Done I think....

Hehehe...wasn't thinking of "What should be included: Whatever the gods of TES (aka The Developers) choose to add, and have time to do well." as a poll option, but I can work with that.

The advantage of only appealing to the largest common denominator is that you can cut cost and serve a lot of people.

The downside is that it removes all taste.

I always use the example of store bought vegetables, wich basically taste of water, compared to home grown vegetables, wich taste of vegetable.

No, by all means, keep everything that gives elder scrolls that unique flavour. Levitation, teleportation, lycantrophy, vampirism, uber enchantments like 100% chameleon.. control over the game world and the character you play in it.
Dont make it into yet another hack-n-slash that claims to be an RPG simply because you have two dialogue options.

If anything, more please

I personally like to have as many possiblities open as possible even if I don't use anywhere close to all of them. A lot of the attraction that the Elder Scrolls series holds for people is the nigh infinite possibilities of combinations possible with your character, class, spells, weapons, etc.

I think another good option would be to allow you to create your own Guild, but that may be a bit much.

But I digress. I say keep all of the options available. Make as many different possibilities as possible and I think that the game will fly off of the shelves. Plus it'll keep the hard-core's like myself happy too. lol

bliviongate:

I've frequently wondered how far developers are willing to push procedural generation in terms of story and quest development... It is obviously very very very difficult to properly develop a detailed enough, and immersive enough plot-line out of a any sort of quest generated via algorithms and procedures, however, the reality is with the worlds becoming the scale that they are, and the detail that they require, it is only a matter of time before some developing studio comes along and makes procedural generation work properly with AI, quest lines, and character relation.

For players who understand the mechanics behind procedural generation, the complications, and technical difficulties are obvious, but the potential is also obvious, and while it takes a stretch of the imagination to conceive its proper implementation leading to an epic quest comparable to what was provided in Oblivion, its still not impossible, and many might even admit may be necessity in the far off future of video games.

My question is how many of you would be willing to stretch your hopes as far as seeing procedural generation as a primary mechanic or tool used to add the very diversity we seek to the game, bearing in mind it would be present technology grade procedural generation, not Daggerfell and Arena procedural generation.

Eh, I'll admit I do tend to shoot things down, but it's mostly because it'll contradict established lore, the idea is extremely narrow-minded, or just bad. If the idea is good, well thought out, I do tend to be for it.

In general, I do want there to be more diversity, a lot more. More weapons, armor, quests, ways to perform quests, skills, and etc. What I don't want is stuff like guns, new races, playable daedra (use mods), lichdom (unless it really is true to actual lichdom, not just turning into an uber power creature of ultimate doom, which they are not), sparkly vampires, and I think you guys get the point.

I completely agree... I really hope the team is large enough this time to offer the amount of content in Morrowind, or even better Daggerfell (Though I severely doubt it), but still have it all fleshed out... Of course I doubt this. Whatever they do deliver will probably have a great story-line at the very least, and hopefully, a lot of choices and options, however, the latter has always tended to be less important then a good linear story-line, and that scares me... In reality I frequently find myself wondering if I would rather have a less polished but more diverse game, full of glitches, dead ends, and the occasional useless feature, if it meant that I did have a lot of options. I guess the way I look at it, with a massive addition of content, there is sure to be things that I will find wrong, but the odds are the majority of the now vastly expanded game will still be quite enjoyable and rich, and I'll still have that feeling of Freedom, Immersion, and amazing Depth.

I'm sure the developers will do a fine job without us telling them what they should be doing.

Replay value would be high if there were multiple paths, and you couldn't do everything in one character.

:3

If someone is suggesting a game feature I'm not really interested in (like horse combat) I generally just ignore it. It won't hurt my feelings if it's added unless it's at the expense of some other feature I am interested in. I never joined the fighter's guild in Oblivion or Morrowind because it didn't mesh with my character's personality. But I wouldn't want that guild removed because having my character not join helps to define him.

There are some features people are suggesting that are either impractical or just plain stupid. That's just the way it is with so many people wanting so many things out of their game. It's compounded by the fact that so many are coming over from the Fallout games and they want features from those to carry over to BGS's next big title, even if they don't fit too well with the setting.

I completely agree, hence the limitation to lore related material. As for implementation, I think at the very least acknowledge the merit of the idea, and let them down softly by pointing out the technological difficulty, or the development issues, don't simply say you don't want it. Then perhaps they have an example, or way to demonstrate that it is not so technically difficult, if not the idea drops because of the rationality of the counter argument.

Choice and freedom are always good things. If people want restrictions they can restrict their own play style.

I agree completely.
just because you choose to play differently does not mean that features that are within the realm of possibility, and those that fit with the background and lore of the game should not be included just because of your prejudice.

My main hope for this games success is the amount of money beth has been raking in recently.
and with the estimated size of the development team.
also i want to see them get REALLY competitive with their rivals BioWare and Reality-Pump.
so i expect a'lot out of bethesda and hope they have a high bar set for themselves.

also for them to REALLY get back to the heart of the series. which is a massive role-playing experience with many paths and options. so for those of you who shoot down someones idea for a role-playing path [especially if its within possibility] remember its not your character and you are not the developer and do not choose what does or does not get in the game nor do you dictate the path of your peers. be respectful to ALL members of the tes<3ers.

however though i say that i want all who post suggestions to really have an idea of what this game is about and can post something coherent to the history of the previous games. make your suggestions count. its ok to suggest something that was in another game, but only if it is something that could really work.

Well I for one say keep the diversity. That's one of the things that makes TES the best game series. Just because I may never use a mechanic or skill doesn't mean I don't want the option in case I decide to try it on my 20th replay of the game lol. I mean I've never once used alchemy and I don't say I want it removed from the game because I guarantee there are people out there that enjoy alchemy and use it on every character.

Basically this.

Which is ironic, because I think you should at least have the choice of becoming hostile with curtain factions/guilds if you choose to be, even if the quests aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive.

I think diversity face a problem with some players vision : They consider TES a bit like the old games with success scores where you could "do" the whole game and where your challenge was to maximize every second of gaming to get all the bonuses, points, secrets... That is, those players want to explore and practice absolutely all the content of the game with a single character to get the best score (I think of those many people adding their best character level bellow their Avatar).
I think such approach is not appropriate in RPG where the story is the main reward, and where the fun comes from the abitity to handle things differently, and therefore take different pathes. Which mean that choosing a path, necessarilly close its alternatives. Which means that devs have to put in the game many content that most players will never experience with a single character.
Oblivion was build to allow everything to be done by a single character. It was probably one of its big failure because it simply removed the role from the game.
I'm all for what the OP propose : a wide array of alternatives so each character will face unique adventures with their own threats and opportunities.

And thats still valid roleplaying, I run games with premade characters when I have a specific story I want to tell the regulars love it as they get a chance to play characters they otherwise may not have done and I mean they get to play characters that are nothing like who they are in real life and thats is a good RP experience one regular now has me come up with background for them even when they make their own characters just for the roleplaying challenges that will set.

New players react against it but eventually love it as well

Roleplaying is not just about play any character you want (and more often than not that leads to people playing a version of themselves and thats not good roleplaying) so if you are truly a good roleplayer you can handle any character your given even if that characters morals and motives are nothing like your own, none of my group have characters remotely like themselves. So a computer roleplaying game that has you take a premade role is just as strong a roleplay experience than one that lets you create it all your self.

And aren't those two questions the same? what kind of person you are is at least strongly related to who you are

This is a preference thing though neither method is more roleplaying than the other

I understand your point and I also regularily impose the role to my players, but TES historically were proposed as big sandboxes, vast world where you could imagine various stories, follow different pathes and adventures. I think it is appropriate, in a TES, to give choices in the character role.

I love The Witcher which forces you to play a very specific character, but what I also like in this game is the fact that the main character is not all mighty, can't do everything, and have to choose different pathes, even in the character developpement.

I think what the OP was saying is that devs should not limit the main role options to trap it into a single vanillia, mainstream-friendly one. People should be granted more diversity of pathes, even some exotic or hardcoe ones.

I don't have any opposition towards a feature I will not use but I don't even really have any opposition towards things that break from lore somewhat for example guns. Guns break from TES lore but they could be in the world, I mean seriously if you have people that can use telekinesis then you get a tube and a ball and *poof* you have a telekinetic gun. I myself though would not enjoy something like a musket. I am fine with it if it is wayyy out eg they put an M4A1 Carbine into the game but a Blunderbuss and I will gripe . But I digress.
It is always good to have a diverse number of options as more people's interests are covered and you can try something out even if it is not your style just for fun eg me(A stealthy, ranged person) playing a mage or a tank for a while just for fun.

Warning, please try not to think of this as me ranting on the problems of Oblivion, Morrowind, and the Fable series, I am just using these as examples of what Bethesda shouldn't do with TESV. Also try your best not to be mad at me for my views on these games, I accept that they are my own views and not that of everyones. Please try to understand the point I am trying to get across and everything in this are just examples and not me hating on the games. I enjoyed playing these games and if you have a problem with me not liking certain parts of the series I mentioned please try to keep it to yourself.

Let me start off by saying I completely agree that adding things that please few and most won't notice is defiantly worth adding to a game. I am not talking about Easter Eggs but entire features that define the game and can provide hours of extra questing. Not everything should be completed in one go, and not everything should be able to. Will it make certain people mad, maybe, I really don't know. Would adding things like multiplayer, selective guilds, and intricate wildlife AI ruin the game, not really. Personally I don't want multiplayer for the TES series, but would it addition ruin the game, no. Would making certain quests mandatory, certain items or achievements require it, or certain places off limits without it ruin the game, YES. It is the concept that one needs multiplayer to do something that makes most people not want it. If you make it so if you don't want to use multiplayer you wouldn't even know it was in the game then no one would be angry for it being included. Having those kinds of things can really change a games dynamics.

If it comes down to if they make everything for everyone will it sale. The answer is obviously yes. But there is always the counterpoint to that. If they make it for most, a few, and themselves all in one would it sale. I would think yes. Having restrictions that make you the same as everyone else doesn't limit the sale of the game, it just adds more of a consumer. Make the core of the game what everyone would want, but still add those obscure features that certain groups want. Oblivion really limited it to I play this way, and that person plays that way. With that said if the other person wanted to play your way he would have a single course set out in front of him/her to play that way. The opposite can be true if you wanted to play the other persons way. Morrowind had it more open but still not as open as it could have been.

With Morrowind you could be in one of three main guilds, two temples, one assassins guild, one guards guild, one anti-slave guild (without any missions), and one of three Great Houses; furthermore with Bloodmoon you had either Werewolf or Human questlines and the East Empire Company. Even within the three main guilds you had further options to complete quests with certain cities instead of other cities. Did most people play through every guild, do every quest, and get every secret item, NO. Did that bother people, not really. In Oblivion I quite literally beat the entire game one one character; every minor mission, secret mission, and guild quest was completed on one character. Now Shivering Isles made me play through twice, but that still was a cut and dry A or B which resulted in like four or so mission differences that really could be considered the same because the only had one way of getting through them.

Had I known about these things would I have still bought them, yes. I in fact own multiple copies of Morrowind and Oblivion. Does it inhibit the replay value, very much so. Would changing it or keeping it the same affect sales all that much, probably not. Having a streamlined game doesn't make more people buy it nor does it stop most people from doing so. Using the Fable series as an example, they went from a fun and diverse way of getting through things although only having one path to do so, to a still fun but less diverse way of going about things with a more open plot and wider areas, and finally to a semi-fun very low diversity game with a straight forward questline that is cut and dry good vs. evil (literally light versus dark) with many choices never impacting more then how much of a ***** you are. (No word intended by *****, I leave your mind to it)

Were they still fun, very much so. Did I like them, yes. Was it the best game ever, NOWHERE close. I was mad at how simplified everything was, and how all challenge was svcked from the game. Let alone that the entire thing was scaled leaving you to face the exact same amount of challenge no mater where you went. It just left the game with a feeling of blegh, sorry if this seems like a Fable rant now. Let me put it this way, I enjoyed playing all the games I mentioned, but they had much room for improvement. I used Fable as an example of what people (well me) don't want. It just drives me mad that one simplifies something so much to make it more for everyone leaving the true fans of it mad. The way Fable went with its games is exactly what one shouldn't do. Would you sale a lot of games that way, yes, but if you went a different path would the game still have sold, again yes. I truly believe Fable 3 did as well as it did be carrying the Fable name. Would TESV do the same, very much so. Should they make it into a game that is so streamlined and for the player who only wants it one way to try to get more people to buy it, No, and NO, and NOOOOO. Fable 3 ruined the series for me personally, but like I said I still enjoyed it. Would I want to play Fable 4 if it was almost the exact same as Fable 3, no. Been there done that, something big needs to change. I didn't even feel Fable 3 was worth buying so I just borrowed it from my friend. Again trying not to make it a Fable rant, it is just the closest game I can think of to TES series (sure Two Worlds is closer, but I mean development wise not game play wise).

I agree with the OP. I think Daggerfall should be tthe yardstick, as far as how much there is to do.

As far as beginnings, the reason a jail beginning is restrictive to roleplay is because you may not be the sort of character who would ever *be* in jail. An inn is fine. Anyone could be staying at an inn. The problem with prison, for me, is that I tend to play really good-aligned characters who would never find themselves in a prison.

Just spouting off from your OP, haven't read the thread yet and may repost or modify afterwards...
Companies don't need to be fair. They need to find their niche Hmm so how about a bell curve for including ideas; the majority gets the most ideas included while the fringe 2nd and 3rd Std Dev get only 1 or 2 included.

I wonder about how those threads pose their questions. Are they stated as "would you like/want to do" vs "should such and such be included." That might have a bearing on the kinds of responses. Also, Those in oposition are just stating their opinions, and that's OK, right? It also just seems logical; that if they won't use it, why include it? :shrug: And of course, there's the hackneyed argument of time constraint: "At what cost, man AT WHAT COST!!!"

To have fun of course! Does one need to be unique in order to have fun or play a role? Also, there are many different styles of playing the game, right? Some do roleplays, others accomplish missions, others play to avoid homework Finally, the point of role-playing for me, is to take on a role, not to be unique; in fact, with the millions out there probably playing the game when it comes out, just how many times will unique roles be truely unique. With that, if one percieves their experience to be unique, but it won't be due to the masses, can that experience still fulfill your req's for a unique roleplay?


Erm, it all boils down to how many really even care about lore, how many will purchase the game, probable satisfaction with the game, and proffit .... at least that's what I think.

Edit: my opinion on including things is like this: I already only play about 75% of the game because I don't like how magic works in the game, the combat, and all of the face/character personal boutique stuff. I'm a stealth and bow kind of player. I essentially only get 80% of my monies' (sp?) worth of the game. How much is a player going to want to buy a game that includes so many options that they won't use? Also, I'm for segregated quests and OK with my not being able to do everything with my playing style. Shoot, it might make me try something new :sick:

Edit: My views might be skewed by my PnP background. I don't consider cRPG's to be role playing games; they are a computer game and OB ventured too close to a video game for me to enjoy. Role-playing to me is speaking in silly accents and chucking dice at your friends in the wee hours of the morn. Those are unique experiences :nod:

Best part of the post right here, and very true .

As for the rest of the post I find it very hard to get a true bearing on your stance. You listed a large number of acceptable and reasonable stances. My ultimate point is this, regardless of what is the best way for Bethesda to appeal to the majority of its fans, or the majority of its long time fans, the first game to offer the features we are arguing over here properly implemented, will blow the TES series out of the water, assuming it isn't the TES series... As such, it makes sense that perhaps Bethesda should be a little more creative, and take a leap of faith into the deeper plot and more extensive possibilities, rather then playing it safe until they are trumped...

The problem is that a feature that some view as beneficial ( like VATS in TES for Fallout 3 fans) can be immersion breaking and potential game-breaking for others (the rest of us). It's not as simple as "If you don't like it, don't use it."

So you're asking whether I think the Dark Brotherhood and Thieves Guild should be cut because I tend not to play thieves and assassins? I wouldn't want to see disproportionate resources invested in features that would either be narrow in appeal or not contribute to to the game as a whole, but I think I benefit from the presence in the game of factions that my characters might not join. I think that including as an option every feature that someone would enjoy would result in a game that was a bit of a hodgepodge. I'd like a game with clearer focus and, fortunately, am happy to trust to the devs' instincts on what will enhance the setting/experience they want to offer. After all, they created Morrowind without any advice from me!