what the Glorious Hell


so basically what was a no brainer to handle in a different way than what they did with Oblivions Level scaling, we must go through 5 years of crap so that maybe it'll be fixed in the future?


Holy bucking Horses


you know what would be a good Change? Bethesda's methods on handling Flawed features, Improving old ones and introducing new ones.

I don't really get it... but I think people are missing the point of the original post.


Change is going to happen. Things change every day, peoples' interpretations of things change even more rapidly than that, and our individual opinions are always going to wildly differentiate from one another. It's the nature of things. But the OP doesn't seem to be saying what most of you folks are saying. From what I read in that first post, I believe that the point was supposed to be that EXPERIMENTATION is a part of the evolution of all things. Sometimes you need to make a change, just for the sake of seeing if you can make it.

-Nobody- knows if the change will be "good" or not until it's made. Plenty of folks will CLAIM they know it's bad... but this isn't fact. It's -inference-. And that doesn't dictate the reality of things.

For instance. Some folks here have claimed they take issue with Fable 3... or Dragon Age 2... and I can only rub my head and wonder why. Both of those games were quite exceptionally fun. Obviously, someone simply had a different opinion than I. Who, then, can say that the experiment was a failure? If I, and the people I know, happened to love the change... then to say that a change made was 'bad' is simply your perception of it.

And because we all have different perceptions of change... based on our own set of 'ideal' factors... no game is ever going to meet out all those criteria in one sitting.

This topic isn't about change solely for the sake of change, despite the wording being a little wonky. It's about change solely for the sake of discovering whether that change would be "good" or not. It's about experimenting with new ideas and possibilities... and yes... sometimes even getting rid of things that worked before, because they don't feel right in your new vision. This whole topic has devolved into the inane ramblings of a few who obviously didn't understand the nature of the OP... and the one-sided arguments of those who did, but can't be persuaded to see both sides of the coin.

There's no such thing as a BAD change. There are popular changes... and unpopular changes.

The sooner one comes to realize that their own opinion is effectively meaningless... and that the only scale upon which opinion matters is consensus... the sooner one comes to understand the reality of things: this topic was never about change for the sake of change. It was never about your opinions on change, and why it is good or bad. It was an existential moment... in which someone stated aloud the reality of all things... that change is going to happen, and that humans are naturally resistant to it. Our world is dynamic... and there's not always a reason for the change... but that dynamic force is as much a part of nature as it is a part of our society. It can be no more good or bad than the wind, or rain, or the sun.

Change is either unpopular, or popular. Experimentation, innovation, creativity and imagination... all of these things stem from change... and if you think there wasn't someone, somewhere, telling all those people who first discovered those things that -you- love... that it was a stupid idea, and that they hated it, and that it was worthless... and asked 'Why fix what isn't broken'... you would be mistaken.

There's really nothing more for me to say here.

-Cheers.

I have, for obvious reasons, not read every single reply on this topic...so if I write something that has already been said, see it as me giving my 2 cents and don't give me grief about it

Now that that's out of the way...
Somethings never change, some things change constantly...if it wasn't for innovation and change we would all still be sitting in caves with no fire, no wheel, no electricity, no phones etc. For those of us old enough to remember the birth of the world wide web, most people saw it as something that would never catch on. "What the hell are we going to use this for?". Behold 2011...imagine if people had held on to writing letters instead of e-mail, going to the library instead of searching the Internet...imagine the world today without Google, Facebook, Wiki etc.!

Then again we don't want everything to change...the climate for instance, we'd rather that didn't change too much (maybe we do when it's January in London, but still). The economy.. would be nice if that would just level out a bit, instead of being a roller-coaster ride. Of course we also have all the stuff we personally don't want to change...my favorite musician for instance. I would hate if he suddenly started doing death metal or german schlagers. I would hate it if my girlfriend changed (too much).

Saying that change for change's sake is good, isn't wrong...that change happens and we can't do anything about it is true in some cases, not all.
Will change always please everyone? Of course not! Will lack of change leave everyone happy? Not a chance...

The thing is...we have to realize what we're talking about here. It's a computer game...it's a part of one of the fastest changing industries in the world! If a developer never does anything new and innovative in a series, that series eventually dies. If they change too much...same thing. TES is one of the only series ever, to consistently please the majority of their fans while drawing in new people every installment. THAT is actually quite an accomplishment. Changing without changing too much is a very fine balance in an industry where the demands of the consumer are getting ever so hard to meet and where success is based on everyone else's opinion.

Oh yeah...the phrase "don't fix it if it is not broken", doesn't apply in the modern world. Actually let's rephrase that to "Don''t fix it...make it better"

This is for school, isn't it?

I kid, I kid... I won't get into a big meaty discussion over whether I agree with you or not, but I am excited for the changes. I'm not looking to pay $60+ for something I already own. And while I agree that fixing something that isn't broken isn't always a good idea, never evolving isn't either.

I can know something is good or bad without trying it out due to past experiences. I don't like bananas, someone tells me I got to try this drink called the banana mama cow. Guess what I know in advance chances are I wont like it, because I don't like bananas. And hey after testing the theory, yes I don't like it. An architect might see a new and changed design but due to his experience he can tell it is an ineffective use of space or isn't structurally sound he doesn't have to build the building to see it fail he knows thanks to his experience that it isn't a good design. I love spell making it is one of my favorite parts of the elder scrolls game. Magic might be changed so casting spells is insanely more fun it might be the best spell casting system EVER. The end of the day though the removal of spell making(if it is gone) is not a good thing for me because through my experiences I know I loved it and not having it will remove an important feature to me. I might overall prefer the new system, but the new system + spell making would be even better to me, so I am stuck with knowing spell making being gone is bad for me. The removal of attributes can be logically and not out fear argued against. Perks might cover some of it, but they might not cover the level of granularity that someone appreciates, or they might think the general idea of being stronger than the next guy is an important part of character customization. People can rationally dislike changes, they can fear things staying the same just as much as they fear change, and no change is not good in itself.

Walle-of-text :thumbsup:

I do agree on pretty much everything, I personally do not want it to be a Morrowind 2.0 or Oblivion 2.0, I find change to be both refreshing and exciting.

When did gamers become Philosophizer's?. `,)

While a perfect example of human capacity for being self-centered and biased... this doesn't really go on to prove anything other than that you have an opinion, and are capable of making judgements based on past experience. This is all fine and good... but it doesn't say anything about change, other than that you have an OPINION on change.

You don't like something. Something new comes along, and it has something you don't like in it... so you immediately assume you won't like it. This assumption colors your interpretation of the thing in question... Banana Mama Cow, for instance... and now, surprise, you don't like it either. You don't even have to give it a fair shake, you just have to tell yourself you 'know' better.

Skilled, professional architects told Frank Lloyd Wright he was talentless... he was disrespected by his peers and even involved in physical altercations with his co-workers during the early years of his life. He is, as we know now, quite an innovative and remarkable architect and designer... but we would never know this if his choices hadn't proved to be popular.

Opinion does not dictate whether something is "good" or "bad"... just whether it is popular or not. You can make as many arguments along a similar vein as you like... but at the end of the day you only prove that you are assuming your opinion dictates quality.

Quality is not something that is defined. Quality is something that -defines- other things... and change is a Quality of our world. Experimentation and innovation, evolution, imagination... all of these are the procedures through change takes place. The change itself is not bad. It is, in fact, inevitable... an unavoidable Quality of the human condition. We are, for purposes of survival, taught to be wary of change.

Not all changes are beneficial to us, on the individual level.
Not all changes are harmful to us, on the individual level.

We can assess these changes, and infer from past experiences what is or is not something beneficial to us... but those inferences are nothing more than the formulation of an opinion on the matter. And these opinions are not factual interpretations of the world, but rather the guidelines by which we live our lives without being swept away by the ever-changing reality around us.

It is beneficial to you to have your opinions. You need them, in order to form an identity... in order to truly enjoy some things... in order to truly despise other things. Your ability to formulate an opinion, and consciously make decisions are crucial to the survival of our species, too.

But again, it is important not to mistake these things as being the truth in-and-of themselves. They are but a filter through which we view the world.

Change, in true paradoxical form, is a static quality of dynamics.

Change is not controlled by reason. To believe such is naive.

Wow that was a long bit of pointless. Yes I am talking about my opinion. It is a game and that is all everyone is talking about. I don't give a rats ass whether or not Skyrin is considered the bestest game ever by others, all that matters is how it effects me. This is a game your opinion on it is its quality to you. Can my opinion on what something will be be wrong for me. Sure, but it probably wont be because I know me and my feelings on entertainment fairly well. And that is all anyone here is doing we aren't saying this for sure absolutely will be bad. We are saying IMO this will be bad. Just because you forget that this is a forum where we are expressing our opinions does not mean the rest of us do. I don't think I have to type IMO every time I type out a post for people to understand that guess what this is my opinion.

But is a result of it, to believe otherwise is to be Naive.

Yeah, but that doesn't mean that gaming has ACTUALLY evolved in a better direction. Maybe not taken individually, but the mass of people as a group is stupid. Never think that a thing is good because the majority say it's good.

You seem to have missed the purpose of my statement.

You assume that by stating your opinion is self-centered and biased, I am confronting you. But that is not the case at all. In fact, the entirety of my post was justifying your reasons for being self-centered and biased... all the while providing evidence for your consideration of the world beyond your opinions. It was an invitation to think outside of yourself, and your opinions, and address the matter at hand: the "nature of change" and "change as a quality of nature".

It was an open invitation, of course... to any who might accept it... but I directed it at you because you had one of the more interesting replies I'd read. You used logical reasoning to formulate your opinions... and showed a bit more intelligence than the average forum-goer I see around here. I therefore inferred that you might appreciate a bit of practical philosophy and psychology applied to your rationalizations, based upon the fact that you have the intelligence to comprehend at -least- the basics of it, if not the principles themselves.

It was, in essence, an attempt to get you to further justify your opinions and rationalizations on the nature of change... in the hopes of initializing a more intelligent discussion overall. You did, in fact, do so briefly. I have determined from your response that you are actually quite aware of the fact that your opinions are the basis upon which you determine "good" or "bad"... and that your judgement is skewed towards your individual tastes, and therefore not representative of a majority.

You response is actually quite informative about the quality of your person... and you are certainly an individual aware of your own preferences. However, I am a bit disappointed that you jumped to the conclusion that my response was an offense... and that you immediately devolved into lashing out at it. That is hardly the sort of response I had hoped for.

Never-the-less... my statement stands... and I welcome anyone who thinks they can challenge it intelligently to do so.

After all, had I been looking for individuals to blindly accept my interpretation of the situation as fact... I would not have written it upon a public board, where it could be openly debated and argued.

Basically what OmegaX said. You seriously want to tell me that Oblivion's level system was a good idea because now we know it svcks? We get a new ES title every 5 years and you want a testing ground instead of a game? Morrowind had a leveling system that was very similar to F03's system. And it worked. There should have been more encounters for very high level players, but other than that it was good. Instead of adding those encounters they tried a completely new system, which was so incredibly stupid that I (and probably almost all other players as well) could have told them it wouldn't work before they even started implementing it. But change for the sake of change is a good idea...right.

Maybe they should collect the most stupid ideas they can come up with and make an ES game out of them. Then we'll have the crappiest ES game ever, but at least they know what they should not do when they make the next game.

And when I'm 80 years old they've tested all the stupid ideas they can think of and I can finally play a good ES game then. Hooray.

I don't see why people are afraid of change. I, for one, love to see changes because it changes the overall experience so I'm not just doing the same things over and over again.

How extraordinarily ... ignorant. Change for the sake of change is no better than conserving for the sake of conserving. And it's not how the world works.
The duality of change and conservation is what shapes all complex systems. You will never progress by cutting everything away or leaving everything as is.

Your patronizing tone that everyone who opposes specific change is merely afraid of change itself is quite rude, IMO. And the desire for change and new horizons is just as much a part of 'human nature' as is the desire for stable environments.

Besides, you are confusing attempted change with actual change. There is nothing attempted about Skyrim, it will be a final product by the time it gets to us.

No one is afraid of change. Echoing this falsehood as if it were true is disingenuous at best. Basically everyone here is calling for change and improvement. The dispute is merely over how to accomplish those goals.

Morrowind actually had level scaling similar to what's probably going to be in skyrim. Stronger enemies appeared as you leveled up but not rats and stuff becoming stronger with you.

As Skyrim is not Oblivion or Morrowind, it should not be those games. Features from previous games will always make a return, some things will change, this is why it is a sequel. God forbid the developers have an idea that the majority of them agree on would be very cool to put in the game. We should not be afraid of the change if it's from a trusted innovator who happens to have a good idea, despite what we have experienced in the past. You think they don't know the enjoyment gotten from the experience you cling to? I think they do. If you truly want that feature, then go back to the previous title, it isn't going anywhere. Perhaps we can get over it and enjoy the game for what it is, another experience. If we feel SOOOOOO unsatisfied by our experience, then maybe we should be making our own games. That's the beauty of life, you can do those sorts of things.

In the end, seeing as we are not the developers, we shouldn't go around bashing on them like "Is this game gonna svck" and talk about how certain features COULD be bad when we haven't touched them nor do we know any sort of details on the feature. This is THEIR piece of art. Maybe, just maybe, we could try and be optimistic as opposed to this dreary depressing sea of negative pessimism. I think that's all the OP was trying to promote.

Truth about life: You never know. Yes, yes, I know, we all have good ideas and preconceptions, but in the end....you never TRULY know.

I get that your opinion will be your own. You can continue to react negatively because your opinion is very strong and probably has plenty of reason. I'm just asking to approach your concerns with more of an optimistic view, because in the end it is uncertain. Not to mention...it's all for fun! :celebration:

I dislike how this long wait is driving us all apart. We all love this game series, I'm certain that despite our worries we will be pleased! Woo yeah! optimism train! :intergalactic:

I'm pretty sure they were talking about level-scaling of enemies/loot, not the actual player character leveling system. :/

If it's a good idea, they should be able to offer reasonable justifications. If they can't, it's not a good idea. If they insist that there are reasonable justifications, but refuse to discuss them then they disrespect their audience.

Skyrim is not anyone's first video game (I assume). We've all played plenty before. Rules and systems and mechanics are njot foreign concepts that only experienced game designers can grasp. And beyond that, who's to say we don't have designers commenting on these features. The idea that we should simply "love it or leave it" dismisses the entire argument.

Change, change never changes.

It was a good idea. It was a -damned- good idea.

The trouble wasn't the scaling... it was the magnitude of the scale. Morrowind had virtually NO level-scaling. The only thing that ever changed was the formulas for encounters and sometimes the items you found in certain crates/barrels. It was otherwise non-existent. All NPCs remained the same static level forever. Most creatures were limited to a maximum level well beyond the player's own. After a certain point in the game, you simply became a godlike entity incapable of being defeated by any foe. It was good, if you wanted to become a godlike power sometimes.

Oblivion drastically increased the magnitude of what was scaled. It strove to create an experience which provided consistent levels of challenge, with consistent levels of reward. Where it went wrong was a lack of scope. Everything leveled. Nothing was static. Worse still, some creatures and enemies disappeared completely after a certain level... while bandits wound up wearing Glass Armor and every Marauder was in Daedric.

This experiment is the ONLY reason any of us know what can go wrong. There was no such -problem- before hand. There was no point of reference to work from.

This is perhaps the worst argument I see used to justify the fears many fans of the Elder Scrolls have against change.


This is perhaps one of the single-most important discoveries made by the series... the proper amount of difficulty/reward scaling... versus what should remain static. Nobody knew what the limit should be. Nobody knew what would potentially break. Nobody knew how it would affect certain aspects of the gameplay. It was a simple change in formula which yielded wildly unpredictable results.

You might look back and say: "Wow... that really needed some refinement..."

... but you look at Fallout 3... and say: "That's where the payoff is."

Without Oblivion... Fallout 3 could have been the game to test the limits of level scaling. Without that one misstep... who knows which game would have wound up with ridiculous issues because of overzealous level scaling.

It was an experiment that yielded unexpected results... and in turn brought about a system of scaling based on the combined knowledge of what worked and what didn't throughout the rest of the series.

Fallout 3 is as much a product of Oblivion's mistake as it is of Morrowind's design. Each mistake is a step towards determining the right mixture... and that's a statement echoed by the greatest minds to ever live. I highly doubt a mind capable of disproving that belief exists here on this forum.

Making a fresh new game should be justification enough.



I realized that and changed it.

You would have a point if there wouldn't be hordes of people saying how the game will svck without attributes, spellmaking, spears and athletics...

The wrong kind of change, once again. Not change in general.