I don't see how anyone could actually support a simple 'click here and you're there' fast travel with this next-gen situation. It worked in Daggerfall because everything looked the same in the wilderness. It svcked in Oblivion because it ruined objectory exploration. If I had a place to go, and I knew I could fast travel somewhere close, I felt like I was just wasting time of my life by NOT fast traveling.

Think about Morrowind's main quest. How [censored] lame would it have been near the end if you could just fast travel to all the Ashlander camps? That was the beauty of it. It was the part where you couldn't travel anywhere, and you needed to supply yourself because you'd be in the unsettled areas of Vvardenfell for a while. Instead, I could just fast travel to the Urshlaku camp, fast travel to Balmora afterwards, buy some potions, fast travel to the other camps, etc.

There really should be a Morrowind-styled transportation system. Travel between cities for a small cost, through caravans of whatever. The Synod/College of Whisperers offers magical travel for a cost as well. Aside from that, a cheap teleportation spell that can serve as fast travel does without forcing you to be an uber mage to cast it. That way, you want to fast travel, buy a spell for 40 gold and have at least 20 magicka. You don't want to fast travel, don't buy the spell.

(Also, not to be 'that' guy, but I can't help but notice that they dumbed down Oblivion so much, and all the people on the side of simpler, watered down ways joined these forums after Oblivion came out.)

If they have mounts that can travel faster in this installment (especially flying ones, in which you can fly a straight line), I think people would probably use fast travel less. Although I dont really mind the current system; when I want to get there now, I fast travel; when I want to roam, I roam. Point is, I like having the option. But if tey took it away and there were travel points (e.g., boats, slith striders) across the map, that wouldn't be bad either. You get the realism, and the people who dont want to roam dont have to travel the full distance.

?

Well, I guess I could have put it in the same post, but I tried it with 'multiquotes', but it didn't seem to have captured the other quote - or maybe it works differently here than I'm used to.

But anyway, my point was that the 'slippery slope' he was talking about, isn't a defined moment. Depending on your viewpoint, OB has steps towards the slippery slope, or MW has, or daggerfall, etc. One can ALWAYS say the game is catering (more) to the masses and getting more simplistic, depending on what reference you use. there has always been a trade-off between getting it easy yet interesting, and avoiding the tedious without getting too easy.

In the end, though, fasttravel is just a tool; you can either use it, or not. Speculation how this tool will affect Beth's way of dealing with scenery and quests, is only that: speculation. Giving OB as an example isn't really that compelling, since it is supposed to be a bit more bland, since it's the main imperial province, and because I also think it wasn't all THAT bad, in regard to scenery, and lastly; you can't make a conclusion about the correlation, let alone the causality, between fasttravel and having less original scenery/quests on one example anyhow. As far as I know, even when one would accept the complaints about it, it could as well be because Bethesda put to much time and effort in the voices/dubbing or in trying out shadow-effects, instead of at the scenery and quests, and that's why the latter suffered (not saying that it is, I'm just following the reasoning here). Who knows?

Pff.. This argument is so annoying. Cyrodiil was supposed to be a jungle. It changed to what it was because a Jungle would have taken too long to create for something that would never need to be appreciated. There were plenty of opportunities to create a unique world.

Even if Cyrodiil was just a normal setting in lore, Morrowind was a lava filled hell hole, especially Vvardenfell. but they managed to get that to be a unique an pleasing experience. why could they not have done that with Cyrodiil?

And Shivering Isles was based on Morrowind. It was created because they knew how much they screwed up. Look at it. It's basically another Vvardenfell. They have mushroom trees. <_<



Look at Bloodmoon. Bloodmoon was a basic standard RPG setting. Almost every RPG has a cold, evergreen-ey region. But that managed to be original. they implemented the Reiklings, the Skaal, Hircine, Ice monsters, and still wasn't as terribly cliché as Oblivion. It had wolves and bears, just like Oblivion, and managed to retain it's dignity.


I'd like to point out that there are a few more than "some" people against Oblivion's fast travel. I could easily say:

What's the point in keeping Oblivion's fast travel, just because some people like it?

Yeah. That's as valid as your argument right there.



Not if there was actually a cost to using it, and there was a good alternative that doesn't have that cost. That would give us a reason to see the landscape (avoiding the cost of the scrolls).

If we have Oblivion's system, there wouldn't be a reason to not use fast travel, apart from to purposfully go and look around.

If my system is implemented, there will be a reason to look around, so there will be pressure to create a good game world.



No it didn't. And yes it was. No matter how you try to justify it, it was an instant teleport to another location on the map. Perhaps if there where time limits to quests, or different types of travel, similar to Daggerfall, you might have a point, but no.


You're forgetting the key aspect of "effort" there.



Like how they could have made Oblivion's instant teleportation from anywhere to anywhere system optional?

No, it wasn't optional. If I wanted to complete a quest on the other side of the map, I wasn't prepared to walk all the way over there for my 100 gold reward.




They aren't made void by "it's optional" I just can't argue well with someone repeatedly saying "it's optional". When you have nothing more to say other than that, you're not really arguing well.

• There's no exploration involved. I instantly appear at any desination I want, with no cost, and I miss anything on the way.

I miss any NPC's on the way.
I miss any quests on the way.
I miss any caves on the way.
I miss any nice fights on the way.
I miss any views on the way.
I miss any hidden things on the way.
I miss a lot.

• It breaks immersion. I don't care that I'm walking to the place, only missing out the journey, I FEEL like I'm instantly teleporting somewhere.
  
• There's no sense of realism in the game when time is constantly changing

EDIT:

Wait, what? All you Oblivion fans constantly suggest adding Fallout's system as a comprimise, but when I add it into my suggestion it's not an alternative? :rolleyes:

That is not a reverse of mt_pelion, your thoughts were more tangential at just the slightest connection to mt_pelion.
As for the quote, I think the point was to bring back more options, and with them more complexity. And as for your question, 'Why give strong weapons to defeat the bosses; you would have more of a challenge doing it with your fists, etc.'
1) I would like Beth to do that.
2) More people could do more things
3) Sometimes I can not do things by myself, why not a sword.

And a counter:
Why not


Progression is unacceptable? Don't get eaten.

So I see a lot of people referencing Skyrim with a sense of assurance... has it just become a commonly agreed theory, or has there been any kind of official announcement or hint? I regret that I haven't been following any TES news for some time.

Just the trademark of the title 'Skyrim' that they've had for the past few years. But, lacking any other evidence of any sort, it's what the majority of us are going with until proven otherwise

As long as we're on the subject again, instead of joining the argument, I'll just drop in, give my two cents on how it would work with my own proposed system, and leave it at that. I will note that my personal issue with fast travel isn't that it exists, but that it's badly done. It's supposed to represent walking, but is implemented in a way that makes it in all ways superior to all other forms of travel available, including anything Morrowind gave you access to, even teleportation. As far as I'm concerned that is simple fumbled balancing and implementation, like making the character start with a sword that kills anything in one hit. Doesn't matter if you can choose not to use it, it was a bad decision to put it there at all, but the solution isn't to wipe out swords.

In my own system, I have a Cartography skill, split into Geography, Mapping, and Passage (all the skills in my set are divided into subskills). While it has multiple uses, one of them is as the biggest influence on walking-based fast travel. Since FT is the focus here, I won't get into the skill's other functions. Basically, there would be multiple grades of map quality, from simple http://www.enchantedlearning.com/usa/states/california/outline/map.GIF to http://www.california-map.org/images/map-california_01.jpg. The player can use Cartography to draw their own maps, or buy them. A high-quality map, I think, would be a valuable thing considering the low technology and high danger of the TES world, not something you can buy a hundred of at any corner stand.

Initiating fast travel would work the same, click somewhere on the map. As with Daggerfall, you could select options such as how fast you're moving, whether to stop at inns or stop at all, etc. Charging recklessly onward is fastest, but will wear you out and have higher risk of attack or injury. Walking-based travel would have high success rates when moving between established cities, since you only need to follow a well-patrolled road. Following roads or going straight would also be an option; naturally, if you want to venture into the wilderness, you'll probably have to uncheck roads. Ideally quests would be better designed so that you aren't forced to constantly run back and forth across the country, but this much would make it easy to go between cities quickly. Doing so on foot is relatively safe and easy, and there's no reason doing it quickly shouldn't be as well.

Things become more difficult once you go offroad. Depending largely on Cartography skills and map quality, odds of things going wrong while fast-traveling the wilderness are much higher, such as becoming lost, which means you're randomly deposited between the start and destination without any "you are here" on the map and without the ability to attempt FT again until you come across a mapped landmark. Trying to cross dangerous territory while unprepared, such as unstable terrain you didn't know was there, is likely to end in a broken leg while halfway there. Traveling on foot would usually be the slowest and least safe method of travel, in exchange for potentially taking you almost anywhere. The system would automatically take into account the character's climbing/swimming/athletic/etc ability depending on what type of terrain they'll be crossing.

The point is that walking-based travel would actually simulate walking. There would be other methods of fast travel available, such as caravans or silt-strider type "bus" services that take you between cities, being fairly safe and reliable, magical teleportation, boats, etc. A larger map would warrant not just Morrowind options but additional methods, like guides; these would be NPC's who are skilled in cartography, just as a mercenary is a combat-skilled NPC. You could hire a guide to take you into the local wilderness, depending on the individual's talent and willingness to go into danger, for a fee. If you pay extra, they'll wait around the location to take you back. Thieves might have secret tunnels between cities and wilderness hideouts, the Fighters Guild could clear new roads for easier passage, and so on. Pretty much any character could zip between cities without problem, save for in-game events that block roads or something. Relatively seamless wandering throughout the wilderness, however, would be the domain of characters who are themselves skilled explorers.

The thing is, this worked well in Daggerfall because of the scale of it, which is something I doubt will be in TESV.

A small world doesn't need it.

No, it doesn't; I wouldn't have suggested the system I just posted for Oblivion. I do think the game needs larger world maps, though, and also expect future games to have them regardless of my preferences. Look at Just Cause 2 and Red Dead Redemption as recently and soon-to-be released examples, both of them sandbox games with substantially larger worlds than Oblivion, which itself was larger than Morrowind. Daggerfall was possible because the technology at the time allowed for very simple graphics generated by very simple code, which could be handled by old computers. Morrowind had more advanced graphics, detailed environment, and a much "heavier" game engine that consumed a lot more system resources, making the same size prohibitive, but as technology improves so does our ability to fiddle with it. When 2D jumped to 3D we had lots of suddenly confining games and ugly polygons, but now we're getting in higher ranges.

Besides, as is the point of the thread, it's a suggestion for TES5, not 3 or 4. It won't fit in 16 square miles, but how about 40? 80? Aside from expecting a bigger map, I'm also suggesting one at the same time.

At least rhekarid is proposing a compromise.

Your main argument against fast travel is that you can't resist the temptation to use it. I do agree with your notion that it does change the "flavor." I remember sometimes feeling guilty about fast-traveling in Fallout 3 because I had a fraction of hp left and I was tired of being picked off by mole rats.

I think the temptation, therefore, comes when traveling just becomes tedious, which can be prevented mainly by more conscious placement of the hostile creatures. And it could be made less boring by more attention to detail in the environment.

You fear that fast travel will result in ugly, bland environments, which is not true. I explained this to you on page two, but you must not have noticed my post, so go back and look. The game can have detailed landscapes and fast travel at the same time.

Now, while I do hate fast travel, myself. And while I can relate to the fact that you get tempted, I think that if the temptation is so strong, that you can't resist it ever, and that it messes up the game for you, I suspect you would end up hating TESV if there's no way to fast travel ever.

May I suggest reading some Shunryu Suzuki, to learn how to control your urges?

But all that aside, compromise is always better, because the people who want fast-travel as an option do outnumber us and would probably win. So, I agree with a way to make fast-travel more immersive as well.

The option to ignore it is ideal, though. I kind of think fast travel as part of a skill might upset me.

Well, it's been quite some while since I played it by now; but couldn't you fasttravel in the shivering isles as well? So, doesn't that prove it's possible to have non-bland scenery and critters and yet have fasttravel. So one does not preclude the other. They knew they screwed up, you say. Even so; with the next game, it's still possible they know not to screw it up again. But regardless, point is, there is no causality between the two; you can have fasttravel, and non-bland scenery.




I found bloodmoon, compared to MW, much more bland, in the sense of scenery. I *do* think the same about OB, but it still actually does have variation of scenery - only it's less dramatic and original. I just don't think it's a very good argumentation in regard to fasttravel; it's just a decision they made. Whether they had used some alienesque, completely original critter instead of a Wolf, it wouldn't have affected the fasttravel, and vice versa. I mean, if the next game will have awesome scenery and still have fasttravel, what will then be the argumentation?

Oh well, we'll just have to see, I guess. As I said, it's not something I personally HAVE to have, as long as there are viable alternatives. But those would have to be way better than in MW, because, how much I enjoyed exploring (and I did hours and hours of that), sometimes, I just wanted to get somewhere from a 'wild' location, and not drag on indefinitely on foot, just to get to Balmora again.

To be honest: it's true it became less tedious in that regard once I got the mark/recall spell. That's why I'm not totally against it. But without something similar, it can be f- annoying sometimes.



Yes, it is. That's why I was saying that making it optional, preferably at the start of the game, in the settings, would deal with those that want to use it, and those that don't. If it's not there until you actively set it 'on' when starting the game, than it merely depends on your will and decision whether you want to use it or not. It would be a conscious decision, where you actually had to do something before you could use it. If people really don't want it and are so enthusiastic about 'exploring' on foot, they shouldn't checkbox it. It's another debate than of your 'bland scenery' and such, but basically, if you give people the choice whether they want to use it or not - purely viewed in this respect - it's always better than to force one group to follow only their viewpoint. However you look at it, it's more reasonable that way. After all, the 'other side' is not making it optional, but would rather be: "I could easily say: only fasttravel should be allowed, and I don't care if others don't like it." Few people would actually say that, but in regard to getting a compromise where pro- and cons have the most freedom, an option offers more than making it a black&white situation.





Well, that last reason is rather highly speculative and needs a following of your interpretation of how Beth works, but for the rest of what you said... this is exactly what I don't really understand about your argumentation. Because it costs, it would give us a reason to explore?! My dear fellow TES-fan; whenever I explore(d), the only reason was 'to explore' itself. It was to find research the unknown, new caves, loot, encounters, funny or beautiful or useful things. It was, in essence, curiosity. It had nothing to do with how much a silt strider costed (actually, it was pretty cheap), or how much I would have to pay otherwise. If I wanted to just go from point A to point B, I paid the price, if I could. If I could not, and yet had no inclination to explore or make long walks at that time, I did found it tedious and boring, sometimes, especially if the awe-factior was gone from that route. If I didn't want to go linea recta somewhere, but I wanted to explore, I explored.

I didn't need a defined reason, and certainly not a lame one like "it's going to be too costly otherwise" to get exploring. On the contrary; if a lack of money is the only reason to get yourself to explore, you're more likely than not feeling annoyed by it. That's not making exploration fun, on the contrary. A lack of money is all the wrong reason to have an exploration of your surroundings, let alone to be eager for it. I'm just saying; there is something wrong with claiming "if it costs too much otherwise, it gives us a reason to explore"... If even pro-exploration people need THAT kind of incentive to explore, than they have their priorities backwards. And if they're not the exploring types, having to explore because of lack of money won't really make them eager. It's like saying: you are going to explore, whether you like it or not.

I'm not sure that's the way to make 'most' people happy. Much like "you are going to use fasttravel whether you like it or not" will not be very palatable for some.




I? Justify? It's Beth that made the game. Fasttravel was walking towards your destination, without having to see the scenery. It wasn't the a great implementation, but it WAS that, and you know it. The concept was exactly the sam as with the silt striders, and the 'effort' of paying 20 gold does not change it was based on the same concept. So you're trying to reverse the things here. If it would have been 'instant teleportation', you wouldn't fall dead when you're fasttravelling as a vampire in daylight, nor would there be a time-laps, etc.

I know you mean that if 'felt' as instant teleportation, and that there was little subjective difference between the twobut the fact still remains, it wasn't, in the strict sense.



The effort of paying 20 gold doesn't make a difference in regard to the concept and execution of 'fasttravelling' on itself, which what I was alluding at, as I explicitly said. Whether for free or for a million gold, on itself, it is not deemed as an instant-teleportation - NOT because you have to pay gold or not, but because it is portrayed and (sometimes badly) executed that way. Even if you would get a free ride on a silt strider, it wouldn't suddenly become teletransportation, would it? The concept of it being a transportation by animal, without seeing the actual travel in-between, would still be as valid. So, in regard to 'justify', it's rather the opposite.





That's just it. In a former post, you act as if exploration is its own reward (which it is), and now you're claiming it isn't worthwhile to explore your surroundings anymore, because you don't feel like it, or because you get to few gold. That doesn't make much sense. If you only have so much love for exploration, why set the priorities so high for exploration, then? Why do you even need a reason? If the only reason you go is for getting to point A to get 100 gold (or even 1000 or 10000), then it makes MORE sense to just go straight to that point, than having to explore your whole way there. There is something that doesn't make sense here: if you're such a fan about exploration, you should be happy to go.

Sure, you can claim it was the 'bland' OB setting that didn't make you eager, but the point remains that saying exploration is the way to go is not well reflected in your incentives. You basically are pro-exploration, but yet didn't feel compelled to explore for 100 gold. And, you suggest for the next game an incentive for going on exploration because 'other ways are more expensive'. It seems the priority for going on exploration instead of having fasttravel is rather weak, this way. I have my doubts about all the pro-explore/anti-fasttravel talkers that don't explore without some positive or negative financial incentive.



You have ALL those things with the silt striders too, except for not having to pay gold (which makes sense, since the concept underpinning fasttravel in OB, is that you are walking yourself, not that you use a transportation device). But the 'drawbacks' you said are all there as well. 'Time is changing' IS making oit more realsitic just BECAUSE it's meant to be the distance made on foot, and NOT teletransportation. It would have been even far less realistic if they made fasttravel have no effect on time, because that would mean you'd walked at the speed of light.

It's true that you feel like it's akin to teleporting, but that's just a mindset. If one is picky about it, one could say the same about the transportationmodes in MW: "It FEELS like (payed) instant teleporting. And not entirely an unwarranted feeling, since you started at one place, and popped up in the next.

But I was right in saying 'make it optional' makes all those options void, since one only 'suffers' them, if one actually makes use of it.

However, it a mindset, really. For instance, for me neither the silt rider nor the fasttravel have ever broken the immersion, at least, not to any large degree. I think this is because I accepted both things in the way they were meant too. In contrast, you never accepted fasttravel as a compressed way of foot-travel - mainly, I assume, because it's free, since you don't seem to have much trouble with actual payed teleportscrolls, nor with time-changing effects from silt strider rides. And it is, IMHO, exactly *because* you never saw it the way it was intended, that you have all those problems with it in regard to what you miss, time changing, immersion breaking, etc. While all those things, on itself, aren't really new, nor were they impassable obstacles for exploration in the past, IF you wanted to explore.

I like what you're saying, but do you believe TES V will actually be as large as 40 square miles? Can Bethesda hand-craft enough content for that space without taking up too much time? I would love for such a thing to actually happen, but I'm questioning its probability.

Ohai guys I just discovered this thread debating what should be in TES V and thought I'd post everything I'd want to be in it but then I realised I would look like a moron suddenly intuding into a discussion so I'd like to ask what themes you guys have already been over?

50% chance for heads or tails. I got 75% heads a 25% tails, in reality.

Well, exactly. Maybe 'reverse' was not the right word, more like 'in contrast' since he specifically catered his examples as a slippery slope starting in OB. While I wanted to point out that one could say that of everything in every game, which is why my examples were about MW. My real point thus, as said earlier, was that there is no start of a slippery slope with fast travel, nor with any of his suggestions, since there is no way to define what and when a slippery slope begins. One might as well argue, that since the first TES game, the series has known nothing else but a slippery slope. Some hardcoe TES-gamers might actually say that. Thus, my examples weren't as much meant to be actually answered, but rather to show that there isn't a defined moment of a slippery slope.





Well, I'm not following you guys there. I didn't make any fallout comments, nor have I extensively followed fallout-references. But I guess it's of minor importance anyway.

Everything, I presume. There are 164 threads about it...I've only read about half of them, and it seems more or less everything has been said or discussed at one point.

Now, we're just endlessly repeating. :shifty:

Albeit, there is always variations on the main theme that keeps it interesting, most of the time.

Anecdotic: For me personally, the most technically annoying thing in OB, was the money-system of the shopkeepers. It's, viewed on itself, only a small annoyance, minor in any sense - and yet, it bugged me. It doesn't make sense AT ALL, that a shopkeeper tells you he hasn't got enough money if you want to sell him a sword of 5000 gold, but right after that, he has no problems buying, say, two daggers of 4000 gold each. However you look at it, this doesn't make sense, whatever obscure lore one can use to explain other abnormalities in OB.

Not to intrude on the subject or anything but do you guys think climbing will ever be part of TES series, climbing mountains in Oblivion was just agrovating and I'd love to climb up a tree to ambush a guard or climb up a building to steal something

Climbing was once in the series when it was in Daggerfall.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BOtdFUDdFI's map, from what I've heard, is 400 square miles. The demo alone was 35, and as far as I can see from gameplay videos, the environment looks better/more realistic to me than Oblivion's was. Even if you assume that it has to be shrunk to allow for more interactivity/content/quality per general area, I hardly think it would have to be cut down that much. This is a scale-example http://i42.tinypic.com/5umv40.jpg of Red Dead Redemption; note that the portion of map shown is, at the very most, half of the total world map. Obviously it doesn't work to make direct comparisons; talent of programmers, engines/software used, resources and goals of the company, and so on, are all going to be different, but I see no reason to expect that TES V can't be 40 square miles, or for that matter, more, considering that by the general law of technology, it will presumably have access to newer technology than these games coming out before it.


Since this is thread 164, uh, we've been over all of them. Most everything has been repeated by now and you're not obligated to wedge yourself into the theme of the moment, so post what you want.

Yeah I noticed I don't have the balls to read it all and even if I did it wouldnt make any difference since I would want to say what I want in the game reguardless of it already having been discussed...

As for your money system I completely agree, the system in fallout was much more realistic and It would be nice to have them use that one or an even better one if you can come up with one

What did that look like was it like an Assassin's creed/Prince of persia system or something more limited

Considering how old daggerfall is I can assume it wasn't very impressive

I know about Just Cause 2's map, but I'm referring to Bethesda's ability to hand-craft a larger world filled with dungeons, settlements, other locations, and quests in a reasonable amount of time. How much time does the actual creation of an Elder Scrolls gameworld take(by hand)? Also, while I believe it is possible to have a larger map, is there any to reason to expect Bethesda to make that larger map?

It was very limited. There are no animations for it and you just slowly rise above the ground while climbing. It's not impressive, but it was there. I'll try to find a video with it(or make one myself if I can find out how to record with DOSBox).

Edit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2xa2r-0bTI&feature=related

Im sure I can imagine it pretty accurately no need for you to do work unless you want to.

So the idea exists now it only needs to be updated maybe make climbing a skill?

EDIT: Saw your edit lol