If I have one request for you if you post in my thread it's this: Please don't turn this into a MW vs. OB thread. I would demand, no I dare you to only list the positives that each game has going for it. If you want to be clever when you do this fine, but only list positive things about each game please and no negatives. Thank You

Ok here is my long-winded barely tolerable wall of rambling text that will be forgotten forever in a few pages, but I'm in the mood to just vent my mind so here it goes...


A little about me so that my opinion is recognized as more than a passing devoted fan's rant. I am 23, I have been gaming since I was 5 and I have been addicted to video games since I played Mario Bros. and Duck Hunt on the Nintendo. My computer gaming started early on when Windows 3.1 was the newest [censored] on the market and you launched your games from DOS if you wanted to play them. To make this long story short lets just say I'm not an average gamer by any means at all. You can view my half-baked profile at GamerDNA if you want, I haven't gotten around to finishing it but it shows many of the games I actually beat and/or played 50+ hours in from my childhood until adolescence around when the Nintendo 64 came out (I didn't include any games I just 'played once', only games I actually played a lot or beat). Remember this is from about age-ish 5 to around 13 or 14 I believe. I'm too lazy to finish it right now: http://vvemoth.gamerdna.com/ EDIT: They actually removed over half my titles I had added to it I just noticed, so it's a rather pitiful list. I'm pretty mad but nothing I can do *shrug* It's a worthless calling card now.

Enough about me, let's talk about Bethesda as a company for a moment. What has Bethesda done right? The way I ask that may sound deceiving, and I do that intentionally because I have good news. They have done many things right.

Todd Howard has a very humble approach to his success as a director for a leading game franchise. He attributes his success not to his apparent gaming genius but to the less obvious fact that his passion for rpgs is shared by many consumers, so he is preeminently fortunate.[citation needed] (I believe he said essentially this same thing in a podcast, I am only paraphrasing). Along with this good attitude from the company director you have some individuals of the company itself keeping their positions over the series history, i.e. you have the same people working on the same franchise throughout it's history. Don't underestimate the artistic and cultural value this brings to the consistency of the franchise. If you want examples of how much a franchise can look differently when it changes hands just look at the Diablo series (with an unbiased view I would implore. And I didn't bring this up to say those working on that series do poor work, only the difference when hands are changed).

Adding to the individuals involved directly with the company itself Bethesda Softworks is a privately owned company, meaning they don't buy and sell stock publicly. This can be the difference between a giant body of money factory mindless hired employees who work for the bottom line, so the public stock holders (whose real interest is the value of stock) are satisfied, and a body of hired employees who are not just interested in the short-sightedness of the bottom line, but also in the name they make for themselves as a collective company and the reputation they acquire among real critics of the franchise they are involved in (and even *gasp* their loyal fanbase?). Much like the difference between a pop music band that is trying their darndest to promote shallow yet formulaic songs (to sell to the naive and the unrefined) and a band that is privately owned who have a strong following but are not starving for attention (ala Tool perhaps?). Here is a good read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privately_held_company

All of these things contribute to the real artistic value and ultimately the success of The Elder Scrolls franchise and even it's half brother Fallout 3.

Now about the games.

I have personally played Morrowind very thoroughly and I have played Oblivion probably about 100 hours worth (and have been delightfully interrupted by an endless mini-game called modding). I am not going to go into the complex design matrix of each game and dissect it thoroughly exposing the flaws of each, but I will go over some of the most interesting attributes of each of the games and add them up to the tally of what The Elder Scrolls has going for them.

First lets go over Morrowind. I haven't played this game for at least 2 years, so this is going to be as candid a memory without devoted fan bias as you can have from a long time gamer.

The first thing I remember about Morrowind is stepping off the boat knowing absolutely nothing about the world I was in, the problems that were going on in the country, who ruled it, what my little "package" was all about, where I was going or what I needed to do. That feeling was actually awesome. I remember getting a feel for the sheer scope of the game when traveling for the first time and checking my world map. I was absolutely floored, and honestly unconvinced initially until I played the game more to find out the "catch" involved in this game that had such an apparent scope.
All I remember of my first character in my first Elder Scrolls game was this: once I learned I could do whatever I wanted I became the biggest thief ever. I could do whatever I wanted! This feeling was incredible. I was no longer in linear shackles that so many other games, even large rpgs like Final Fantasy VII held me fast to. I could do whatever I wanted. And just about everything in the game was something you could interact with. Clutter were real items, so were flowers and plants! (I didn't realize the alchemy potential of the game until much much later after many hours of gameplay). I did just about everything in Morrowind but the main quest. I played it several hundred hours without doing the main quest. That thought alone was really amazing to me and I remember bragging to my friends about the open-ended world that Morrowind was, how incredibly huge it was and how many dungeons, caves, tombs there were and how "you didn't even need to do the main quest if you didn't want to". That reality alone was incredible to me as a gamer.

I'd say if there is one thing that I took away from all my hours of playing Morrowind was the real sense of exploring something strange and new that I really couldn't predict. It seemed no matter where I was in Vvardenfel there was some kind of gem to find, a special hand crafted dungeon to explore or a character carefully tucked away that was very interesting to learn about (I still remember discovering Divayth Fyr and his Dwemer companion down below. That was really something to meet them!). No matter how much I had already explored it seemed there was something new and interesting and different to find. It was a game of true exploration without limits. That's what I remember in a nutshell.

Later I finally did the main quest and the Tribunal and must say it is to this very day the most memorable main quest I have ever completed in any game, but I also attribute that to my huge investment into the game world itself already so I was predisposed. Nevertheless no other storyline has really been able to get my emotions flowing just the same way (But I will say Mass Effect [1,2] is a close second).

Now onto Oblivion. To be honest I approached Oblivion like the blind giggling Elder Scrolls devoted fan I was. You don't need to brace for impact, I'm not going to talk about how "Oblivion changed so much omg". In all honesty I really liked Oblivion. I liked it. Sure it wasn't Morrowind, but I embraced many of the changes and played the game for what it was. As always I played the Vanilla game itself for a long time before adding any mods and completed a few guilds. The game-play was great. The combat was a vast improvement over Morrowind in terms of actually feeling like combat. I love how they took out the entire "miss" formula and encouraged your mind to engage in the 'suspense of disbelief'. The voice acting was great. I know it has received criticism of one sort over it but when this game was released the amount of voice acting in other games amounted to scrolling text a la Diablo 1 and 2 with a sprite standing next to you, or some oldschool game like King's Quest where the actual characters were far and few between. Bethesda didn't fail to deliver on the amount of content while making it's signature colossal sandbox game and still figuring out a way to have every single text voice acted. Bravo Bethesda, bravo. That was a huge undertaking and no other game in history up to that very point could brag anything close to this (correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think I am). Not only was the text voice acted, but it was lip synced with the NPC. My first memories of Oblivion were just being in awe at the voice acted lip synced bucket of awesome that the every single NPC in the game was going to have. I honestly couldn't wait to explore and meet new people.

Again I avoided the main quest at first and completed the Mage's Guild. I loved the new spell system as it just seemed to be more refined and smoothed out over Morrowind. I could now carry a weapon and not need to switch into 'spell ready' mode. I could cast fireballs on the fly and really feel like a Warlock. The initiation into the Arcane University was a long one, but it was a welcome challenge. Once I finally got in I fealt like I had really earned something. Despite what people say about Bethesda's apparent desire to appeal to the casual gamer this game mechanic (where you must complete quests at every single Mage's Guild establishment before getting to the meat and potatos of the Guild) really showed where the developer's heart(s?) lie when making this game. That wasn't a casual gaming move.

When I finally decided to do the main quest I must say I was in for a treat. That sense of not knowing what to expect returned to me completely and it was like watching a movie. At every turn in the main quest I wanted to do more and find out what would happen.

The most memorable experiences I'd say I remember from Oblivion are the fantastic environment and the battles. The environment looked different and more Romanized than Morrowind, but I loved it. I loved the trees that actually looked like trees. I loved the Ayeleid ruins that really felt and looked like old ruins. I loved the graphics, the lakes, the rivers and the horses. The old forts were awesome, and I loved going out into a giant forest and just feeling like I was in a forest and looking at the mountains in the far off distance. And the combat! What a welcome change. The combat wasn't just changed and improved, it was overhauled and moving in a very right direction from my point of view*. The fact a stealth system was implemented at all was a great feat in of itself. I mean Bethesda really went the route of innovation with the rpg genre at this point and didn't stick to the "basic formula" that many mainstream developers are so fearfully constrained by. Everything you saw in Oblivion that changed was evidence of willing innovation and creative developing from a large and well funded software developing company.This fact should be welcomed more than it's criticized. The stealth system in Oblivion gave me the opportunity to play the most realistic and fun character I have ever played in an rpg (I made a Legolas style stealth archer. Oh so much fun). And with the allowance of modifications to the game Oblivion is not going to die anytime soon and will endure the test of time with the best games ever made.


*To talk briefly about what we are all looking for in a traditional rpg is nearly impossible. But I will sum up my personal conclusions without another wall of text.

In the early days you had rpgs with little sprites you could barely make out were some kind of humanoid walking around an "overworld" getting into unseen random battles and fighting other sprites who had a set amound of "HP" or a number that, when reaching zero, meant it died. Why did we make a game like this? Was it because we thoroughly enjoyed number crunching? The short answer is no. We played our games this way because of the limitations involved in making a game that you could actually play. What we really wanted was a cool game where you could get measurably more powerful in an enriched fanciful version of reality (fact: level 4 is bigger than 3, therefor it's better and measurably more powerful). What we had to sacrifice to do this at the time (starting with table games like D&D) was the detail work of combat. Instead of trying to work out a large complex number system (which actually some games have done in the past) and trying to figure out what an attack on somebody's arm meant, or leg, or head or how the battle would have gone in a sea of detail minutia, we invented one overall value called your "Health" or "Health Points" and your character "Attacked" that pool of health until it was gone. Our imagination made up for the rest of the details of how the battle went (hence why you could even "miss" an apparent attack at all).

Or did it? I have seen a strange bastard child rise out of this HP and Attack formula that doesn't seem to be aware of it's origins at all. It's almost like the idea of HP/MP and just bland statistics are holding rpg gamers in a trance and they need to be slapped to get out of it. We never wanted a system of numbers. We only like "levels" because they are a way to measure increased strength and ability. The reality is, if we had the technology and resources we would create a believable world with a believable battle system that was not reliant on a visible number system. Visible numbers substitute an otherwise impossible way to to measure an increase in an avatar's skill through use. We want this to feel as much like real life as possible, while still granting us measurable success and power. To illustrate: If you are watching a movie like Lord of The Rings, a well written fantasy realm where power is tangible and battle with evil is more physical than spiritual, would you not notice if say Legolas fired an arrow straight through an Urikhai's head and simply didn't die? Better yet, wouldn't you notice if that particular Orc walked about completely unfazed (because his HP isn't zero yet, it's still 5) and then after he is sliced by a dagger on his bottom left calf he keeled over and died, wouldn't you snap out of your 'suspense of disbelief' trance and say "that is stupid, this movie isn't realistic at all". Of course you would! You know it. Well we are at this point in video games, especially starting in games like Oblivion, where we really need to start shedding our outer shell of numbers and embrace a more realistic approach to the suspense of disbelief. I'm not saying visible numbers won't play a role, but I am saying that a greater effort needs to be done to incorporate realistic gameplay with a measurable increase in power, balancing the two out until the day we can shed the visible number system some believe to be the crux of the genre.

I have heard that Fallout 3 used a system with locational damage and was even further along than Oblivion with these thoughts, but I have only played it for several hours about a year ago so my knowledge is limited.


Well here it is my large rant and thoughts about The Elder Scrolls. I would actually post my "Thoughts and Ideas for Elder Scrolls 5" here but there is a special bus.. errrm thread for that so I will mosey on over and post them there.

I wouldn't mind generating discussion on just about anything I have talked about. Even if you didn't read this entire post. Anyways, thanks for listening to my big long rant.

Cheers,

-Vvemoth

Glad you got that off your chest

If i had something to say ....and only good, dismissing my 70 reason to hate Oblivion...

The only thing i liked in Oblivion was the combat system, it is spot on...
The grafics but Beth always had nice grafics


The thing i liked in Morrowind:

The subplots merging to the main quests
The world managing to integrate comon and bizarre in a wonderfull way
The gray main quest (not black not white)
The moral choices in some missions
The fact that you had to evolve to reach some place which give a sense of achievement
Same as above for the main quest
The many subplots just for the sake of them
The freedom it had, i already knew daggerfall and Arena so i was used to it, but the producer weren t hypocrite not including false unrealistic urgencies Like: the world will end if you do nothing but actually it doesnt at all.
The size of the place in pair with the lore
The respect to the existing main lore
Exploring weird places, i never felt like: wasn t i here before?!
You had to read and understand to make some quest, way more challeging and interesting than the last title.

The feeling of freedom and adventure when roaming through expansive forests and plains

The fun of the combat and firing paralyze spells only to slash the foe to death

The joy of leveling up and increasing power

The amount of quests and clans to join and complete

The awesome graphics which really felt like "living another life, in another world"

I loved how Morrowind didnt force you into doing anything, and wasnt doing pushing you towards the main quest. The attention to detail was incredible and I i still think of it as the most immersive game ive ever played.

Oblivion breathed new life into the series, and I liked how cyrodiil was a fantasy cliche, except it was so much different in so many ways. The combat and magic system were better and far more realistic, and and the graphics are still some of the best ive seen, even more so if you're using mods.

That was the only thing I didn't like about Oblivion. Not spot on at all, I'm afraid.

That feeling of getting off the boat in MW is still one of my favorite experiences in gaming.

What confuses me is why you never picked up Fallout 3. Granted, I definitely prefer TES myself, but if you enjoyed MW and OB and put in as many hours as you say, it's hard to imagine you not getting your money's worth out of Fallout...

I'm sorry but I have to say this...


Cool story bro.

Me too. It's amazing what some coffee and a day off from work can motivate you to do.


I don't know which ones your talking about exactly, but I remember learning more about Nerevar and thinking that the lore was actually really cool.

Morrowind wasn't the first game to do strange as their theme, but I loved the way they did it. It blended well with the environment. I love the swamps and all of the small swamp cities. One my favorite thing to do in Morrowind was go around and look for cities I hadn't found yet. I don't know why but it was a blast!

That was great. Other games have had similar themes but nobody did big and open without limits like an Elder Scrolls game. It's in it's own league (for a non-MMO).

I was never a big lore guy with the Elder Scrolls series, but Morrowind really svcked me in, especially the Tribunal. I was just enthralled with Vivec, Almalexia and Sotha Sil. I still remember getting to Sotha Sil's clockwork city and really just feeling like I am in an incredible and wonderful place that few other persons had ever seen. It was such a big highlight to the entire Elder Scrolls experience.




Totally agree with you here.


Definitely immersive. I didn't even need to try to get immersed it was so easy to do.

I have shown friends a modded Oblivion with upgraded graphics today and have had them go "whoa" involuntarily when they see the screen. The game can look like real life! It's really easy to immerse yourself when the graphics lend so well the experience.


Well the reason really never picked it up is because I haven't had a computer to run it until recently. I have played it on Xbox360, but I knew it wouldn't do the game as much justice as it deserved. I am still going to pick it up when I have time to get lost in it. But it's really more of a choice of putting it off because I want the experience to be perfect, knowing what to expect from it. Also, when I did play it I wasn't exactly in the mood for an rpg-shooter type game (so I made a melee only character), but he kinda svcked (bigtime) so my very first experience with Fallout 3 wasn't as epic as I hear it is if you play it with guns

Hehe. Thanks Reminds me of that youtube video "What story mark" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4xcL2q64fo

I was expecting a long rant, but instead found something much more interesting to read. I enjoyed reading about your gaming history (which is very similar to mine) and your views on Bethesda's games and RPG as a whole.


A more extreme example would be Zelda 1 / Zelda 2. That was a shocking transformation, to say the least.

Loved your thoughts on the HP systems in games. It's so true.

I've been hoping Beth will see the potential to revolutionize combat with http://www.naturalmotion.com/euphoria.htm, integrating the engine into their first-person combat system. If every 'hit' on an NPC still has to drain a pool of hit points, then surely the next step forward would be to ensure that NPCs 'block', 'parry', or 'dodge' those hits using the above animation engine. Damage numbers would still be subtracted from their HP pool, but we wouldn't see our swords cleave through our opponents several times, painting the walls red, before they finally keeled over and died. Only the final attack, reducing their HP to 0, would be shown to visually connect with flesh, and could be made to look really brutal.

Balancing the damage and hits required to an opponent's 'level' would be important, so that rats die straight away; an average bandit in a few well-placed attacks; and a skillful boss-type warrior would be able to stand toe-to-toe with your seasoned character for a lengthy test of swordsmanship. Timing your attacks and blocks to counter your opponent's; being denied your attacks when you see an opening as your opponent parries your blade aside at the last second, until their stamina reserves appear to run low and you finally connect with the thrust that proves you to be the dominant combatant, running your adversary through with battle-tempered steel.

That's the combat I want to see in TES:V. Don't get me wrong, Oblivion's was great at the time and really amazed me, but now seems to be a simple case of hacking up every living creature who wishes me harm until they finally fall down. The immersion is gone these days.

Speaking for myself, the thing that mostly draws me to cRPGs is the fantasy setting. Take that away and you take 90% of my interest away, whether the game is developed by Bethesda or not. A love of Elder Scrolls games does not automatically translate to a love of Fallout 3. I've been playing Elder Scrolls games since 2002 and I couldn't stand Fallout 3. I didn't like the retro post-apocalyptic atmosphere (a game-breaker for me, right there). I didn't like V.A.T.S. The animations were worse than Oblivion's (though better than Morrowind's). I hate games with guns. I could go on...

So, the gist of your argument is that RPGs need to evolve beyond the traditional numerical representations of various character attributes, actions, and events?

If I am not incorrect in my assumption, then I would agree with you wholeheartedly. There is another member on the forums, Daniel Kay, who has frequently suggested what he calls "fluid leveling" which is as far as I can approximate, just such a system. As you said we still enjoy the metric of "character level" as a yardstick by which to measure the success and growth of our characters. I think that is something that can stay, and it can be estimated by certain accomplishments or skill gains. The question is how to measure those initial skill gains.

Bethesda in general has been a pioneer in a direction somewhat similar to what you suggest. The fact that your skill with a certain weapon, armor, or magic type is increased with use, and not simply generalized experience points applied at the will of the player. Where it has failed is that still, after a certain number of these skill increases, the player "levels" up, gains a numerical factor of Health, and has the option of selecting what attributes to increase, which are also presented with a factor based on how often that attribute was called into play by the skills which are governed by it. Why not remove that system entirely, and have the the attributes grow directly in proportion to the skills which rely on them?

The second question is on those attributes, and other factors like "health." You brought up an example of the orc being shot by Legolas, who is alive after what is normally a fatal wound, and only killed by the addition of a wound which is normally not fatal, but the infliction of which had erased the remaining invisible variable of "HP." As games become more realistic visually, it will be necessary to make them more realistic in other ways as well. Wounds to vital areas would be more deadly, wounds to legs or arms would cause the reduced mobility in those limbs. In addition, how do you quantify the damage done and the amount of damage that can be taken? For instance, if I were in a fist fight with a professional MMA fighter, you could easily say that he had higher strength and "health points" than I did, as he is trained to both give and receive more bodily damage than I. However, if we were both to be shot with a gun, there might be very little difference between our ability to survive it. In game terms, what makes a warrior more able to withstand more sword blows than a mage? Does he really have twice the amount of health? Obviously he wears more armor, but is that all that differentiates him from the mage in terms of survivability?

I guess my point is that there are so so many individual variables to be calculated for a "realistic" system that oftentimes the most basic one "Attack" vs "Health Points" is not too far off. A warrior is given twice as much HP than a mage, which in turn not only represents his physical robustness (which realistically could not be twice as high as the mages, unless he was exactly twice as massive in physical size) but also his ability to dodge or parry the sword thrusts aimed at him. Now, you could add that parrying ability in as it's own factor (this would help eliminate the annoying "missed swings" of Morrowind) but then what about his ability to survive arrows which cannot be blocked? Perhaps as a veteran of combat, he can shrug off the occasional arrow wound, whereas a scholarly mage would become susceptible to shock, and would fall down unconscious with what is not an immediately fatal wound. To come back to the allegory of the head shot orc, perhaps he barely managed to keep going, and the single dagger strike to his leg caused him to fall down, and thus hamstringed, he cannot go on and will shortly bleed to death.

So there will always be variables that we cannot account for. If a warrior is struck in the arm, does he lose a fraction of his life, the ability to use the arm, or some of both? How much damage does one arm take to go from being slightly wounded to completely severed? At what point is adrenaline not enough to allow the fighter to ignore the wound and use the arm at full capacity? Will he continue to bleed from the arm until he passes out? Obviously we must try and make the actions within our games more realistic, unless you prefer the pure "anything is possible" fantasy (I do not) but at some point we must accept that the basic numeric variables we get for any attribute or action are simply an estimation, and while we can make it more precise, we rarely make it more accurate or see a deviation from the original sum, much as rounding a number the nearest tenth and hundreth, from 1.0 to 1.4 to 1.49. We are then tempted to round up to 2.0, but is this more or less accurate then our original estimation?

Ah, good "rant", without actually ranting. You're also a "newcomer" to gaming. I remember playing "terminal-based" games long before PCs were available, and the first "Pong" game that actually used a set of motors to drive the action; no actual "smarts" at all. The genre has come an incredibly long way since then.

You're right, in that "hitpoints" should no longer be the sole determinant of combat results. Localized damage, along with localized effects, should come into play, with "hitpoints" relegated to a secondary mechanism to account for the cumulative effects of all of the "light" wounds and continuing blood loss. As "hitpoints" decline, a character should be less effective, leaving them vulnerable to that "finishing" move that would normally be easy to block. Besides, it's quite possible to bleed to death from several minor injuries. The next generation of games needs to evolve beyond the current system, while still being aware of the original rationale behind it.

The truly "open ended" approach that Bethesda took in making the TES games made me rethink my opinion of "Fantasy" games, from "mindless waste of time" to "captivating", especially with the convoluted and complex web of deceit and half-forgotten myth woven around the Morrowind MQ and its expansions. The little that I've seen of DF is a contradiction; the heavily randomized content makes it ultimately "mindless" because there is no "pattern" to random content, but the extensive character choices, dialog options and decisions in the major questlines, and overall challenge due to "acceptable risks of failure" (without having to reload the last save), which was toned down in MW and all but removed in OB, were anything but "mindless".

From MW to OB, there was a definite tradeoff between character-based actions and player-based actions, with MW much more reliant on the stats and abilities of the character, which caused such annoyances as missed swings and other failed actions, whereas OB placed far more emphasis on the abilities of the player, to the point that some skills were all but irrelevant (particularly with mini-games). Making a system which balances the two while not alienating half of the fans will be a real challenge, but at least Bethesda is innovative enough to tackle it with a reasonable chance of success. I'm a strong proponent of seamless levelling mods, where you don't "choose" most of your improvements, but simply get better through use (GCD and MADD for MW, and nGCD or Kobu's for OB).

Oblivion's introduction of Physics, NPC schedules, and full voice-acting were awesome additions, but came at a steep price. Hopefully, the next installment will integrate them into the game in a smoother fashion without sacrificing the diversity and depth that made the earlier games so appealing. The higher quality graphics also came at the cost of less diversity: less armor, weapons, clothing, and other items, as well as less skills and less overall game content, all of which appealed more or less to some players than to others. It would be great to have BOTH the beautiful graphics AND the diversity, but that takes more time and money. Other little touches, such as poisons, persistent arrows, and easier selection of matching alchemy effects were definite improvements in the series.

I actually had a lot more titles on the list when I made my profile, and (not really surprisingly) a lot of the titles I added were not in their "database" so I suppose I was the first one to add some of the games. When I made this thread I thought it would be a nice calling card just to show others, but when I rechecked the list a lot of the game titles were missing that I had added, mostly the ones I needed to add to their database. Well that kind of svcked and I tried contacting their technical support but oh well... maybe I will spend some time today adding them back.

I have played a lot of different RPGs that are not listed on gamerDNA, so I'd say I'm pretty well informed. Not to mention the ability to emulate old console games on PC now, I have had a taste of just about everything that has been tried.


The Euphoria engine looks really impressive. I have heard that Bethesda are using Gamebryo right now? I suppose we are not so well informed as to what products are being used with their current stealth project, but hopefully they don't pull any punches.
Everything you described in your battle scenario sounds great. The way I have Oblivion modded for myself right now, with "Unnecessary Violence's" location damage scripting, I have tried to my best ability to create a realistic battle system where swords and arrows do the kind of damage you would expect them to do in real life and I must say, for me personally it has been great fun. It would be nice to see some smoother professional software used to create such an rpg environment.
Balancing a level system where you can still measure an increase in skill and power in a realistic environment is still very possible. For instance, there is a mod for Oblivion that makes your Bow actually sway when you have an arrow knocked. And depending on your bow skill level, the sway can be great or very little. I personally own a recurve bow and used to go shooting with it (inspired by playing Zelda, I know I'm a nerd), and I can say that holding back even a weak 40 lb. bow for an extended period to take aim can be difficult. Actually learning how to predict your arrow flight to hit a target takes practice, and even though actual 'bow sway' wasn't as exaggerated as it is in the Oblivion mod mentioned it was still a factor for any shots that were of considerable distance, so you timed your shot to release taking into account you cannot keep your recurve bow perfectly still. This is a perfect example of how you can keep your rpg game relevant in a realistic environment. I really like the bow sway mod for Oblivion, because with realistic kill shots I cannot count on my own skill 100% to hit the target (I should also mention I play without a cross-hair).


I am persuaded by the same points you bring out here. Although I must say when I play a game I play it with an open mind and try to really get a feel for the gameplay that the designer intended, I am less attracted to a Fallout game personally. Although I can really appreciate the art of Fallout, and I think that when I force myself to play it and get into it I think I will enjoy it, I am not initially attracted to the game itself. In fact, if Bethesda hadn't made Fallout 3 and it didn't have an already great reputation I probably wouldn't attempt to play it twice (since I already gave it one full day of about 6 or 7 hours).


Yes sir. That is what I attempted to ramble about

I'm sure if we gathered a council of intelligent minds together to deliberate on a better system we would come up with some good ideas. The key however is balancing a good idea with application, which would involve expense and technology. Having friends who have worked in the software industry (and not even on games, but on projects that include developing software for chemists and other medical fields for study) I must say that in the software industry it is very difficult to actually produce a time-line for inception and completion of a software product, if you can really make a trace outline of prediction at all. That is also why deadlines can be useful (forcing developers to constrain superfluous mechanisms and focus on working out bugs and presenting a working product. This however is a two-edged sword, and can also make the product less useful or in the entertainment industry "less fun". Insert other variables like diminishing profitable returns for adding mechanisms, and you can see the need to have a deadline). Since good ideas are limited by application it becomes obvious why the rpg system has evolved so little since it's inception on tabletop rpgs. Add to that the corporate business model, very few companies are even willing to evolve a proven system at all. Oblivion's stealth system was likely given the green light because it really wasn't a defining element in the game. If the system failed, it was backed up thoroughly by an already proven combat and magic system. So the risk was low.

I agree with your points here. With a character level system and a skill-based level system the balancing problem is not to exacerbate the power of each skill since they have more than one foundation to stand on (with their metaphorical two feet). Like say your bow skill must rely on both the attribute "strength" (not sure if that is the case in Oblivion, but just illustratively) and the attribute "bow skill", and both attributes essentially contribute to the overall "Attack" damage that you can do with a bow, you must balance the amount of damage that can be received from either attribute. The "strength" attribute receives an increase from your overall meta-level when you "level up" and your bow skill increases when you actually use a bow. What this does is ensure a high level character will not become disgusted with his lack of ability when picking up a bow for the first time while allowing room for growth.
The problem in my own mind and opinion with this system is the way it's applied to the damage your arrow does. In real life, your arrow flight and "damage" is directly proportionate to the arrow's making quality (what kind of arrowhead is it? Small-game? Steel-razor? Obsidian? Is it made of wood? Is the wood straight? Etc.), also the kind of bow used (30 lbs? 40? 70? The bow you can use is in reality based on your strength. Better yet, keeping a recurve bow steady and pulled back for longer than a few seconds will take practice). The variables that are left over for a skill based system are your aim and how you handle your weapon (kind of like the modifications to Oblivion I had mentioned earlier).

Well this is kind of where the flexibility may need to be. Since many of us will have our own personal preference, perhaps the "difficulty slider" could help in this area. I personally would like to see realism here, where the only difference between a warrior taking more sword blows and a mage is in fact the armor worn. If somebody tries to kill you with a sword and your wearing steel plated armor, you will be hurt more by the blunt force of the sword hit than the fact the sword is sharp. A skilled warrior would be defined more by his ability to out maneuver and parry in a sword battle than by his "health". A mage's forte would be his magic and his foresight, not his "health" or lack thereof. The rebalancing of common rpg class archetypes would need to take place in my proposed system but I welcome it personally.

Take the common rpg classes and look at the most successful rpg games today. You will find that there is the "warrior" the "mage" and the "rogue". For a game designer interested in making money and willing to used a proven system will try their best at balancing each class type and allowing each class to have their own forte and piano attributes. In a progressively realistic rpg we run into some problems with this right away, and you can see some of the balancing difficulties in a modern game like Oblivion. One problem is keeping your audience (like me) in a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_of_disbelief while balancing the damage done by different weapons used by different classes of attacker. It is common for game designers to make sure that a bow and arrow user is not inherently more powerful than a warrior, or else the people cry "imbalance".
But what is the reality? Sorry to say this, but using distance to attack your enemy is always going to be preferable. That's why you see the evolution of weapons like it is today. Police are not carrying around light sabres, but actually guns and plastic sticks. A Jedi and sword user may be a romantic (pun intended) way of fighting, but it isn't the evolution of fighting. My point? A warrior needs to encompass the real benefit of using a bow and a sword. If you can shoot your enemy in the head with an arrow before he can see you that will always be preferable. Close confrontation isn't as preferable. The sword is used in battle because in a real war close confrontation was often unavoidable, and the sword's durability for repeated use was needed. You can kill many enemies with a single sword, but only one with an arrow. However, arrows were used. In the rpg world it is not uncommon to see game designers foofoo the bow and arrow system to make sure the warrior-sword class isn't seen as an inferior option, when it actually is (for small fights, which is what every rpg to date is based on). This bleeds over into other areas too, and you often see unrealistic "damage" systems in place for every conceivable weapon type (Long/Short swords, knives, axes, warhammers, heavy/light armor etc). In the old world the Roman army was an incredible fighting machine, and they used a select amount of weapons. Fanciful options were for show and often used by Gladiators and not in real world application (hence why I laugh everytime I see a "bandit" running at me, when I have a bow, with a giant 'war-hammer'. Maybe better luck in the next life?).

I would like to see an evolution in classes, which is really what is needed for my proposals to work.

I didn't even hardly touch on the magic system seen in games. The biggest thing for me is that magic in most games isn't really "magic". We all accept this and have fun, as the game is intended to be, but I greatly prefer a more Tolkien approach to magic. Let me explain.

In the Tolkien universe there were very few 'Wizards' or persons who were actually proficient in the use of magic. Adding to this, everyone in the Tolkien universe who could even turn a page with their mind were very old, part of an elevated race or society. No young and naive peoples were privileged so much to use anything that would be identified as magic itself. Hence why magic still kept it's definition in the stories told by Tolkien. Also, magic never had an overbearing likeness to it. For example:

Legolas, who was at least 500 years old and came from a race that would be considered by common definitions as immortal; Legolas' best magic abilities were things like walking on the top of snow (where others would sink into snow and must walk through it). Knowledge was far more related to magic than experience using it, and interpreting omens and signs were as magical an ability as others. Gandalf, who's age even in the appearance of a man is on the order of 10,000 years did not boast a biblical range of powerful http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/Gandalf. His humble ability to light a dungeon, move objects with an invisible force, or cure others from a trance were a great feat in the eyes of common persons. Gandalf's knowledge, name and reputation lended far more to his status as magical (in my opinion). He stood in the presence of King's and demi-gods and they recognized him as more than a passing entity in the endless stream in time. (For this same reason I found individuals like Divayth Fyr, Vivec, Almalexia and Sotha Sil very interesting persons in The Elder Scrolls). That is my definition of a Wizard and a magical person.

I realize that this view would be rejected by many gamers, but I would hope that some sort of compromise could be reached. I think that powerful magic, like throwing fire and lighting up somebody with a lightening bolt should be more difficult to get (and more potent too). But this is of course my preference and I recognize that.

I think that you bring up some good points here.

Unfortunately as we bring up all the detail work now, as was no doubt done before when the "HP" system was invented, is we still have a problem of application in making a game that can be played. How can we add detail without detracting from gameplay? We may be entering our own rpg version of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley as we try to make something more realistic while keeping the player in a suspense of disbelief. As games become realistic in graphical detail, 3d modeling, and believable environments the rpg elements that made 2d games and battles fun before are now becoming a sort of nuisance and making your brain reject the reality that is being presented to you by the game (pin-cushion arrow laden npcs anyone?). It's going to take a rather decisive and directed leap in game design to hop from one peak of uncanny valley to the next more realistic believable peak.


Yes, I know that relatively I'm not an old gamer. But I have played most games from the late 80's and 90's at least, which is more than I'd say 90% of the gaming consumer can say today.


I never played Daggerfall but would be interested to know how fans of the series feel about the changes made in Morrowind overall. I also look forward to how Bethesda will evolve the series in the next installment. I fear that because of the way the industry works that perhaps more "trade-offs" will have been made. With the improvement of technologies though, like the Euphoria engine, I hope to see less of the "trade" system you had mentioned (where you must trade say, voice acting for well written character diversity) and a more progressive implementation of advanced game elements as the technology allows you to put those elements in a game with less effort.

I haven't played Daggerfall, but from what I hear, many players were upset at some of the changes made from it to Morrowind. The character creation was less intensive and flexible, and many skills (climbing, languages) were eliminated. You couldn't bash doors or chests anymore. Obviously, the world was much larger, there were more quests, you could buy a horse and a boat...

BUT I think they understood the benefit of a smaller, more detailed world. Weapons were individually modeled, not just retextured. While cities were smaller and less numerous,they were more unique. And really, did you need 1,000 cities? You still had to frequent the 10 biggest for most of the important quests. Also, there were new weapons like thrown, crossbow, spear, etc.

I really hoped that some of those rejected skills would be seen in Oblivion, like climbing, door bashing, stuff that without even playing Daggerfall I knew I wanted after playing Morrowind.

Dito.



I did not read it just way too long if I rember in the morning I will then it is too late right now. Good luck geting wahtever problems fixed.

with all the horrible mistakes morrowind and oblivion had (I say horrible lovingly )

they are still one of the best action RPGs out there, no one is even trying to compete with Beth. no one cares about action RPGs because its easier to make a mindless FPS instead.

so ty Beth. and we only criticize you because we want you to get better

can't w8 for ES5 :celebration:

Obviously Bethesda is doing something at least "mostly" right, otherwise we would have just given up on their games and wouldn't be posting here. The constant activity on the forums is testimony to the success of the series, even if a lot of it is complaints about specific details.

The real "sticking point" is that the series "sidestepped" from firm RPG ground (with action elements making it an aRPG) into FPS territory (more like an Arpg) with the last installment, and now there are two very distinct and vocal groups who want totally different things from the game. Satisfying both extremes may be Bethesda's biggest challenge.