The well written and interesting quests in The Witcher 3 pertain to the main story. Virtually everything beyond that is simplistic, with poorly developed characters and frankly is pretty uninteresting.

And the GOOD quests are all based around pre-established relationships between Geralt and the key players. Dijkstra, Yennifer, Triss, even the other Witchers... Their intractions and the stories surrounding them are largely based on the past history between the characters. Even the best developed character that doesn't have this background, the Baron, has a almost a the main quest devoted to his story, and the interactions rely heavily on a set variable; Geralt.

Trying to do this in TES is a disaster waiting to happen, because it requires pre-established identities, associations, relationships and takes away from the players ability to define their own charater. All NPCs have to be based on the assumption that the PC has never encountered them, knows nothing about them, and has no past with them, while at the same time allowing for a broad enough range of interactions to allow for as wide a range of player-determined characters as you can.

Trying to take the Witcher style of story telling and writing, and applying it to a more open-ended character game like TES, is trying to stuff a square in a triangle hole. Even cementing a more solid identity in Fallout 4 to try and give some of the emotional interaction you saw in the Witcher was a disaster.

I didn't find the crafting particularly good. It was the same old nonsense as virtually ever other RPG, but with more material clutter. Dragon Age Inquisition's crafting was far more interesting, and Skyrim's system was at least based more on raw materials than weird refinements that only serve to bloat ingredient lists.

I do think there is room for Recipe crafting in TES, but The Witcher didn't bring anything new to the table beyond more clutter.

I for one hate mini-games. I played Gwent for all of the tutorial and decided it was pointless and abandoned it entirely. Frankly, i think GTA and Fable are far better examples of using Mini-Games than The Wticher has ever managed, and even those tend to be annoying a superficial. I'm not entirely against Mini-games, but they need to fit in the world, be interesting, and most of all not be particularly important, and there are far better examples out there than Wild Hunt.

This is something of an issue, but i don't think it's something that can be learned from The Witcher, because... well, The Witcher wasn't very good at that either. It SEEMS good, sure, but when you really get down to the details, it's biases are unjustified, it's prejudices are taken for granted, and it just expects you to understand the ideological conflicts because they're just based on real-world comparisons, many of which don't really fit the medieval setting they're trying to portray. Morrowind did a far better job, and serves as a far better example, than Wild Hunt ever managed to be.

Meanwhile, i don't think that a lack of trying, or a desire to be more sterile and family friendly, is behind Bethesda's less interesting or touchy. They're just not good at it. They TRY to be more controversial with Fallout 4, and just end up flopping around in the kiddy pool because they don't have any clue how to approach the concepts they're trying to explore. CD Projekt Red took the easy road and just superimposed current social and ideological conflicts over the game, rather than building up anything setting-related, which frankly i don't view as a particularly good approach worth mimicking.

What I mean about the difference between Witcher and Elder Scrolls is that Elder Scrolls has never focused on dialog or storytelling. I personally don't think TES has bad storylines, but no one plays an Elder Scrolls game for interesting dialog or quests with multiple outcomes - because there are hardly any in any Elder Scrolls game. From Arena to Skyrim, the focus has been on exploring, questing for whoever you pleased, and improving your character. But I do think TESVI will have a greater emphasis on storytelling. They're not going to take notes from the Witcher in particular, for reasons everyone else has already done a pretty good job of describing. But it'll steer closer to that type of RPG, where dialog matters. (and politics have always been Bethesda's strong point - that's how they made the settings in Skyrim and Morrowind interesting, and Daggerfall's politics are almost Game of Thronesy)

And I think I'd rather have Fallout-style crafting in VI. Not necessarily MacGuyvering weapon upgrades from random junk, but the idea of item progression existing in upgrades instead of the items themselves, so that there isn't any single "ultimate" tier that obsoletes everything else, like Dragon and Daedric. Having miscellaneous items break down into more generic components is a great way to streamline some of the less interesting stuff of crafting, like tanning hides to get leather or smelting ore to get ingots. I never liked crafting systems where you'd go through a chain of crafting recipes just to get the crafting materials you need - like pelts to leather to leather strips. Fallout's component system just skips straight to the meat of crafting.

See, in my opinion that wouldn't work par say, but a better system of crafting I definitely agree with you on. Making it so that you could progress with a single set of weapons and armor through constant improving wouldn't work for a lot of reasons. The first is it just doesn't make sense, having Dragonbone and Daedric armors being much stronger than iron and steel makes sense, because it is the armor made from, well, dragons. It makes sense that they would be stupidly strong. Another would be investing into smithing would be worthless if there was no reason to unlock the really difficult to obtain armor and weapons. I would however like a more in depth crafting system where not every set of steel armor gives the same resistance and weapons have different variations in damage. Obviously a sword found on a dead bandit's corpse should not be just as sharp and powerful as one found on a knight for example, but both should be completely usable and deadly. How I would solve the issue of a fairly defined and limited crafting system would be to do what borderlands did in their sequal, and bump the numbers up on weapons, allowing for a larger variation in items. So for example a steel sword could range from say 110 damage to 170, but a Daedric sword would be around 300-350 ish. Obviously these numbers wouldn't work, but hopefully you get what i am trying to put across. Also putting in a wider variety of mid to late game armor sets, and pushing back Daedric and Dragonbone would allow for further progression, and would make their incredible stats feel more rewarding when acquired. A couple other things I would want to see in crafting would be a set of Aedra weapons, with a light armor set being the light version of Daedric, which would balance out light armors. As well as this, adding different styles of armor, which would be purely aestetic, we covered it earlier I believe in the last thread, but nordic takes on orcish armor, where the sword would be more straight, and maybe the armor would be more styled around nordic traditions, but using orichalcum as the resource, would allow for greater dversity when fighting other people, and would allow for greater character progression where your Nord character doesn't have to for some reason forge and wear orcish styled armor purely because there isn't any other option. A Nord for example would want to forge a nordic take using orichalcum, but all races styles should be available at least in my opinion, but making this aesthetic is a must to make races as balanced as possible.

And this strikes me as about as good a lead in as I'm going to get...


*Edit* I've decided to compress these ramblings with spoiler tags, just to conserve people's eyes.






Of course, the next step would be to have THEIR reactions shaped based on their relationship with YOU. this is obviously the field in which a Disposition system is the most valuable, and it's something that should be examined again...But I'll get more into that in Part 2...

On crafting: I don't think we'll get different styles for each race, I think the styles of each armor we get will be informed by the setting and the armor itself. Equipment made of common materials like iron, steel, or leather will match the location - Hammerfell will get curved swords, Summerset Isles will get ornate designs, etc. Elven or Dwarven armor, will always look elven and dwarven - I feel like it would cheapen the setting if you could make elven armor that looks nordic, or the equipment doesn't fit in with the cultural aesthetic of the rest of the game. The setting will also inform the materials themselves - if the place doesn't have any dwarven ruins, or natural deposits of ebony, they don't have to add dwarven and ebony armor. They could add them and have them look foreign to the setting, and of course there will be armor types unique to that location.

For progression, items don't have to be on a completely even playing field. But once you get past the steel "tier", I think it's better to shift focus from a linear progression of armors with better stats all-around, and more like each armor is the best at something, and comes with its own disadvantages. Daedric can have the greatest defense, but also the heaviest weight, worst movement penalty, highest crafting requirements, and least versatility in crafting. Steel would be decidedly average all-around, but the most versatile - craft it as heavy plate armor, light chainmail, reinforce it for stagger resistance, more defense, or to take on stronger enchantments. For armor, there's so many different factors they can add that help make each armor distinct. For weapons it's a bit tricky, since things like attack speed, reach, stamina cost, etc will have to vary between different weapon types more than what they're made out of. The best I can think of right now is that different materials are better suited to different weapon types, like dwarven makes better blunt weapons than elven, but elven makes better bladed weapons than dwarven.

Generally, in terms of crafting, I'm with Box Maaan. I don't see games comming with the same Racial styles of, say, ESO. That's not where I think the Motif concept has its greatest value, either. Being able to highlight different regional, cultural and status styles WITHIN a province is, I think where the concept really shines. Similar to the Bonemold Armours of Morrowind, but with expanded range.


Imagine having the Armour of Sentinel looking different from that of Stros M'kai. Both use the same materials, but the region and it's identity is reinforced by their different Aesthetics. Previous games, and traditonal crafting, would just have them be 2 seperate recipies, but that's not necessarily how Craftsmanship works. A Musculatum is designed the same regardless of whether its Bronze or Iron, after all... So, instead, these Motifs allow you to apply those styles to different, similar materials. Instead kf an Iron suit of Sentinel Plate, you can make it of Ebony to really stand out.


This same variability allows for different subtle hints and atmospheric designs. Say theKnights of The Restless all wear a Couter (using the system of assembly I've spoken of in the past) shaped like a Raven on their left elbow. That shape is its Motif, but the material used indicates their rank within the order. So, if you encounter a slain Knight of the Restless in your delvings, and he wears an Ebony Raven Couter, you have insight as to his position. Similarly, if you encounter someone wearing a Raven Couter on their right, it's a hint that something may be amiss. All without requiring a totally unique suit of armour be made, which would not offer the same range of options...


But now I'm getting all over the place...

It should stick to common sense, and common sense is that quasi-medieval society isn't particularly tolerable to such things. The argument about "another world not on Earth" is absurd as it allows to include every ridiculous concept in the game.

The people urinate their friends when they meet them? Oh, it's not Earth.

The people start their day with breaking the chicken's egg and pouring it on the head? Oh, it's not Earth.

The people start to cry when the Sun goes up? Oh, it's not Earth.

Now, I don't mind if all this happens BUT the developers should give a good reasoning for such things to happen. They don't give good reasoning why you can marry a Nord brute being an Orc brute after you do some quest together. The "live is short in Skyrim and flowers of love should bloom when they are ready for it" reasoning is extremely lazy and forced. The ultimate goal of human beings marriage in ANY fictional or real society is to reproduce by having children. Two males or two females in Skyrim can't have children, unless you want to go too far and state that it's not confirmed as it's not explicitly stated in the game. I won't have any issues with homosixual marriage in pseudo-medieval society if there be a good reasoning. There is none, and it contradicts the common sense, to which Witcher's social norms are much more reliable.

Lachdonin

You're right. But it doesn't give Beth indulgence to create a number of generic "fetch-carry-kill" quests.

Even the tutorial Witcher contract for Noonwraith includes some backstory. Even the typical "treasure hunt" quest about obtaining the weak special gear set includes a backstory about another witcher who is a victim to cruel experiments and is completely crazy after being starved, charred and so on.

I don't want quests about relationship with characters which are friends of my character whom they knew long before the start. I want a good backstory to a random quest from random NPC. And "oh, go to the #place and retrieve the #item well known for its legendary properties" is NOT a good backstory. It is generic backstory. Oblivion quests were much better i this regard. Too bad they were the single most well done part of the game.

You seem to dislike Wild Hunt, but you should understand that Bethesda probably understands, that a fair share of customers WILL compare their game with Wild Hunt as it's the most close in scale and ambition project in fantasy setting.

You probably know, that social conflicts in Wild Hunt are derived from the books about Geralt. And these conflicts seem rather logical and fitting in the books: elves live in nature, people come and destroy their natural environment, elves strike back, the tension persists.

Bethesda tries to tackle such things in Skyrim (dunmers in Windhelm, e.g.) but such conflicts can be made far more complex and believable.

Now if you think that I'm a Witcher really devoted fan, no, I'm much more TES really devoted fan. I love TES but I prefer the series to become less family-friendly and less sterile. Actually, it looks very strange to me that fans of the game want it to stagnate which is a very common trend among TES community. Well, we get what we deserve, then.

That's kinda the point of fantasy, to be able to include ridiculous/fantastical concepts. People throwing balls of fire from their hands? Walking talking cat people? Flying lizards that can speak the elements into existence? These things are inherently ridiculous, but it's fantasy, and fantasy allows you to not be beholden to reality.

You need a reason for why a Nord and an Orc would get married? Well, you see, when two people love each other very much...

The purpose of marriage is whatever the society in question deems it to be. There is nothing to say Tamriel has to have the same prejudices we had (and still have in some places). Don't forget that the world and inhabitants of Nirn came to be as they are under extremely different circumstances. They have different pressures and influences then we do given the nature of their world compared to ours.

I would hope also that Bethesda understands that trying to make their game like Wild Hunt is a fools' errand. Bethesda's games have different priorities, and it's those differences in priorities that endear TES fans to TES over Wild Hunt. CD Projekt RED do what they do far better than Bethesda do what CDPR do (just look at FO4), and even if they were to improve, Bethesda would be playing second-fiddle if they kept trying to emulate them. And also, the more like Wild Hunt they try to be, the more they will be compared to it and the more their shortcomings will stand out. Instead, it's better for Bethesda to build their games their way, not someone else's way.

On the contrary. I rather enjoyed it. But it is a very different game. Just because they're both RPGs doesn't mean they necessarily have much, if anything, to offer each-other. Final Fantasy 6 is also a fantastic RPG, but it, similarly, has little to offer.



Every, single dungeon in Skyrim has a story. Every. Single. One. Fallout 4's environmental stories are even better done, typically with several layers which can be attributed to different times.


All the pre-determined quests in Skyrim have a story. Is it necessarily deep? No, not really, but it's there. Could they use some improvement? Always. But the generic 'fetch-carry-kill' quests filler. They are INTENDED to be random activities to fill up time and activity, and not be linked to any particular story. Comparing a Bounty, to the Witcher's Contracts, is like comparing Apples to Capybaras, they're not only different species, they're entirely different kingdoms.


I also disagree about Oblivion's quests... Barring a few side questlines, they were ridden with weird plot holes, poor characters and generally just lame.




The conflict with Elves in Wild Hunt was none of that. In fact, it's elves were largely urban invaders running away from a metaphysical embodiment of thermal entropy. But even then, most of the bias against elves comes from the fact that they are associated with a largely terrorist organisation, and the whole thing is handled in a very West-vs-Muslum way, and totally glosses over the fact that the ancient Elves cultivated monsters to prey on humans in order to reinforce the victim depiction.



They also had the regional political conflicts, which were pretty well done. And the bias against the Witchers was reasonable, though far more muted than i think it should have been. But even then, they're executed in a modernist, superficial manner. Nilfgaard is bad, because it's the imperial colonial force. The Peasantry is narrow minded and stupid, because they're anti-gay (despite the fact theres no establishment of sixual norms in either the game or the novels). I'm surprised they didn't put a transgender conflict in some quest (or if they did, i didn't find it before i got bored with side missions).


Skyrim's depiction of internal social conflicts, schisms and biases isn't great. But it handles things pertinent to its world. It doesn't throw in a bunch of peasants trying to lynch a lisbian, because sixual orientation isn't an issue in Tamriel.



TES has had one, mostly sterile game. Oblivion. And even that wasn't really THAT sterile.


Skyrim is just as touchy, dark and in some cases vulgar as The Witcher, it's just not up in your face about it. Which is, frankly, a more honest and authentic way of handling things. You don't need to walk in on a [censored] in progress to explore the issue, instead you can have a socially detached victim with anger and trust issues. You don't need to watch an Elf get beaten by a mob, you can explore racism through more subtle ways like verbal harassment of segregation. You don't need to have a buxom woman with her [censored] out to explore sixuality.


The Witcher handles it's lack of sterility in a vulgar, almost immature way. Often times, it goes full Hollywood, going out of it's way to wave around it's "HEY! THIS PERSON IS A HORRIBLE MONSTER!". It's not sterile, sure, but it's also not particularly artful story telling. It's far from the worst, and the good parts of the game more than make up for those short comings, but it's far from an approach which should be emulated.


And again, i LIKED the Witcher 3. I made a decision after Dark Souls 2 that i was done sinking time into games i didn't enjoy for the sake of being able to actually talking about them, and i still managed to sink 70 hours into it when all was said and done. It's a great game, and it deserves a lot of the praise it gets. What it DOESN'T deserve, however, is the comparisons to another game that is only superficially relateable. Comparisons to Dragon Age Inquision? Perfectly fine. Comparisons to Neverwinter Nights would also be appropriate. But TES is a radically different beast, despite having the same RPG tag above it.


Is there room for a Witcher-Like game in TES? Absolutely. As an Adventures title (something they really should revive). And such a format has a lot to draw on Wild Hunt for. But I would much rather the main TES games improve on what they do, what makes them special, than try to mimic something else with only a loose stylistic connection to them.

isn't this what i've generally said about separating design themes from the materials used? design themes have several categories like racial, cultural, "class", factional, etc.. while materials are categorized by : metal plate, metal chain, leather, fur, bone, etc..

then maybe have these armor slots : head (forehead, lower head, hood, crown), chest(diagonal left, diagonal right, backpack, cloak, pauldron left, pauldron right), waist (belt, front left, front right, back left, back right, pants, skirt), arm (upper arm, lower arm, elbow, hand), legs (upper leg, lower leg, knee, foot)...

weapons can have different slots depending on weapon type, swords/knives have sheathes, etc..

players can just mix and match design themes with their chosen material.

if you've seen the hundreds of mash up armor mods, this would be like giving the players the ability to create their own mash up weapons/armors in-game via smithing, instead of going through the hassle of having to mod it in one-by-one via ck.

meanwhile the developers can maintain the NPCs "lore friendly look" by creating their own outfit presets and then assigning those presets to the right faction/culture/race/class. so that a nord faction would still look like a nord faction, dark brotherhood faction still looks like dark brotherhood, NPC mages still look like mages, etc.. and it's easy to identify who's who and what's what just from a single look.

basically, "outfits" are like "sets". so designers/modders can just design a "set", but equipment slots of that set can be mixed and matched by the player and combine it with other sets or just remove parts that they don't want. but these are just "designs", it's up to the player which materials to use depending on which materials are allowed for a particular design.

ie : a metallic pauldron can't have a textile, fur, or leather materials, since it's restricted for metals. but a robe can have textiles, fur, chainmail, etc.. as materials. the designer/modder can just assign material restrictions per equipment so players don't end up with ridiculous equipments like a solid steel robe. haha..

meanwhile, some design themes can only be unlocked by joining certain factions or buying/looting design blueprints. so joining the thieves guild can let you craft using the design themes used by the thieves guild, or if you wanna craft some dwemer design themes then you should find a dwemer design blueprint loot drop from dwemer dungeons, etc..

as for smithing skill : it's mostly still dependent on the difficulty rating of the material. so a steel greave still requires the steel perk while a dragonbone greave still requires the dragonbone perk, etc..

--------------------------

however, bethesda should really come in along with the introduction of LOD (level of detail) functionalities. so that each item should have a low poly/res version up to a high poly/res version. this is usually done in blender via a multires modifier and just shrinking a copy of hi-res textures in photoshop to make low res textures.

then when adding new items in the CK (creation kit), players can just assign the right mesh/textures to the right LOD slot.

this way, players don't end up facing an army full of equipment sets made up of 8k textures/high poly meshes per equipped item.. haha. (since modders can get overboard with the details). there can be a game setting where the player can choose the maximum LOD to be displayed. (this would be the manual max LOD setting), meanwhile the game automatically swaps LODs based on the distance of the object. far objects have very low res/poly LOD, while very close objects can reach up to the max LOD setting..

----------------------

i think bethesda should also reconsider how they refresh cells and how they handle the corpse clutter. ie : in large battles, players don't usually mind if generic NPCs just vanish to help prevent lag.. the only ones whose corpses really matters are unique NPCs.

corpses can even be divided between essential and non-essential. then there can be an option to get rid of a non-essential corpse by burning it away with a torch. (or maybe just a quick dispose option similar to the dispose option in hunterborn mod) while essential corpses would be transported to the nearest hall of the dead in a burial urn or as a tombstone in a cemetery.

this way i don't have to manually disable corpses via console.

--------------------

i also really don't like senseless clutter. i hate it when i have to be so careful so that physics-based clutter don't get jumbled up when i run around in a store or house or inn. so i often steal anything valuable enough and then just stash the rest in containers so they don't hassle me.

i usually do this in areas that i constantly have to revisit. it boosts my framerate and my sanity so i don't end up tripping around with garbage on the floor coz i keep running around and bumping into stuff when NPCs keep blocking my path. haha.

if you've seen house mods by modders like elianora, each item is exquisitely arranged so that it's pleasing to the eye.. but all that can be easily ruined by a single fus ro dah.. so physics based clutter can potentially ruin the design aesthetics of carefully placed items. it's funny to just go boom for one second and see stuff flying around, then a few seconds later you realize that you just turned an aesthetically pleasing location into a garbage heap.

i don't mind corpse ragdolls though, corpse ragdolls are funny. i like the way they fall down when i snipe someone in the head.

---------------------------------------

anyways, all these are just my opinions.. just stuff that i hope some random bethesda staff could read as a feedback.

----------------------

edit :

i don't like minigames that much either, unless it involves strip poker battles with sixy hot chicks. *joke*

most minigames like board/dice/card games are usual time sinks, and it kinda feels disconnected to the story itself.

i don't mind if it's there though, if bethesda got the spare time to add one. so i'm not against it.

but i'm not looking forward to it even if they do add one.. so unless it's a strip poker with sixy hot chicks, i probably won't play it either..

Yeah, I've spoken about something similar in the past, and have since streamlined the idea a bit more... For the sake of simplicity, and ease of association with a body-part and limb damage syste,m I'd use the same 'Slots' as Fallout 4 (Head, Torso, R Arm, L Arm, R Leg, L Leg) but the same idea applies. I'll go into it in more detail sometime soon, after I scribble out some more specific ideas...


In the mean time, I should commit more of dialogue to writing before I lose coherent sense of my less than legible notes...





And in part 3, I'll get around to explaining why, with these considerations in mind, Fallout 4s Wheel may offer the best dialogue system TES has ever had...

The point of good fantasy is to create a unique world which has its own logic. Magic, khajiiti and dragons all are a part of logic of how Nirn is functioing. Unnatural sixual tastes are not part of this logic, they are added to silence vocal minority. The point of all Skyrim residents suddenly becoming bisixual is a complete joke. The game tries hard to depict a largely pseudo-medieval society of the people who are largely uneducated and masculine. The inclusion of gay marriage with every person you are forming the bond is a huge immersion breaker. Speaking of Tamriel - a lot of characters in Morrowind refer to Crassius Curio as a person of very specific interests and "strange". After 200+ years everyone is okay with everyone being bisixual. It's not the matter of cultural development, actually Skyrim looks less civilized than Morrowind at this point of time.

Inclusion of such a thing is a step towards trying to be liked by everybody. Kudos to CDPR for standing their ground and portraying a realistic pseudo-medieval society.

Finally, I'm not a homophobic [censored] you're probably imagining. I don't have any problems with gay people, and I'm perfectly fine with some rare cases of them in TES setting. But they form a very little percentage of population IRL. Why is all of Skyrim suddenly is gay or bisixual? There is no reasoning.

Portraying Tamriel as a world of equal rights and tolerance is just watering down the colors.

I would have prefered them to include different types of constitution, btw. Why there are no people suffering from obesity in Tamriel? Why there are no cripples?

I'm pretty much sure that story like "There was an Imperial fort, now Forsworn/vampires/necromancers occupy it" is not a well-written story. Yes, there are some examples of good environmental storytelling - for example, that tower which was overrun with chaurus or several caves containing crazed necromancer (can't remeber the name, you get the quest from Vekel the man), but these stories usually don't go beyond the cave's door.

I didn't say anything about bounties. For example, the quest for White Vial. It's a generic fetching quest. It could have been a miscellaneous quest, there will be no difference. There are tons of such quests.

"I also disagree about Oblivion quests. i didn't like Oblivion, so GTFO, Outrospective"

Actually, I didn't like Oblivion and consider it the worst of big three modern TES games in many aspects, but its quests were largely good and well-written. The quest for graverobbers in Imperial City, the quests about stolen painting and painted world, the lich's basemant in Anvil house, the Lovecraftian village in the middle of the woods, "Whom gods annoy" - these are only the examples of a very good quest-making.

Oblivion has tons of flaws, but quests are actually a few nicely done parts of the game.

I also saw some argument about "choice and consequence" from your part. I assume that having a choice is a very important part of any western RPG, even if it's a small choice. Skyrim is sadly lacking in this department. A good portion of quests offers only the choice "to follow the marker or forget about even doing this quest". Paarthurnax vs Blades quest is a great example of it.

looks like I remember you - it was you, who said that Dark Souls throws large bosses on the player for the sake of having large bosses with no background, and TES combat shouldn't borrow anything from Dark Souls combat as the latter is forced and unnatural. OK, I get you point.

But as a person, who doesn't want to see a reskinned Skyrim posing as TES VI, I think that Bethesda has a lot of areas of improvement to even participate in any competition on the market. Castrating the dialogue system to "Yes, No, Sarcasm" and reducing character development to only perks is not the progress TES needs. Voiced protagonists and crafting being the main focus of the game too.

Actually, not really. Ancient Nord's practiced polyamorous relationships in the past, with Hearth-Husbands, War Wives, and all other manners of titles and functions all basically...you get the point. If anything Skyrim is the most likely place to be completely open to the idea to begin with.

And that's ignoring that several deities in-universe have no distinct gender identity, that there is an entire people who undergo a six change as they age, where people are born with different forms depending on the position of the moon...yeah, sixual orientation is not going to be much of a problem.

I like to think that this is mostly from a Colovian view point. While they never have been properly represented, they're generally painted as more conservative as far as conduct goes.

It's possible i said that. I don't remember saying it, and in hindsight i don't actually agree with it, but i do REALLY dislike Dark Souls and view it as the cardinal embodiment of community oriented hype trumping good game design, but that's not really here nor there...

I disagree. Choice comes in many forms, and often it is the illusion of choice that's most important. Skyrim does this rather well, better than any other recent contemporary, by using vague outcomes or non-exclusive resolutions to create the illusion of choice. Did the Dark Brotherhood get destroyed, or did they asassinate the Emperor? Did the Stormcloaks kill Tullius, or did the Empire capture Windhelm? Did Madanach escape Markarth, or die in a prison break?

Choice for it's own sake is a crutch, one which games a far too quick to whip out these days. TES has tended to a more conservative use of the tool-that-is-choice, and while i tend to find their execution rather lacking most of the time, i vastly prefer it to the mess of alternate endings that seem to be making a resurgence in Western RPGs. You want to drown a franchise in paperwork, too much Choice is how you do it.

I agree, but that's never been a point of contention. What is, is whether or not The Witcher offers solutions to those problems. It does not, because the way TES games are handled, the way character interaction, character development, combat, story telling and virtually every aspect of the game is put together, is radically different. Trying to use Wild Hunt as an example of 'what to do' or taking lessons from their execution would require a dramatic change in the overall feel of and approach to the main-series TES games.

They need to improve, yes, but they need to improve what they do, not change to mimic what someone else does.

Not to mention more open sixuality having been part of the setting since at least Daggerfall. Coincidentally, pertaining to Barenziah's travels through Skyrim.

I'm not sure I agree with you on the value of "illusion of choice", or even if I'd define illusion of choice the same way... what you're talking about is being open to interpretation, which I wholeheartedly support and think needs to happen more often in storytelling. Elder Scrolls has a lot of situations where you get conflicting accounts and have to choose what you believe, and a lot of the time when we do get a choice we're left to decide on our own if it's the "right" choice - in Skyrim, it's the Civil War and a few quests like "In My Time of Need". But for me, illusion of choice is more when we get two choices that lead to an identical result - like the difference between blunt and blade skills in Oblivion, or pretty much all of the dialog with the Emperor in Oblivion's introduction. Not the best examples, but you know what I mean. Not that they can't use that kind of illusion of choice for story effect - like if there's a story point where we're doomed to a certain bad outcome, offering a few choices that ultimately lead to the same thing helps drive home the futility (and accusations that Bethesda's too lazy to write another outcome ).

But I do kinda have to agree about choice being used as a "crutch" - it seems like when a game gets so fixated on offering a ton of different choices and consequences, they focus on writing story scenarios that can branch out into as many different if/then outcomes, instead of trying to make them interesting first and foremost. The top priority should always be to tell stories that draw you in, engage you, and make you care. I always use New Vegas as an example when I talk about this - the story's airtight, and gets perfect marks on an RPG criteria checklist, but it couldn't get me to care about what was going on in the main storyline or really hook me in. I prefer the DLC storylines, even with their awkward pacing, heavy-handed symbolism, and occasionally confusing dialog (Ulysses).

Partially related, I personally don't think "player character that can be anybody" and "emotionally engaging storytelling" are mutually exclusive concepts. They could get away with jerking us around some more, IMO, among other things. I don't have much to say about dialog... my prediction is that we'll get a voiced protagonist for better or worse (there are other threads where we can talk about that, no need to talk about that here), something similar to Fallout 4's dialog menu but a little more refined, and overall dialog will be done similarly to what Fallout 4 does. I don't have much to add, but I do hope they expand on the kind of interactions we can have with NPCs - especially with the contextual crosshairs. Intimidation is a great perk, but I think they can afford to relax the skill requirements on it so that we can finally play an effective highwayman kind of character. I'd love a perk that lets us enter the barter menu with any friendly NPC - most of them wouldn't have any gold or anything to really offer, but it would be a fair and friendly option when you see an NPC with something you want. Speech perks that enable more NPCs to offer you services like training or following, expand merchant inventories, or companions would fit in nicely too I think. Depending on how workshop mode works, they could gate some extra functionality there behind speechcraft, like assigning workers.

Things that could be done probably with little complaint


From skyrim to w3


Ghosts in skyrim-they were basically reskins. I want a noonwraith type model with maybe powers


Horse calling


Notice board-better way than the skyrim and fallout way


Boats-sorry swimming to a remote caveacross the frozen sea not as cool as a boat.


Griifon vs dragon-now that dragons are back improve combat. Sorry but griffons ai and even some of the dragons in dragon age inquisition have better ai/tactics


Sheathes

A couple things I was just thinking about would be incorporating ideas from mods, along with a possible addition of a new race (here me out.)

As far as modding goes, I think it is safe to say that some of the best mods' ideas need to be incorporated into ES6. I'm sure this has been said before, but stuff like the UI overhaul, as well as better hairstyles and eyes, distance overhaul, better combat sounds, obviously a lot of this stuff is expected especially with the graphical end, but I think that if Bethesda looked at what some of the highest endorsed mods are, it would give suggestions as to areas where they could improve a considerable amount.

When I say new race, I know it is a very large stretch, but a couple possibilities for a new race would either be Dwarfs in the case of the Dwemmer coming back if that happens in the next game, or possibly an invasion from Akavir could happen and you could play as one of the races from Akavir, whilst still being in Tamriel. Probs won't happen, but I do think that Dwarfs (or maybe even Snow Elves?) as a playable race in the next game is a possibility. The only reason why I want some new races is because whilst I am fine with the elves, I feel like all of the really cool and iteresting races that have been mentioned in the lore have been ignored. I have forgotten the names so sorry about that, but the Ape people from Valenwood, and the Serpent people from Akavir seem really cool. To be honest, if you read the lore, all of the races from Akavir are really interesting and would be fun to play as, but I think its likely that if we do get a new race, the Dwemmer are the best bet.

I don't know what Skyrim was thinking with how they did ghosts. Daggerfall, Morrowind, and Oblivion had more interesting and unique types of ghosts than just a human with a translucent shader.

No thanks. I like having to ask around and talk to people to find jobs, not just head straight to the local quest center message board.

Thing is, the dragons in Skyrim were implemented as regular creatures that could be placed anywhere, and for the most part their AI "just worked". They weren't scripted encounters (they could be, and some were, but they didn't have to be) like most games that do large creatures, they were bigger than Witcher 3's regular flying creatures, and they could better interact with the environment (perching on roofs and such where they could attack from). I much prefer creatures that can work anywhere reasonable than to have them only work in the specific circumstances that they're hand-placed in.

So... following on from Bethesda's E3 address, if Fallout 4 will be on HTC Vive next year, would this almost certainly mean that TES6 will as well?

I think the Illusion of Choice comes in two distinct packages. Vague outcomes, or mutual endings.


In the former, you have something like Half-Life's ending. In the end, you are given a choice, accept the G-Man's terms, or don't. If you accept, you're basically put in stasis for later. If you refuse, you appear in a open area, surrounded by enemies, with no weapons, and the G-Man's voice echoes 'No regrets, Doctor Freeman?'. It gives you a choice of two outcomes, but the end result is leaves the outcome vague. Did Freeman cave to the threat and accept the terms, making the decision moot? Did he die there? This type of ambiguity is what allowed them to make Half-Life 2 without a complaint, because whichever choice you made, the beginning of Half-Life 2 was a reasonable continuation.


The other type of Illusion of Choice is what you discribe. I think that the Command and Conquer Tiberim Wars campaigns are a great example of this. Previously, you started a game by picking a side, playing through, and in the end your team wins. Starctaft (and later Warcraft 3) mixed this up by making its campaigns sequential stories. But Tiberium Wars feels like the old school system, as it's GDI and NOD campaigns run alongside each other... And by the end, you feel like you've won the day for your faction... Until you play the other side and realise that the two never cross over. The two stories end up converging on the same outcome, all without it becomming obvious until you've experienced both sides. Even the Skrin campaign follows this dynamic. And while C&C4 proceeded to ruin any bit of goodwill generated by how awesome C&C3 was, this approach did allow for better continued story telling without picking a side.


I've already said how I think the Civil War should have been handled, and it's very much the same idea. Two sides of a storyline don't have to be made mutually exclusive. Look at Game of Thrones. You've got a dozen different stories all worth having their own, set tale about, but they will inevitably converge on a single outcome. The trick is making that outcome feel balanced between the converging stories.


But keeping the outcomes quasi-vague is another way to inject some illusion of Choice into things without compromising the integrity of a continuing story or invalidating a players decisions. The Dark Brotherhood in Skyrim, for instance, is done in such a way that both options, Join and Destroy, are possible. Whether intentional or not, it's a great little element that serves to make your choice FEEL somewhat meaningful, without creating problems down the line.




Nor do I, but as I said, you have to go about it a little differently. When you have a pre-set identity, you can emphasise the Characters pain better, even if the Player isn't particularly attached to an emotional engagement. Aerith's death, for instance, remains emotional, even for people (like myself) who never really liked her, because the Characters involved experience the loss.


You can of course handle this as an outsider, for instance, if Ulfric's son died during the Imperial side kf the story, you can still drive that emotional loss even from the perspective of the opposing side... But its far more pronounced and stirring from the inside, so you need a way to establish these connections between the Character and the PC.




I'm tempted to say it was probably a time or resource restriction. It was either the Shader, or Ghost Models, and the Shader was more versatile. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I can sort of understand why it was done.


It wasn't particularly abnormal, either, because Daggerfall, Morrowind and Oblivion all had those full-bodies apparitions as well, so it's not like they totall changed how Ghosts functioned. Those games just also happened to have more 'Classical' ghosts like Wraiths as well.


I'd definately like an explanation for the different manifestations of Ghosts in Tamriel, but the full form, human ghosts very much have a place in the setting. I wouldn't mind more Witcher-Wraith designs for some of the more 'degraded' spirits though, it's definately more interesting than Oblivion's Wraith.




I think there's room for both. Bulletin boards would be a great tool for Radiant Quests, allowing you to more easily diversify the range of potential randomized quests without increasing the dialogue associated with them. Tying then to larger taverns and guilds also gives a good mechanism for increasing the interaction with those social focal points. They can also be used as ways to highlight points of interest, tied to various factions (The Dark Brotherhood positing things in code for other members) and to replace those thrice damned couriers.


Most pre-set quests should come from the quest giver, though, maintaining that emphasis on interaction.




Yeah, it ties somewhat back into the boss thing, but Dragons in Skyrim were not implemented as boss encounters. They were implemented as big, more powerful enemies that you could basically run into at any time. While I definsgely enjoyed the Dragon fights in Inquisition (I found the Grifons in Witcher rather mechanical and simplistic) they are done in such a way that is very 'Boss Fight' oriented. Their environments are built around their behaviours, rather than having a versatile enough set of behaviours that they can function anywhere.


I DO think that Bethesda needs to do more to improve the AI and behaviour of flying entities (really, all AI and behaviours) but I prefer their approach. Even if it's less epic, it feels mire natural.




Whole I agree on the Mod Inspiration (though I'm not a fan of SkyUI... it's too cluttered and tries too hard to give you all the data all the time, which is unnecessary 75% of the time) I don't think New races are likely, necessary, or really welcome. We already have 10 races, and if you can pick out cultural identities within those broad races, you have at least 30 different options ready to roll. Adding more just serves to muddy the waters for minimal gain.


That said, I think of any new Races were to be included, the Maormer or the Akaviri races would be at the top of the list. They've gone to pretty hefty lengths to make the Dwemer unsympathetic and hostile, so even if they were to return (again, unlikely, unnecessary, and rather unwelcome) them being playful is dubious at best, and they would be more likely to be villains. The Falmer are nearly, if not entirely extinct, and the only other 'common' races (Imga, Giants, Sload, Centaur, Satyr etc) are almost certainly morphologically different and would require far more work to design gear for.


So, the Maormer and the Akaviri are more likely than the other potentials.

It depends on how successful the Vive is, and when TES VI comes out. Starfield is also looking more and more like a BGS game, and we don't know for sure if TES VI will come out first or Starfield. For that matter, we still don't know for sure if Starfield is one of BGS' projects, and it's mostly just speculated that they're the studio making it because of the timing of the first trademarks and certain interviews. But if the Vive winds up being a successful line of VR products, then it's certainly possible that TES VI will be on it, whether it's the 2017-2019 range or the 2020-2024 range of potential release dates.

Seriously, ten races isn't enough??? And NO, PLEASE, no return of the Dwemer, why the ***** do so many people request this??? Is there really no sense of keeping the one true mystery of TES just that - a MYSTERY??

Hmm, I certainly hope it will be the earlier range rather than the later. 10 years or more would be far too long to wait for the next TES.

Since Bethesda has just opened a new studio in Canada, that could mean that they might be able to work on both TES6 and Starfield in tandem, though, couldn't it?

Radiant quests is probably the worst place for them. Radiant quests already have a problem fitting seamlessly into the world, so putting them on a kind of message board like that would just serve to further segregate them. Plus, getting quests from message boards makes it feel so impersonal, something radiant quests invariably have an issue with so why make it worse. Flashback to the chantry board quests for Dragon Age Origins. Witcher 3's message board quests generally at least had you go and talk to the quest giver first to get more information, so why not just skip the middle board and just go to the quest giver for info?

The main problem Skyrim and FO4 have with radiant quests is that there isn't nearly enough variation for how the radiant quests are setup. Inn Keepers rarely present a quest with something other than "The Jarl's men just dropped off this letter" (go kill a dragon or giant). You could smell a radiant quest from a mile away. Offering them through a message board isn't going to fix that.

The thing is, I think the Radiant Quests SHOULD be obvious. They aren't part of some big, story driven adventure, they're local jobs, calls for assistance, and bounties set up by individuals who need a hand at something, for people who want some coin. The lack of variety is a definate problem, but handling them in an overly personalised manner complicates the ease of expansion for them. You need dialogue for the actors involved, explaining the assignment and giving the reward. The more variability, the more lines. And the more possible sources, the more work it takes to round out the necessary dialogue.


Bulletin Boards are like the Classified Section in the phone book, a place where people who need skemtbing done, but up notice of that thing, in places where others are likely to see it. A Herbalist in need of Troll Fat isn't going to wait in her store and ask customers to get it for her, she's going to leave the request somewhere where Adventurers, Hunters or Mercenaries are likely to take notice of it. It's something that's been part of fantasy settings for ages, and a relatively common element in Renaissance and onward communities (the Stocks or Gallows often had a notice board, used to post local edicts, trial notices and 'Help Wanted' adverts). So theres definately a precidence for them being integrated into the community and the world.


Using it for Radiant Quests frees up almost the entirety of the introduction side of the quests, and allows you to condense the resolution into a few type-based lines. And in minimising the individual work applied to NPC dialogue, you can dramatically increase the number of NPCs that can become relevant for these random quests. Nazeem can request a Bear Skin for a new cloak, Oengul can request some Orichalum for a sword, Rustlief can request some flowers for his wife Seren. Such variability can even allow for more comfortable expiration of quests, as other are bound to eventually fill requests, allowing for grounds for more adventurers, travelers and such to be out and about while keepers ng the jobs cycling through as if they're there for more than just the Player's benefit.


It also offers a way to deliver those hints of expansions, events and leveled-content. Instead of a courier running you down to notify you of the opening if the Mythic Dawn Museum, a notice appears on the board. Instead of relying on Guards to randomly mention it, the Dawnguard notices start appearing. You can put up notices about the murders in Windhelm, the stray dog in Falkreath, or the missing shipment in Markarth. Use it as a hint of what's going on or who to talk to without having to resort to forced exposition or weirdly conversational NPCs.


There's a lot more that can be done with it than Origins or Wild Hunt did.