of a germ of an idea, you are going to end up writing posts where you have a paragraph of discontent with every sentence in the other person's post. We're not actually writing a script here and arguing over the EXACT nature of what happens, but discussing the fact that there are lots of specific variables to consider in fixing the RP problem. Just because one of the tweaks to one of those variables that is blurted out is potentially not good doesn't negate the entire premise, or put us at odds against each other on principle.

I'm not trying to win anything, I'm actually trying to have a more logical discussion... I really hate the mentality that forum posts are arguments to be "won"... honestly, if someone ever "wins" the thread dies, and no one talks anymore. Threads continue to produce ideas when people have differing opinions or addendum to other people's ideas, but when taken to picking apart every detail of the specifics you lose the forest through the trees and end up with flames and nonsense.

I'm not quite sure you are getting the whole point of The Elder Scrolls. The prophesies of the Elder Scrolls are dependent on the hero. One can't exist without the other. You take on the role of that hero. The choice whether to accept that destiny or not is entirely yours of course, but if you say "No" there isn't anyone else to to just pick up where you left off.

In your example, Salvin isn't the hero, whether through luck, touch of the gods, traits of birth, or whatever he doesn't have whatever it is the "hero" has to do so.

To take the example further one could say "Well, gates should still open and after a period of time, Dagon should randomly appear and destroy life as we know it." Well, yeah, but that wouldn't make for a very good game. How long should you have before your game just ends randomly as Dagon appears?

To what end though? It was clearly (I thought) an example provided to illustrate the effect that adding only a single dialogue option in one key conversation would have on the game as a whole, presented in order to counter this recurring notion that anything short of full AI wouldn't accomplish anything. What possible point is there in arguing the value or lack thereof of that specific example?


Well - OB didn't provide alternatives certainly. That appears to have been much of the inspiration for the OP's post, and certainly was for my responses. As for the recurring complaint about the OP's lack of specifics, I see that merely as a cheap message board tactic. The OP's post wasn't the sort that relies on specifics - it was clearly intended to, and succeeded in, communicating a broad notion of the state of the games. It's up to later posts and posters, if so inclined, to provide specifics and hash out the details once the underlying issue is successfully introduced, as I thought it was.


As was I.


If you choose not to do the quest, what then should it do? Note that this wasn't presented as a way to address those who wish to postpone the quest, but those who wish to not do it at all. If that is the wish, what possible way of dealing with it could be better than having it go away, one way or another? And note, again, that this wasn't presented as a single option with no alternatives - I certainly wouldn't advocate a "choice" between doing the quest exactly according to the script or not at all and forcing all those who wish to do it some other way or at some other time into not doing it at all. It was just a way to fit the choice of not doing it at all into the game world. And really, at heart, as already noted repeatedly, an example of how adding a single dialogue option to a single conversation could have a profound effect on the game.


Then we're essentially in agreement and just posting at cross purposes at this point.


Which is exactly why I try to avoid getting drawn into them. I prefer to express a quick opinion, then leave, because I've found that a considerable number of those who post on forums are really only interested in assembling whatever combination of fallacies, diversions and rhetoric might give the appearance of "winning," and that's a game in which I'm just not interested. I've wasted too much time over the years trying to catch the greased pig of a poster who will resort to any tactic in order to protect his e-peen and I'm just not interested in doing it any more.

So - we seem to be in agreement on that as well.

So to go all the way back to the OP, and to use Oblivion as an example - the game could've, for instance, started out maybe something like Morrowind - with merely an expectation to report to some person at some time, and doing that would trigger the beginning of the MQ. Include in that conversation an option to flatly say "no" and not do the MQ (in well over two dozen characters in Oblivion, I've done the MQ three times - all the rest of the characters haven't done it and have no interest in doing it, which means that they have to make believe that that entire burning city just isn't there at all), and an option to say, essentially, "Let me think about it and I'll get back to you."

I'm not sure what else would even need to be included in order to make the beginning of the main quest, and the choice of whether to follow it or not and whether to follow it now or not, open to pretty much any approach. We've added a note or a verbal request and two dialogue options. The "no" option, as I outlined (and again - suggestions - not absolutes) would require a few timed triggers for events that are already a part of the game, the elimination of a few NPC statements about the PC and maybe the inclusion of a few NPC statements about the alternative "hero," and maybe the publication of a few editions of the Black Horse Courier. And that's that - we've opened up the game enormously at very little cost. And that, really, seemed to me to be the point of the OP's rant - that it was possible to do so, so the fact that that has not been done and potentially will not be done is a saddening one.

-30-

I guess the reason we are having this back and forth when we agree on the principle that the game could be better in a general sense like the OP suggested, is that while answering "no" to the quest is a specific example of an action, its the resulting outcome you proposed that is actually very broad. Getting in an argument with you about the dialogue option being the word "No" as opposed to another word would, of course, be silly. But the implications of selecting a dialogue option making entire quests, and the MQ no less, just vanish from the world or play out differently than the Elder Scroll predicted is a bit different. That IS general enough to discuss without getting bogged down in a quagmire of minutia.

I don't think providing options that easily make parts of the game just "go away" is a good solution is what I'm saying. Its sweeping it under the rug. I think the approach needs to be the other way around, integrating it more into the actions and choices of the player in a satisfying and believable way. Saying that it should just vanish from existence because you don't want to do it on this playthough and the most important events of the world for that time period just should just "go away" is like fixing a hangnail by chopping off the hand.

I do agree that something should be done to address it, I do disagree though that it should be by circumventing it entirely. That's why I put in my poorly written specific examples, just to shed light on what types of elements could change, but not necessarily did I give the best way to change these variables. I just don't want to entirely eliminate the variables all together with one click of a button in a dialogue box.

Bosh I say.

The Elder Scrolls are dependent on A hero. Not THE hero. If that hero can just as easily be a Breton spellsword or a Nord barbarian or a female Dunmer warrior or a custom-class Orc mage, then it can be Savlian Matius. The games are specifically designed to accomodate whatever character the player might choose, so there's certainly no reason that the "hero" couldn't be another character. If the Champion of Cyrodiil can be the Argonian assassin Sees-Two-Fish, it can certainly be Savlian Matius. And to go back to the OP - Beth claims this to be an "open world" series. How "open" is the world if they're going to take my character by the scruff of the neck and force him into being the "hero" even if that's not what he wants to be?

And you're not allowed to say "no." You are, however, allowed to simply ignore the MQ entirely (as I've done with the vast majority of my characters), however, the only way to do that is to ignore the enormous burning city up on the bluff between Skingrad and Anvil. No - there isn't someone to "pick up where you left off" - instead that whole part of the world simply freezes exactly where you left off, locked in a permanent stasis. There's no possible way that that's a more credible way of dealing with it than the simple mechanism of having some other character take the "hero's" place would be. Or really ANY approach other than simply having a perpetually burning city sitting up on a bluff where it has to be perpetually ignored.


He certainly possesses the necessary traits in greater quantity than Clive the dissipated, alcoholic, snobbish Imperial conjurer does, and if I want him to be the hero instead of Clive in the "open world" which I'm supposedly able to play in, then there's really no reason why that shouldn't be possible. Why would you, or even Beth, seek to force me into turning Clive - a character I quite enjoy just the way he is - into something he's not?


No - in point of fact, that doesn't "take my example further" - it was specifically in order to provide a credible way to not do the main quest WITHOUT that eventuality that I came up with that approach in the first place.

A while ago I posted about how I was disappointed in the fact that we are forced to be a Dragonborn. I didn't receive much appreciation for it in the responses I got. lol

I do see where you are coming from in not wanting to be forced to do things. I guess my problem is being forced into them too quickly and in an unbelievable way, and being forced to do them in a specific way. The biggest example of a specific, and I hate to go back into those, in OB that causes someone grief who wants to ignore the MQ is the burned Kvatch, as you keep pointing out. Well, just not having Kvatch be burnt but be a full city until you decide to do the quest (if you ever do) would be a fix for that I would like more than for it to remain burnt but someone else save it.

Being forced to be a Dragonborn and having those types of abilities is probably not going to sit well with you either, as it does not for me. But that's more about the WAY you play your character, not what parts of the game you are playing through. I'd personally refrain from saying the world isn't open simply because the MQ exists and you are a hero, which is essentially the point that can easily be drawn from your arguments.

I want them to make it so that I can be the hero, but in an open world kind of way. Don't just destroy the story and make it go away because a character I make doesn't seem like the hero type. Instead, I want them to be more creative in the way the story can progress, make the world more adaptive, dynamic, and ingenious in its design and reactions to what I do in such a way to make it become believable that your character Clive could be the hero. He shouldn't have to bonk every Daedra on the head with an axe and hurry around being told he's a great hero by Blades... there should be better dialogue, more sneaky or dialogue-heavy options for finishing objectives, more checks and balances, and stopping points.

If you don't give some semblance of addressing these on a specifics level (even if the specifics themselves svck as we've stated) then you are left with just saying "Oh, that's an awful lot to expect, you need AI". That's why we can try to talk about what specific variables can make that more dynamic and believable world from a more doable perspective than an AI implementation. Chopping the world that was made for a point in Nirn's history off just because some of the characters you make aren't the big bad heavy-hitting fighter is just sweeping the issue under the rug I say.

Yes, the hero can be any race, class, whatever. But that hero is you, the PC, its up to you to fulfill what is written on the Elder Scroll. If you don't no one will. That's simply the basis the main quests are built on. I think it's fair if you disagree if that is the way it "should" be or not, but at that point you are really trying to argue with the basic foundation Beth builds the ES series on.



Then you don't do the main quest. I have several characters in OB that didn't give two shakes about saving the world. They basically told Baurus "thanks for the trinket" and went about their merry way.



I think it was a tough thing to implement properly. OB gates should have been opening. You should still be living in the setting. The events of the world shouldn't just stop, I agree. I don't agree that someone else should just take up the mantle though.




Again, they don't. It is entirely up to you the player whether your character fulfills the prophesy or not.

I'll agree with you that parts of the implementation could have been better, but I feel the underlying philosophy behind it is sound. Sorry, this was a short reply, about to run out the door. Have a good weekend.

This. Choices in ES games are not about having multiple ways to complete every quest, its about choosing whether to do or not do something outright. Only one or two of my characters in Skyrim will even be dragonborn, which is a vast minority.

Yep. You CAN choose not to ever return for the amulet, and instead set your own goals or follow other major quests. Which is what I did with several characters. And I STILL had a blast. Ah, back during funemployment...

Umm... yes. I'm fully aware that that can be done. I can only hope that you simply missed outright the part when I said that in over two dozen characters, I've done the MQ three times, since simply missing that statement in its entirety is the only valid explanation I can think of for believing that there's any need to inform me of the way in which one does that.

My point then, and now, is that the game doesn't provide a believable way to accomplish that - that in order to simply choose not to do the MQ, you have to metagame into ignoring an entire freaking city on fire. There it is - right there - up on the bluff between Skingrad and Anvil - on fire. Perpetually. And all you can do is ignore it, since to do otherwise is going to trigger the main quest.

Surely you aren't implying that studiously ignoring a burning city is the best possible way Beth could've dealt with allowing us to not do the main quest, are you?

You're certainly free to disagree with my suggestion for but one way to deal with a choice to not do the MQ. I also made that clear earlier - it's an example of what could be done - not necessarily of what I believe should be done. But if we leave it the way it is - simply at either do the main quest or ignore the freaking burning city, then we're right back where we started - with Beth failing to provide any sort of believable alternative approach to their theoretically "open world." And that takes us all the way back to the OP - to the point that in this theoretically open world, Beth has failed to provide any believable paths for alternate choices. Do the main quest or ignore the burning city isn't a believable path. I've managed to do it, and many more times than I've done the main quest, but still - that enormous burning city is there and it shouldn't be. Somehow the game should, at the very least, be able to compensate for all of the characters who aren't going to do the main quest. That's at least a good starting point for any attempt to broaden the range of possibilities in their theoretically "open world."

I think the only way to make a game that gives you the opportunity to become who you want in the sense that the OP wants to say is by making a massive multiplayer game where you actually interacting with humans instead of a bunch of 1s and 0s. The only problem is making a computer that could handle a open world sand box game that could have enough people to fill that world. But then again you would always have the people who would just break your immersion by having non role playing dialogue or names like Pedobear69.

Theres actually a game called Mortal Online which is suppose to be some sort of Elder Scrolls + Ultima Online Massive Multiplayer. Ended up promising more that it could handle and the game came out terribly bad due to probably lack of funds and interest. Actually they were not the 1st to attempt to recreate life in a virtual world where people could just like another life in a fantasy setting, they all failed to do so. They didn't pass the various difficulties this brings.. 1st one was not enough resources.. which they all died there. The next step would be that these kind of games are very dependent on their community which is basically a suicide attempt.

Stop right there, criminal scum! Those words shall not be uttered in regards to the Elder Scrolls, unless those words are preceded by the word "no". *shudders*
:poke:

I think it's absurd that you people can think that they can make a game that actually has limitless possibilities. Your asking for something that is impossible. Not only is it impossible, it's not even possible to get even close. Your asking them to literally make a whole new universe with limitless potenial. Your asking them to gods, who can craft a not just a game, but a whole new life. What you want can never happen. I think the problem is with you. You need to lower your exceptions, a lot.

MMOs are about the most "non-immersive" type of game possible. You are basically on a forum or IRC chat box with a game flying around behind it... the reminder is so constant you are playing a game, the idea that it will make you feel more like you are living in that world is laughable really. I've tried 2 MMOs, and I will never play one again for the rest of my life. People who are playing those games are going to ruin your believability factor on a CONSTANT basis... they aren't going to behave as characters really living in that world... they are going to jump up and down for no reason, stop and stand still for 15 minutes while they go and tend to their burnt toast or crying child, tell Chuck Norris jokes, and zerg through levels while spitting acronyms at you.

That being said, I really don't think we have to worry about the main TES game in a cycle becoming an MMO. Maybe there will be an MMO set on Nirn someday, but I highly doubt it will be the replacement of the main title, but something separate from it if anything. Even that is incredibly doubtful.

Actually, the "problem" is that you obviously didn't read through the thread.

It's okay though - you're hardly the first to go flailing away at that straw man.

I assumed people wouldn't think i actually was proposing them to make a mmo, i was simply saying that the only way to become what you want and have coherent responses would be to interact with actual humans but then you have to sacrifice all the other things that are impossible to get when dealing with other people. -.-