Simplifying.

Post » Sun Aug 01, 2010 7:08 am

I feel like the reason you disliked morrowind is the exact reason i liked it....i loved that it didnt tell you where to go and crap like that....dont want my hand to be held the entire way and be pushed in a certain direction

Yeah, I loved that Morrow didnt hold your hand. although if everyone in Morrow had schedules and moved around like in OB, I could see some serious frustration there.

This goes into the "every game isn't for everyone" stance though. Demographics are not bad things. Some games are just not for some people. We shouldn't dumb down/simplify/streamline our experience for them. No matter how profitable it is. Is it good business? Maybe. Is it good for the fans? No.

I persoanlly dont like shooters all that much anymore. Should all shooters become RPGs, just for me? No.
User avatar
Jade Muggeridge
 
Posts: 3439
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 6:51 pm

Post » Sat Jul 31, 2010 11:29 pm

Edit: Now I can understand being anol about your character and having to restart becasue you made a mistake (his nose wasnt the way you wanted it. etc.), but Ive always gone into TES games with an idea of the builds I was going to make. Even Arena, but only becasue I was an RPG vet when it came out and pretty much knew how it would work. then again, Arena was more linear than Dagger.

I would spend entire class periods in school developing my next Morrowind character: their historical background, their class build, even what factions they'd join and possibly betray later on. Maybe it's just left over from the tendency of older RPGs to have you prepare in advance and then drop you in the middle of a dungeon forced to rely on what you have, but this has always been my approach to playing Elder Scrolls games. If I make a character that just seems half-baked or has no sense of direction with what they're doing, chances are I'll delete them. I even deleted an Imperial fighter character once, because they were too well-rounded and I didn't like being able to persuade, kill, and lockpick my way through the quests so easily. :P

I personally like to have as little overlap in factions and playstyles as possible between my characters, although I can understand the gamer who is strapped for free time may want a bit more cohesiveness in their saves.
User avatar
Rodney C
 
Posts: 3520
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 12:54 am

Post » Sun Aug 01, 2010 1:41 am

I hear all of these arguements on "depth" and "complexity." Define those for me? I started out with Morrowind and it was really good. There were some skills that didn't even touch. For ex: unarmored, spear, hand-to-hand, enchant, alteration, etc. Oblivion did get simplified, but it wasn't that big of a deal. I just want to play Skyrim and have a good time with it :tes: .






P.S. I hate all of these posts based on entitlement mentality. Just saying.
User avatar
Motionsharp
 
Posts: 3437
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 1:33 am

Post » Sun Aug 01, 2010 1:13 pm

I would spend entire class periods in school developing my next Morrowind character: their historical background, their class build, even what factions they'd join and possibly betray later on. Maybe it's just left over from the tendency of older RPGs to have you prepare in advance and then drop you in the middle of a dungeon forced to rely on what you have, but this has always been my approach to playing Elder Scrolls games. If I make a character that just seems half-baked or has no sense of direction with what they're doing, chances are I'll delete them. I even deleted an Imperial fighter character once, because they were too well-rounded and I didn't like being able to persuade, kill, and lockpick my way through the quests so easily. :P

I personally like to have as little overlap in factions and playstyles as possible between my characters.

Its more fun this way IMO. Having your character fit in the lore/world seamlessly. Not playing some generic character that does whats practical. You can do that in any game, from GTA to any FPS. But when some are given choices that actually matter, like who you are and how you'll play, its called limiting. I just dont get it. That type of limitation is good IMO. If you still want to be a JOAT, go for it, but have it hard to do and not just in front of the player. This is one reason why I wanted minor skills capped in previous TES.
User avatar
Lew.p
 
Posts: 3430
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2007 5:31 pm

Post » Sun Aug 01, 2010 8:34 am

Are you sure you played Oblivion or Morrowind, because there it worked the exact same way! You could only raised the skill you actually used! You only picked which skills will add to your overall level, and a small bonus on the beginning.

If you really want classes so bad, play D&D.


No they didn't.

If this "worked the exact same way" in Oblivion, then why did Todd state that Skyrim's way is so much better?

Plus you are going to level up MUCH faster in Skyrim than TES3 or 4.

In Oblivion I picked which Attributes I wanted to raise. Only the amount was determined by my skill usage.

If you hate unique character creation so much, why do you even play RPGs????

[Yeah, Bethesda gave me a Collector's Edition of Morrowind and a signed copy of Bloodmoon because I never played Morrowind. I think I may have contributed just a tad more toTES III and IV than you have. So PLEASE stop trying to talk down to me, just because we happen to have different opinions about some things.]
User avatar
Mistress trades Melissa
 
Posts: 3464
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 9:28 pm

Post » Sun Aug 01, 2010 3:55 am

I like to think. I like to powerlevel my character. I like to spend those boring hours in math class counting how many skill increases I'll need in each skill of my class to make the best character. Half of the fun in any roleplaying game wether it be DnD, TES, or another comparable game is planning your character out. I don't want someone telling me what I can and can't do, I don't want the game to be streamlined for seven year olds. Now I'm not trying to say that if you don't put hours into character planning then your are a nubzor, I'm just saying that I love the fact that you can in TES.

And I personally didn't power level my character. I made a class, and stuck to it, taking me where I went.
So I ended up with magic skills as an assassin, so what? It made no difference, I didn't evolve into a nightblade because i wasn't one. I was an assassin who dabbled with magic because it was fun, not to aid me in combat.

The only time I planned my character out extensively was to avoid level scaling.

Both my playstyle, and the one above, are compatible with classes, birthsigns, and attributes.
So yes I will miss classes, mostly for the name though, secondly for the light restrictions it creates.
User avatar
Bryanna Vacchiano
 
Posts: 3425
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 9:54 pm

Post » Sun Aug 01, 2010 7:01 am

As much as I love classes and all that they entail, ( currently trying to decide whether I want to be a Bard, Druid, Monk, or Cleric in a DnD session me and my friends are throwing together) I am quite curious as to see how they will pull off Skyrim without classes and without attributes. Cheers to them if they can do it and make it fun. Besides, i'm still buying the game even though they made changes I might not approve of 100%, so it's not like my opinion matters whatsoever.
User avatar
Alycia Leann grace
 
Posts: 3539
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 10:07 pm

Post » Sun Aug 01, 2010 12:43 am

@blackrave and why do we have to stick to old rpg mechanics and not reinvent the wheel?


Because reinventing the wheel is waste of time and outcome in most cases will be bad.
Wheel should be modified and upgraded depending on needs, but in the end wheel doesn't change- it is round object that is supposed to decrease attrition.
Perks are rubber we coat wheel with not the wheel itself.
User avatar
Roberta Obrien
 
Posts: 3499
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 1:43 pm

Post » Sun Aug 01, 2010 9:30 am

Im sure there will be people who don't like the game, but http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmUJrKGN3C0 is my feeling on simplification, especially in an RPG

Even if you don't like the game, im sure many will appreciate the message.
User avatar
No Name
 
Posts: 3456
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 2:30 am

Post » Sun Aug 01, 2010 4:10 pm

I do have my idealized version of the game. What i think is that the less number to decide how the player plays the better. most things should be player skills driven and a few things that just cant be player skill driven should be skill or roll.


How is this an RPG? How is that not an action game? If I started off level 1 able to kill and destroy everything already, cast any spell I want to, be nigh invincible in armor I haven't trained in, then why should I play the game?

What you describe isn't an RPG, it's an action game, that's why so many take offense at what you say. The idea of an RPG isn't to test my twitch reflexes and finger speed, it's to test my character's strengths and weaknesses in whatever endeavor they are engaging in. You just have a fundamentally different view of how the game should be from most everyone else who plays RPGs. If I wanted to play a game as you describe I would play Halo or Starcraft (by the way I [censored] love starcraft) But that's not why I play the Elder Scrolls. When I was promoted in rank in Great House Redoran it actually meant something, I had put the time and effort in to both fulfill my duties and raise my skills.

Why even bother playing an RPG if my character is already a god when I start the game?
User avatar
Epul Kedah
 
Posts: 3545
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 3:35 am

Post » Sun Aug 01, 2010 11:51 am

I have hated, and still hate this hand holding that is creeping into the later games especially role playing games.

Most of the times, the games are rates as "Mature", because of excessive violence and also mature themes, but on the other hand, the players are treated as kids, who need to be helped all along with the chores that a game might require.

It just does not add up, in my book. Please threat the players of the games rated as mature, as mature beings. Please.

When I am confronted with a problem, or a challenge, and I need to use all my wits about, in order to win the challenge, the more I'm challenged, the more I feel satisfied when finally conquer the situation.

Just let me feel that I have done something myself, and not followed the simple rules, hints, signs and markers around, all the way.

Especially, in role playing games, one of the prime essences of the game is that you start small, weak and undeveloped, and you develop your character to become bigger, more powerful.

So How do we get the feeling that we are becoming bigger and more powerful?

In an open world game, the best method is by providing us challenges of different scale, so at any state of development that our character stands, some of the challenges would seem to be approachable, and could be tackled with, to provide experience for both the player and his game character.

But some challenges should seem impossible at the beginning, but as we gradually develop our characters, those challenges should seem to be more and more approachable, so that at some point, we say to ourselves, what the heck, let's try to see if I can enter that fortress and take the prize and exit, without getting stuck in the middle, or whether I can open that lock, or whether I can convince the people of the clan to join my cause, and so on...

This is what we need to feel that our characters are developing and the satisfaction that we would feel after beating those long term challenges, are unbelievable. Believe me.

OK, here was my two cent, and my feeling about the hand holding that is wide spread in the current games with conflicting ideals, that seem intended to provide violence and mature themes for a bunch of kids.

User avatar
Mrs. Patton
 
Posts: 3418
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 8:00 am

Post » Sun Aug 01, 2010 12:43 pm

2 the term random is just as bad when you talk about video games because there is no random in informatics.

*sigh* http://www.random.org/randomness/

and it doesnt confuse ANYONE

I never said it was confusing. I said it wasn't accurate.

Todd says people had to restart their characters, why?

And for that matter, who was doing this? I've yet to hear thousands of complaints (or even a dozen) in the time I've been here. (Which is a lot longer than my join date suggests.)

and why do we have to stick to old rpg mechanics and not reinvent the wheel?

Because reinventing the wheel is redundant. :meh:
User avatar
Roberta Obrien
 
Posts: 3499
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 1:43 pm

Post » Sun Aug 01, 2010 9:54 am


And for that matter, who was doing this? I've yet to hear thousands of complaints (or even a dozen) in the time I've been here. (Which is a lot longer than my join date suggests.)


The same people saying that spell making was too spredsheety and that we didnt need attributes...Nobody, except for Todd.
User avatar
Samantha hulme
 
Posts: 3373
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 4:22 pm

Post » Sun Aug 01, 2010 2:54 am

The same people saying that spell making was too spredsheety and that we didnt need attributes...Nobody, except for Todd.


Probably the media. I swear, they put these games out in front of the same asshats who just play Halo and CoD all the time and expect them to be able to understand the game? TES isn't made for these people, it's okay if it's too "spreadsheety" for them.
User avatar
Jennifer May
 
Posts: 3376
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 3:51 pm

Post » Sun Aug 01, 2010 4:10 pm

Probably the media. I swear, they put these games out in front of the same asshats who just play Halo and CoD all the time and expect them to be able to understand the game? TES isn't made for these people, it's okay if it's too "spreadsheety" for them.


I guess thats why the media spends a page and a half on questioning if we can turn into a dragon or not. Honestly, I think its to appeal to an unreceptive demographic, which is to say that its all PR talk.
User avatar
FITTAS
 
Posts: 3381
Joined: Sat Jan 13, 2007 4:53 pm

Post » Sun Aug 01, 2010 3:51 pm

Yeah, I loved that Morrow didnt hold your hand. although if everyone in Morrow had schedules and moved around like in OB, I could see some serious frustration there.

This goes into the "every game isn't for everyone" stance though. Demographics are not bad things. Some games are just not for some people. We shouldn't dumb down/simplify/streamline our experience for them. No matter how profitable it is. Is it good business? Maybe. Is it good for the fans? No.

I persoanlly dont like shooters all that much anymore. Should all shooters become RPGs, just for me? No.


Haha i find myself disagreeing with you on some of the things you say, but i agree with this 100%. That was actually one of my favorite parts about morrowind, they give you a rough idea of where you have to go and you get to just start on your own and figure it out...thats how it should be imo. When i first played it i started walking to balmora but i got so sidetracked with all the random quests i stumbled upon and places i wanted to explore i literally had done a mountain of quests/exploration before realizing i hadnt even started the main quest yet....i thought that was great.
User avatar
Richard Dixon
 
Posts: 3461
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2007 1:29 pm

Post » Sun Aug 01, 2010 9:47 am

Probably the media. I swear, they put these games out in front of the same asshats who just play Halo and CoD all the time and expect them to be able to understand the game? TES isn't made for these people, it's okay if it's too "spreadsheety" for them.

I think this is a serious issue for TES, and its why I accept I am no longer their target audience.
Sure some people who like shooters like RPG's. I love Halo, and Halo 1 ties as my favorite game with Morrowind. But certianly not everyone is suited for RPG's.
Bethesda wants the mass market to play their game, for financial purposes. So the end result is simplifying it. RPG's are a dying genre.

Honestly I think thats why we now have dragons. Because the mass market, that is interested in fantasy games, says, "I can kill dragons, sweet!"

But of course we need to draw the line on complexity somewhere. Is Fable too simple (yes), is Dwarf Fortress too complicated (really depends on the person, although it has other issues)?


People of course have their own opinion on simplicity. I personally despise it. I feel it reduces roleplaying, and I think it removes the effective modeling of a character TES games have had. Fable does a terrible job of modeling a character, and I feel TES is headed in that direction.
I do however like some of the changes. I like the idea of perks, I'd like to see them occur automatically at certian points of a skill, much like in Oblivion, but I'd like the number to be similar to what we are getting now. Not 4-5 perks per skill like Oblivion. I like how one spell can do different things based on context. I even like parts of the dual wielding system. But we are losing more than we are getting in my opinon, and we are losing it not because they are incompatible with the new systems, but because Beth has chosen simplicity and instant gratification over complexity and depth. And that I have a problem with.
User avatar
RObert loVes MOmmy
 
Posts: 3432
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 10:12 am

Post » Sun Aug 01, 2010 2:06 pm

I think this is a serious issue for TES, and its why I accept I am no longer their target audience.
Sure some people who like shooters like RPG's. I love Halo, and Halo 1 ties as my favorite game with Morrowind. But certianly not everyone is suited for RPG's.
Bethesda wants the mass market to play their game, for financial purposes. So the end result is simplifying it. RPG's are a dying genre.

Honestly I think thats why we now have dragons. Because the mass market, that is interested in fantasy games, says, "I can kill dragons, sweet!"

But of course we need to draw the line on complexity somewhere. Is Fable too simple (yes), is Dwarf Fortress too complicated (really depends on the person, although it has other issues)?

You know, i enjoyed Morrowind more than Oblivion but im looking at how they approach the game this time and what i see is that this path that they are taking might just make the game better thats what i think.
User avatar
Jason Rice
 
Posts: 3445
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 3:42 pm

Post » Sun Aug 01, 2010 3:17 am

Simpliflying is not dumbing down. Has anybody heard of Occam's Razor? And cumbersome is not the same as complex. Complex doesnt mean "theres a lot of stuff in it". Dumb kids who think they are hardcoe...
User avatar
Karl harris
 
Posts: 3423
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 3:17 pm

Post » Sun Aug 01, 2010 10:08 am

Simpliflying is not dumbing down. Has anybody heard of Occam's Razor? And cumbersome is not the same as complex. Complex doesnt mean "theres a lot of stuff in it". Dumb kids who think they are hardcoe...

YES! I've heard about it! i have abook talking about this theory XD im just happy you mentioned it!
User avatar
lucy chadwick
 
Posts: 3412
Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2006 2:43 am

Post » Sun Aug 01, 2010 9:08 am

This is the reason Todd gave for why Class was removed from the character builds (19:15 of the Skyrim interview):

"People would play and the general pattern would be, they played for like three hours and then, ‘oh, I picked the wrong skills, I’m going to start over.' "

Since too many players cannot accept the consequences of their Class choice . . . Class was cut.

To me, this is simplification. You no longer have to give any thought to your character build . . . just play the game . . . thinking is no longer required.

The problem is that some of us REALLY liked this part . . . some of us like to put a LOT of thought into our characters.

What Todd meant was, people picked skills before they really knew how they were going to play. A player might've majored in warrior skills, only to discover that they prefer the mage playstyle.

You can still put thought into your character, There is nothing preventing that.

What's wrong with just playing the game, to feel out a character and determine what skills it will use? With the new system, you are what you play.

Again, you can still put thought into your character. You can still weigh the pros and cons of using X, Y, and Z skills, or whatever. All you will be missing is a title.
User avatar
cosmo valerga
 
Posts: 3477
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 10:21 am

Post » Sun Aug 01, 2010 4:28 pm

I should start keeping a tally of the threads like this that appear and how often the same damn points come up, over and over and over and over again. It would certainly be more fun and constructive than actually participating in any of these [censored] things. <_<
User avatar
Michelle Smith
 
Posts: 3417
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 2:03 am

Post » Sun Aug 01, 2010 6:33 am

My impression is that with the new crafting systems, skill-related perk-trees and the new system when it comes too spells ans weapon the game will be quite a bit complex, maybe even more than MW(MY opinion). Less skills is bad, but I think the perks will make it better.
User avatar
[ becca ]
 
Posts: 3514
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 12:59 pm

Post » Sun Aug 01, 2010 12:13 pm

Well here's one of the more obvious examples:
http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Daggerfall:Skills
http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Morrowind:Skills
http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Oblivion:Skills

And one of the most obvious counter examples is perks, which means we have more skills than in morrowind and oblivion combined, in a way.
User avatar
Michelle davies
 
Posts: 3509
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 3:59 am

Post » Sun Aug 01, 2010 8:01 am

If Occam's Razor was applied to games, everyone would play the exact same. That's not an RPG, or atleast not ES.
User avatar
Marcus Jordan
 
Posts: 3474
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 1:16 am

PreviousNext

Return to V - Skyrim