[Tania Bunic]

... their main goal however is to make it less complicated and for it all to come together better, that's generally what you do when you improve things.

However it seems with so many people here less complicated = oh no casual game!

When that is not what I'm implying at all.

Improve how? ~specifically. It really comes down to "improve for what". Simplifying game UI, to improve usability is a great thing for RPG's (they tend to be UI heavy); but Simplifying the RPG itself (mechanics, and paths of action), tends to homogenized the activities, and limit the overall scope of what can be done with them. Like with FO:NV having an end; Designing a game to never end requires a timelessness to all encounters including the main quest ~I'd not suggest that Skyrim end (because that aspect is a draw in the TES series of games; a base principle), but that in itself limits the scope of what can be done in the game.

Also... If you design an RPG so that you can pick it up and play for 20 minutes, then come back to it three days later and play some more; then the gameplay itself would seem to need to be rather light weight generally... Even with the journal, that's tough to do with a game like Planescape, but easy (and common place) to do with a game like Doom/ Hexen/ Gauntlet.

Taken to extremes ~you get "Demise Rise of The Ku'tan". (The game is G rated, but most of the Youtube links showing it are loud or not forum safe )

[Marnesia Steele]

Why would you (or anyone) do that!? A series game is a chance to bring a new chapter into the series, and perhaps tinker and add just a bit of a twist (to improve the already good game ~we know its good, because the previous games were good enough to seek out the next one; and profitable enough to commit to making the next one).

People WANT Morrowind part 2 (set in Skyrim this time). :shrug:
*Why call it an Elder Scrolls game at all, if its to be that different? Why would anyone want something utterly original from a numbered series game?
(Meaning why make it a series installment, instead of a stand alone new game?)

Yes.. keep innovation at the front! priority #1

Does Bethesda (or do the majority of TES fans), consider each TES game to be a one-off original, or sequel to the previous in the series? (this is something I do not know; I have several TES games, but I'm not in the culture).
If its a sequel, then I don't understand calling out "lazy" for reusing the Rules and UI. **But then... why anyone would call software development lazy is beyond me. As is demanding them start from scratch and base principles for every sequel in an established series; [IMO] 'accusing' them at all (of anything save perhaps bad customer support), is not anyone's place if one doesn't work there; and without that, its impossible to do with an informed opinion anyway.
If its a new game set in the the same TES IP, but unrelated to any previous game ~then I don't understand calling it TES5. :shrug:; but even radical changes to the Rules and UI are easily accepted.

Myself I would hope for a linear evolution from Arena to Skyrim (that's not how it is though). If it is instead, just separate games all set in the same lands, I can accept that ~but I never realized it before. Not being Fallout, it doesn't really matter [to me] that much, but does begin to explain a lot that previously didn't make sense.

Luckily, Todd is seemingly of the opinion that with each new tes game, they have to bring great leaps, innovations, and push the elder scrolls forward with each episode in the series. You can find a direct quote of him saying something along the lines of -with each new title they want to do something different with it. He's not happy making the same game every time.

Bethesda is developing, and counting feedback from Oblivion, I think we should be a little more trusting that they'll create a decent game.

No matter what people are going to complain that feature X that was present in DF/MW/Ob is not present in Skyrim.

like 2 separate pauldrons... Oh noes 2 less items I can't enchant! And cry dumbing down and blame the mainstream/console gamers. and not realise stuff like that is irrelevant in skyrim.

don't get me wrong, dumbing down is a real thing. and I fear and loath it. But streamlining or changing the system is not automatically that. I'm hoping Ob will be the worst game in the series.

[Noely Ulloa]

Improve how? ~specifically. It really comes down to "improve for what". Simplifying game UI, to improve usability is a great thing for RPG's (they tend to be UI heavy); but Simplifying the RPG itself (mechanics, and paths of action), tends to homogenized the activities, and limit the overall scope of what can be done with them. Like with FO:NV having an end; Designing a game to never end requires a timelessness to all encounters including the main quest ~I'd not suggest that Skyrim end (because that aspect is a draw in the TES series of games; a base principle), but that in itself limits the scope of what can be done in the game.

I don't really have any specific answer for you, that's something I'm going to leave to the developers.

But like I've said I'm not suggesting they simplify the game itself, Fable has been continuing this trend of theirs to make the game easy to play, and now look at it? The game they released this year was broken the moment I opened it up.

I'm not saying it should be easier to play, but for it to be easier to understand and walk into. This can be done by simplifying tutorials and making menu's a little less cluttered and more specific.

But I'm not even requesting that, I'm just saying that if Bethesda goes a direction to try and make more people interested then that's probably what it'd be.

[Tamara Primo]

I don't really have any specific answer for you, that's something I'm going to leave to the developers.

But like I've said I'm not suggesting they simplify the game itself, Fable has been continuing this trend of theirs to make the game easy to play, and now look at it? The game they released this year was broken the moment I opened it up.

I'm not saying it should be easier to play, but for it to be easier to understand and walk into. This can be done by simplifying tutorials and making menu's a little less cluttered and more specific.

But I'm not even requesting that, I'm just saying that if Bethesda goes a direction to try and make more people interested then that's probably what it'd be.

Completely agree. Not only did I slug through it, but I had to watch and play through with my wife.

[Anna Beattie]

Yes.. keep innovation at the front! priority #1

Inovation how? Do you mean evolving upon established mechanics, or complete mutation into new ones?

Luckily, Todd is seemingly of the opinion that with each new tes game, they have to bring great leaps, innovations, and push the elder scrolls forward with each episode in the series. You can find a direct quote of him saying something along the lines of -with each new title they want to do something different with it. He's not happy making the same game every time.

http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj125/Gizmojunk/tobbit2.jpg :laugh: [I know, that's his job.]

I've read the quote. It just would make more sense to me if they were looking to fix broken mechanics with new designs ~but that doesn't call for making a new system. (and/but as yet there is no word that they have)

don't get me wrong, dumbing down is a real thing. and I fear and loath it. But streamlining or changing the system is not automatically that. I'm hoping Ob will be the worst game in the series.

Same here. I just prefer tweaks and minor tinkering over radical re-design.

[Crystal Clarke]

Completely agree. Not only did I slug through it, but I had to watch and play through with my wife.

Oh I know, and even after wading through the bugs and glitches there's barely any game left under there anyway. I mean dieing has no penalty, loot has practically no value, finding new weapons in the game is pointless because you're given the best ones that morph with you at the beginning of the game, and that in turn makes it pointless to make money and spend it on increased fire power. The only point money has in Fable 3 is buying more property for more money and then using said money in the ending of the game to win.

I mean Fable 3 almost plays itself.

[Jordyn Youngman]

[quote name='MasterrSamson88' timestamp='1292880062' post='16846488']
I don't really have any specific answer for you, that's something I'm going to leave to the developers.

But like I've said I'm not suggesting they simplify the game itself, Fable has been continuing this trend of theirs to make the game easy to play, and now look at it? The game they released this year was broken the moment I opened it up.

I'm not saying it should be easier to play, but for it to be easier to understand and walk into. This can be done by simplifying tutorials and making menu's a little less cluttered and more specific.

But I'm not even requesting that, I'm just saying that if Bethesda goes a direction to try and make more people interested then that's probably what it'd be.
[/quote
I think its safe to say that the TES series wont be like the fable series because with the fable, the first one was so much fun i could play it over and over, the second one was a joke, one could go through the whole game using force push with never dying or getting hurt, it was the biggest mistake in gaming to get rid of armor and the mana bar, i didnt even play fable 3 because people were saying it wasnt as good as fable 2 and since fable 2 was the worse rpg i ever played i decided not to buy it
im just scared that TES might sell out and sell to the average fps/ rpg gamer instead of the hardcoe rpg gamer like we are
EDIT: idk why the quote isnt darker than above?

[Laura-Lee Gerwing]

Inovation how? Do you mean evolving upon established mechanics, or complete mutation into new ones?

Right now as things are.. Yes, complete mutation. I don't want an oblivion that has been tinkered around with :shakehead:

I know this is going to sound strange, but even though I like MW for what it is, and rate it higher than OB, I definitely don't want them to redo MW. I actually think that OB has the greater raw potential of the 2.
I mean I did miss spears and beards :facepalm:, that isn't dumbing down imo, all of those kinds of gripes are superficial. All it would have taken is someone to develope the art assets, and someone to code an extra weapon class< what is a bit miffed is that the weapons skill system was worked around the fact that they were missing, and yeah I get that distinct feeling that they are missing! Even that is hardly dumbing anything down, it's just dumb. :spotted owl:

dumbing down in oblivion was imo quite subtle... a little less lore thrust in your face here, annoying hand holding there, the main quest being fairly uninteresting in comparison to MW. It just added up I think.

Now none of that makes me that anxious that tes5 won't pwnwtfbbq OB. With perhaps annoying hand holding, but that is it.

[RUby DIaz]

dumbing down in oblivion was imo quite subtle... a little less lore thrust in your face here, annoying hand holding there, the main quest being fairly uninteresting in comparison to MW. It just added up I think.

That is something I noticed when I played Oblivion, but not through comparison to Morrowind. I played Oblivion as my first TES game (I'd never heard of Bethesda, and only learned of them when they won the bid for Fallout). I own Morrowind and the expansions ~but never played past the first 20 minutes of the game. I don't want a tinkered Oblivion either. When I said that I'd like a linear evolution from Arena to Skyrim; that it already isn't, was a given.

As to the lore... I would rather more than less, and while I think it is not good to require reading a large tome, (the RPG's I've played that had books at all, unlocked anything they mention whether you read it all or not), I do think it is good to have aspects of the game be noticeable to those that did read it all ~and this includes puzzle clues, hints, and fore-warnings of what to expect in some areas.
(Consider a story where the protagonist ventured into a named lair or or dungeon and encountered a cunning blade trap, or hidden room in the account of the tale and its actually there in the location ~whether or not its remained undiscovered since, or opened and or ruined).

A book could relate that certain daedra are especially vulnerable to acids. :shrug: (just something you'd pick up for having read that particular book in detail).

[Sami Blackburn]

My vote: "It will be its own game, in its own right". Whether or not that's cause for concern remains to be seen. I'm confident.

[matt]

I don't really see the fuss, it'll have been 7 years since OB released by the time this games comes out, and I wouldnt be surprised to see this go in a completely different direction. Skyrim will be set in the same universe, but its a different timeand story, etc etc... it'll be about as different from OB as OB was from MW, which is alot.

[JUan Martinez]

My biggest fear right now is that the game will become more simplistic. Its been happening to every game I have played. Mass effect wasnt all that deep to begin with but was passable until the sequel so I quit that series. Then dragon age which was great, is also becoming simpler for their sequel so i probably wont play that either. Elder scrolls right now is the only game i have really been looking forward too, and I just cant wait to hear that they are going to do it right. So right now I am reserved, dont want to get my hopes up if it becomes fable.

[Gemma Archer]

My biggest fear right now is that the game will become more simplistic. Its been happening to every game I have played.

Been happening for ten years at least.

[Charles Mckinna]

I don't really see the fuss, it'll have been 7 years since OB released by the time this games comes out, and I wouldnt be surprised to see this go in a completely different direction. Skyrim will be set in the same universe, but its a different timeand story, etc etc... it'll be about as different from OB as OB was from MW, which is alot.

OB came out on March 20,2006.. that would mean that Skyrim is coming out in 2013..i think you meant 5 years. anyway everyone rad below
SUGGESTIONS FOR POLL
I MADE THE FIRST THREAD AND THE SECOND THREAD OF THIS TOPIC, THE FIRST POLL WAS TO BROAD IT WAS JUST A YES OR NO
THE SECOND POLL (THE ONE ABAOVE) IS IT TOO MANY OPTIONS, SHOULD I TAKE OUT THE SKYRIM WILL BE ITS OWN GAME AND ITS TOO EARLY TO TELL BECAUSE THE POLL IS SUPPOSE TO BE A PREDICTION.. POST YOUR THOUGHTS SO I CAN MAKE EVERYONE HAPPY WITH THE POLL

[Reanan-Marie Olsen]

Saw the title voted on the poll and now i have to rant a little... so here goes =)

Firstly i really don't agree with the term 'mainstream' it doesn't make any sence and has such a negative stigma to it, i personally don't believe a game can be mainstream.

is skyrim going to be mainstream (in the sense thats its dumbed down, more simple, and to a bigger audience

I know what your getting at with this and to me it seems like you bashing the idea of bringing new players into a game. I process of making a game more accessible to others doesn't mean that it's being made too easy and that the game is losing it's roots, it's simply means that becasue of the way the game is layed out it is easier to master, and becasue of this more people can play it.

Now im gona keep this short and sum my point up here. If bethesda make the game less gory and scary so it's more friendlier for children then that would be making it 'mainstream' for use of a better word. if they make the game easier due to layout or controlls then that's fine whith me as long as there is a descent storyline, plenty to do and NO GAME LEVELING, but we all need to get out of this view that if something isn't almost entirely the same as the first game than it's bad, it's not, it's just different, and as long as beth keep enough to their roots that you can tell it's an ES game then i can't see it going to wrong.


PS: concidering Fallouts level of gore, i'm pretty sure Skyrim isn't going to be very child friendly

[Jack Walker]

I know what your getting at with this and to me it seems like you bashing the idea of bringing new players into a game. I process of making a game more accessible to others doesn't mean that it's being made too easy and that the game is losing it's roots, it's simply means that becasue of the way the game is layed out it is easier to master, and becasue of this more people can play it.

What would be a plausible explanation of this statement that refutes the claim of "dumbing down"?

**I would add the question: If a new audience segment were to be included ~but surveys indicated that that audience wanted Olympiad style minigames added as a major part of gameplay (and that means the main quest) ~would that be a bad thing in your opinion?

[Nicole Kraus]

What would be a plausible explanation of this statement that refutes the claim of "dumbing down"?

**I would add the question: If a new audience segment were to be included ~but surveys indicated that that audience wanted Olympiad style minigames added as a major part of gameplay (and that means the main quest) ~would that be a bad thing in your opinion?

ok should i change the polls at all or do you think its ok

[Emily abigail Villarreal]

this notion that young teens or kids can't handle big boy games, I personally don't get.

I had a nes when I was 7. There is a saying "nintendo hard". That came about because nes games are notoriously hard. like impossible hard in some cases. I'm not saying they were good because of that. But as a small child, by the time I was 10yr old, I was a master at some of those games. At some point around 91' I had a PC... I played all those in depth game, complex games as a child and teen growing up, I knew they were hard. challenge is good. why multiplayer shooters are popular isn't all to do with community gaming, its because people are smarter and more unpredictable than ai, and that makes each game a challenge, and each kill that much more satisfying . generally speaking the more complex, the more things to do, the more to think about, the better.

I think the majority will agree with me on that. Who really thinks there is this majority group of gamers that actually want an rpg, lets say tes5, to be less complex, less things to do, less to think about, it just sounds kind of absurd to me.

Name any game too complex or too hard for my 10yr old self, and he would own you. in fact, at 12, I was probably at my peak gaming ability... and I rode that until I was about 20. Then I started to get my halo ass handed to me.... yep, by the next gen of youngins.

It's not funny how thats true. :stare:

[Laura-Jayne Lee]

this notion that young teens or kids can't handle big boy games, I personally don't get.

I agree. My brother could beat my dad at Halo when he was 6. He's an RPG gamer as well and has put more hours into Oblivion than I have. So, yeah.

[Alan Whiston]

OB came out on March 20,2006.. that would mean that Skyrim is coming out in 2013..i think you meant 5 years. anyway everyone rad below
SUGGESTIONS FOR POLL
I MADE THE FIRST THREAD AND THE SECOND THREAD OF THIS TOPIC, THE FIRST POLL WAS TO BROAD IT WAS JUST A YES OR NO
THE SECOND POLL (THE ONE ABAOVE) IS IT TOO MANY OPTIONS, SHOULD I TAKE OUT THE SKYRIM WILL BE ITS OWN GAME AND ITS TOO EARLY TO TELL BECAUSE THE POLL IS SUPPOSE TO BE A PREDICTION.. POST YOUR THOUGHTS SO I CAN MAKE EVERYONE HAPPY WITH THE POLL

I think it is fine as is, the more options the better. People dont have to vote for those options if they dont want too. How about a SKYRIM IS GONNA BE AWESOME GAME option????

[Angus Poole]

I voted "it will be it's own game, in it's own right...". I think now that Bethesda has so many people hooked, they'll be able to do whatever they want. They don't have to worry about expanding the fanbase, or "mainstreaming" TES anymore than they already have. They can concentrate on making a masterpiece. Money enters into the equation, but I don't think it's their main over-riding reason for making games. I think they love games, like us, and they want to make the best game they can. I think they're more like artists than businessmen, at BGS at least.

[Budgie]

It will be entirely based on quick time events, magic compasses, horse armour dlc's and feature kinnect support.

In all honesty though every company knows the people who go on the forums will buy the products no matter how different it is from the forum goers' requests. As everyone here is a guarenteed statistic they won't aim the game at anyone here and instead focus on getting everyone who doesn't like RPG's to play it. That usually means simplified mechanics, flashier though more repetative gameplay and fewer choices. This isn't just my crackpot theory it's what publishers tell devs and has been happening for decades. The current example of casualisation would be all the features taken away from dragon age 2.

[tannis]

If you believe what the Devs say on here, I think that is BS.

and why would anyone target an RPG game at people who don't like RPG games, it's absurd. It's like the one audience that they won't even cater for.

[Mark Churchman]

If you believe what the Devs say on here, I think that is BS.

and why would anyone target an RPG game at people who don't like RPG games, it's absurd. It's like the one audience that they won't even cater for.

Most of the budget in video game production goes to marketing now, why market to a customer base who will already purchase your product?

Of course on the other hand Dragon Age 2 has alienated alot of fans so marketing the game for people who wouldn't normally purchase it isn't foolproof.

[michael danso]

Most of the budget in video game production goes to marketing now, why market to a customer base who will already purchase your product?

There is no purpose to market to people who are already going to purchase your product. In much the same way as there is no point to marketing your product to people who aren't going to buy it.