In real life when I talk to people I actually focus hard to determine if their happy, rude, sad, etc. It's not so easy to make out if a person is being sarcastic or not.

Even on the internet when people are being sarcastic I have a hard time thinking if they are sarcastic or not, because now a days people more often are not sarcastic than when they are sarcastic.

Even if it's obvious it's hard to tell. In both real life and on the internet.

And that's part of the issue. Engaging in dialogue with an appreciable amount of both depth AND character is difficult at the best of times, and it's made more difficult through text.

And that's not dealing with the mechanical benefits of voiced dialogue.

Again, though, we're not a situation where one is universally better. Speech will never replace the written word, and the written word will never replace speech. But they both have strengths which play to different elements of a game. From both a characterisation and mechanical sense, Voiced Dialogue has an advantage over text for NPC interactions ONLY. For the PC, for Narration, for any in-game books and papers, actual text remains vastly superior.

Please dont kill me (sad)

Begone! (mad)

Thank you i love you! (happy)

why dont u jump off the cliff then? (sarcastic)

the bracket (blabla) will tell you the emotions

Pretty much all of this.

Who can argue that Cicero was kind of a garbage character if we don't take his journals into account?

Bethesda is more than capable of leaving little notes, journals and items around that build character in a way that dialogue can't, and their budget is big enough that they can afford enough voiced dialogue to make their characters seem interesting.

We can have good world-building that involves text, through the use of books, lists, notes, diaries and whatnot, as well as voiced NPCs. Text is a viable option for a great deal of information, but some things are better conveyed with tone and emphasis. We just need a good director to tell the voice actors the context of their speech.

Auto lock target systems

This is to assist the action combat. Especially if you play locational damage mod in skyrim.

aim like usual with your mouse, example at the enemy head.

press the mapped key for auto lock target (example z) then click at enemy body part. Now u have lock the target.

Its like a guided missiles, as long as you facing the target, everytime u attack it will hit the head. even if u aim at the leg or not even aim at the enemy.

to cancel just press z again. repeat if u want to do to next target.

I hate shooter game, so i comes up with this idea. shooter is mind tiring.

Please no! That sounds dreadful.

It's usually pretty easy to tell. The voice acting usually matches how somebody feels by using inflections. I do miss persuasion from Morrowind and Oblivion though -- not the Oblivion minigame necessarily, but the idea behind the minigame. Morrowind's persuasion system made more sense, and Oblivion's facial representation of how somebody feels about you was a good touch.

I only agree so far as NPC voice acting goes. But it doesn't make any sense to have a voiced protagonist in TES, because that character has no backstory and is supposed to be you. I want to "hear" my character speak in my own voice with my own accent and voice inflections by reading text.

Voiced protagonists work for games like The Witcher, because that protagonist already has a defined character and backstory.

While I'm not against voiced NPC's being in video games.

I still prefer text dialogues for the NPC's in video games over voiced NPC's.

The worlds of RPG video games is better with text dialogues.

I can imagine the voices what they sound like and I can try to think if the NPC's are happy, rude, sad, sarcastic, etc. Something which voices will never provide for me.

Agreed. Voice Acting still has advantages over silent text for player characters, but because the establishment of character and identity is more the players responsibility in games like TES than it is the developer, those advantages have to contend with different criteria and sacrifices. Some day there may be a way to offer those advantages without having to make those sacrifices, but we arent anywhere near presenting enough different options to do so yet.

The problem is, it's not yours to imagine. NPCs are (or rather should be) developed individuals with their own likes and dislikes, their own speech patterns and identity, not something that you as a player are charged with making up as you go.


That's part of world building, fleshing things out enough that the players don't have to rely on their imagination to fill in holes. Good world building creates a world in which the information presented is consistent from one player to the next. You, as a player, aren't left to make things up, but rather experience the world built by someone else. It's about experiencing the product of the Builder's Imagination, not your own.


The better a world is built, the less you as the Experiencer have to imagine, but relying in your imagination as a crutch to fill in gaps is often over-used, particularly by smaller developers, to cover up shallow worldbuilding. It was once a necessity of the medium, but we're past the point of those limitations. Bethesda is guilty of this too, mind you, so it's not like they've absolved themselves of the sin.

I am not a fan of auto-lock systems. In very select circumstances (Soldier 76's Tactical Visor for instance) it can be neat and characterful, but by and large I feel they take away the inherent stress and awareness of combat, forcing an unnatural focus and making things feel far too Arcade-y.


That said, the 3rd person camera is probably a significant hurdle towards a functioning location damage system, and I don't really see a particularly good alternative to it in resolving that problem. At least not without forcing those who want to exhibit that sort of precision to play First Person... Maybe some way to highlight where you're aiming more clearly...





Anyway, missed this earlier, and with the exception of the end-game notion of mastering everything, I think its got some merit.


While I still think that the current system of Skills is sound on its own (or with minimal additions) I have been thinking about Techniques again lately. More specifically, about Jackal's variation on the idea. Basically, that you learn a 'Technique' and that increases specific aspects of a Skill (as opposed to my Point-Modifiers idea where Techniques replace the %Increase perks).


I think that the idea has some real potential in doing a few things. First, it helps offload % Increases from the Perks, without making them too automatic to skills, and thus diversifying skill expression (IE not everyone at Armour 30 is going to be the same). Second, it gives more interesting Reward and Exploration options, giving you something to discover beyond loot, as well as something for NPCs to give beyond skill levels or cash. Third, it gives an opportunity to make Trainers relevant, and to make it actually feel like they have something to teach. And finally, it gives some world building room to flesh out different approaches to the generallly broad concepts that are the Skills.


While not Skills in their own right, Techniques could be linked to Skills, and require practice to master. This would be similar to some of the Job Characteristics in Final Fantasy Tactics, where you have to have one 'Equipped' to progress with it, but once mastered it becomes a permanent feature of the character.


So, for instance, you could learn the Hammerfell Dervish technique for fighting with bladed weapons from a Trainer. You activate it in your Skills menu, and while you level the Skill, you also level the Technique. When you've achieved enough Skill Levels with the Technique active, you master it and it becomes a permanent modifier, allowing you to then start mastering another technique.


By linking it to Skill Level Increases to gain progress with a Technique, you also do a few things. One, you're emphasising using that Technique to integrate it into your personal style. Two, you're encouraging a degree of planning and specialization, as Techniques will become more time consuming to master as time goes on (10 levels of 1-Handed Weapon are quicker to gain at 30 than at 90). Three, it also plays into open ended Skill Progression, making it so there's no real need to cap Skills, and giving you room to continue mastering specific skills well past 100 (provided there are still Techniques to learn).

that auto lock systems was optional, you dont want it, simply dont press the auto lock button

and yes technique.

and more high level enemies to fight when we master all the techniques. maybe create new dlc with maps of high level mobs

Buttons are kind of at a premium, though. If you have a dedicated Auto-Lock option, you have to give up something else that could have been there.

who said that hehe. have u play game like dota 2...if u dont want that to be mapped just dont map it to any key....heheh ..player can edit that in the control settings

I have played DOTA 2.. HotS 4 Life!


Anyway, we aren't talking specifically about a Computer game here. If we were, it would be fantastic, and so many problems could easily be dealt with, bit we have to think about the gamepads as well. And they just arend as customizable as a mouse and keyboard.


Even then, I don't think it's a necessary, or even really beneficial feature. Then again, I haven't really liked any games with an auto-lock feature... Overall, I just feel that it would lack any real responsiveness and the ability to really adjust to a fight in the moment, because it takes control away from the player. Having to unlock every time you want to change target, or just target another body part on the same enemy, adds a lot of extra work for minimal gain.

who still with consoles? laptap way more better...we can play games and do work (typing/video editing) with laptop..and we have gtx 980 and gtx 1080 in laptop

most consoles kids are cod players. so they probably wont use auto assist anyway.

Given that Skyrim Remastered exists primarily for the vocal parties that wanted Skyrim on the newer consoles...a very significant amount of the player base.

There are still a LOT of people playing on consoles. According to Statistics Brain, as of February 2015, 86% of Skyrim sales were on Console. It's unclear if this statistic is about physical sales or if it includes purely digital sales, but it's unlikely it even gets to a 50/50 split with that disparity if digital sales aren't included.


Ignoring almost 90% of your player base when designing a game isn't a good idea.

86% totally ignores digital sales on PC, it's only boxed version. PC is the best selling platform of all 3, only the combined consoles surpass PC.

Got any evidence to support that? Because the closest thing I can find regarding even an estimate of how many PC copies of Skyrim sold as of 2015 is 5.1 million, extracted from the number of Steam Accounts that had played it. That's still less than the 6.2 million in PlayStation 3 alone, and well below the 13 million Xbox 360 sales.


Todd Howard HAS said that Skyrim was their best selling game on PC, but that's not a stretch considering the huge bump in sales from Oblivion and Fallout 3 to Skyrim.


Because Steam doesn't generally release digital sales figures, it's difficult to gauge exactly how many PC sales there are, but at 14% of their physical sales as of 2015, you're looking at 3.2 million, or thereabouts. To reach the 5.1 Mark of accounts played, you're looking at a 38% difference between Physical and Digital sales on PC. Even if you assume that only 50% of people who bought it on PC played it, you're still nowhere close to matching console sales.


Even if we take that often cited 30 million sales, and apply it to the Feb 2015 records of 23 million, then assume that ALL 7 million remaining copies are PC, you're still looking at 10.2 million copies on PC. Below Xbox 360, and a little more than half Xbox and PS combined.


Sorry, the math just doesn't add up with the idea that PC is the dominant platform. The better one, sure, but there is still at least half the player base playing on Console.

Steamspy s operating with a low error margin and it says Skyrim has 10.6 million pc owners. http://steamspy.com/app/72850

If 10.6 million represents only 14% of the total Skyrim sales it means Skyrim sold 70+ million copies which is more than GTA V and lolworthy.

Which matches the second estimate I gave, and still puts its sales below that of Xbox 360 more than a year ago. And, again, at slightly more than HALF the total console sales. And still matches with my original conclusion that even a 50/50 split is a stretch if the cited figures didn't include digital sales.


So, once again, Console players still make up the majority, by a rather significant margin.

The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt (TW3WH) by CDProjekt Red (CDPR) has sold 1,945,672 units on Steam (Steam) by Valve Corporation (VC) because it has weapon (weapon) and armor (armor) degradation so the next game should have the player character (PC) able to pick up any (almost any) object in front of his or her face.

Your writing style is very much like another poster in this thread, Ballowers100.

I highly doubt almost 2 million people bought a game just because your sword can break. Let's at least give CD Projekt Red some credit for their writing.


Even then, it's degredation system is pretty rubbish.




You already can. If it's not furnature, or nailed to the floor, you can pick it up. You can't stuff everything into your pack, sure, but even those big platters the Nords use for offerings in their Barrows can be picked up.




I certainly hope we're not dealing with that.. we may disagree on just about everything, but I respect Ballowers too much to make assumptions...

Mods should easily be able to tell whether they're posting from the same IP