TES V Ideas and Suggestions #185 : The Elder Scrolls Series Discussion

» Sat Feb 19, 2011 4:07 am

Well this has probably been said but oblivion needs a next gen graphics system i like the original but it can be better i don't take credit for this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwmAIfL_yoo&feature=related

This is well done it should be on Elder Scrolls V or close to it.

It would be nice if buildings could be burned down and/or destroyed like in Crysis, but only if they could also be build again.

An AI and economic system similar to strategy games like settlers2 running over every county that orders NPC's to go chop wood and stone and "fix" buildings, expand towns, etc... would be awesome.
It would be even more amazing if your character was thrown in the middle of a war between counties, factions and monsters and the outcome of your quests have a real effect on the world rather than just a scripted consequence.

» Sat Feb 19, 2011 8:56 am

Absolutely NO to whoever suggested limited saving. Some of us have lives, and sometimes we have to quit the game suddenly, there shouldn't be any penalty for me which means losing some of what I have done, just because I have to quit to deal with RL - I should be able to save and come back to where I was.

Saving at checkpoints is a "feature" of some FPS games, and if I wanted to play an FPS there are plenty with that feature that I could choose between. But I want a longer, more involved, more complex game, and because I'm an advlt I need the ability to save the game and step away from it to deal with something more important, and trust me there are far more important things that go on around me that I sometimes (despite trying to avoid) have to get involved in.

It doesn't necessarily have to be a checkpoint system, at least as far as progress lost. No system is perfect, and while I'm a save addict and save every ten seconds, it has significant flaws for a game like this that I really don't care for. First among them being the loss of any consequences, which many people suggest more of, but most of which are lost in a free saving system. If you're low on picks, you can save before a chest and retry until it's perfect. If a trap catches you, just load and avoid it. If you've got a decision to make, save first and try both. If a monster overpowers you, just load and use a more exploitable strategy now that you know exactly what and when is coming at you. I don't think I've ever gone to jail, in Morrowind or Oblivion. It's too much of a nuisance when I can just load so I don't get caught. Suggestions for things like difficult ritual spells, that require items and might fail, are also easily cheapened by retrying.

Things like supplies, strategy, fleeing from danger, or fear of consequences are all enhanced without the availability of easy save/loading. The cost is in convenience, of course, but it's not that easy to declare one as plainly superior. Another option is the "Diablo-style" save system, one in which checkpoints apply solely to location. The game progress itself is basically constantly saved, so that once you make a decision, you can't take it back. If you leave before reaching a checkpoint you have to run through the area again, but things like experience and loot (and failures) are all retained. A system like that necessitates the addition of respawning, hated by many and its own can of worms, but I don't personally see it as any more immersion-breaking than normal loading.

I recall playing a game many years ago in which death was permanent. Obviously, free saving wouldn't mesh with that. What it did have was a "quit save" feature, where you could save and quit at any time, and upon returning to the game you'd be in that same spot, nothing changed, just like a regular load. The caveat was that the save was deleted once you loaded it, offering full freedom to quit whenever you wanted but no protection from death. What about merging those systems? The Diablo-style "constant save" system to preserve the danger and pressure of consequences, with no checkpoints, and in their place a quit-save feature instead?

Edit: And of course I missed the original post that mentioned the quit save already, because I am dumb. Oh well, you get the point.

» Sat Feb 19, 2011 7:59 am

The difference to saving while sleeping would be that you'd have to quit the game to save it, and once you load that savegame, it'll automatically delete itself. That way, you can still leave the game any time you want, but you can't load that game again and again just to try your luck. I know a lot of people don't like the idea to have to reach a point to save the game, and it does bring a lot of annoyances. However, it can also make the game a lot more exciting, and it can make you actually fear for your characters life.

I think it will make the game more frustrating.
If you are forced to start a quest all over again from the beginning every time you die and you need minutes to get back to the point where you previously got killed, that gets boring.

Like the idea to employ a system to force a player to go to sleep once in a while, but not like that.
Rather have skills gradually decrease over time.

If you're somewhere in the wilderness, completely exhausted then you can't 'cheat' using quicksave, but you don't have to do the same thing over and over again if you run into a "wall" of an enemy.
It's just as exciting, but leads to less frustration imo.

» Sat Feb 19, 2011 12:45 am

About the fatigue:

Has anyone else felt like the character in elder scrolls is just too tireless and even when his stamina is 0 he can jump and swing gigantic swords-with the only penalty a little bit on damage?

I'd like to see a change here, maybe make the maximal fatigue level bigger or consumption lesser, but when your fatigue get near 0 you would be so tired you couldn't swing a anything bigger than a dagger and even that would be slow and deal less damage, or jump, or run at full speed. Blocking when fatigue is near 0 would also cause an auto-stagger animation to you, or whatever will replace it in the final version, making you easy tokill if you don't watch your stamina. The last thing might be in oblivion, it's been so long since i last played t that i don't remember/know.

Anybody else feels the same? Or feel differently?

» Sat Feb 19, 2011 11:43 am

I suggest that they include a Tausig2 cookie.

» Sat Feb 19, 2011 7:02 am

About the fatigue:

Has anyone else felt like the character in elder scrolls is just too tireless and even when his stamina is 0 he can jump and swing gigantic swords-with the only penalty a little bit on damage?

I'd like to see a change here, maybe make the maximal fatigue level bigger or consumption lesser, but when your fatigue get near 0 you would be so tired you couldn't swing a sword, or jump, or run at full speed. Blocking when fatigue is near 0 would also cause an auto-stagger animation to you, or whatever will replace it in the final version.

Anybody else feels the same? Or feel differently?

I feel similar, but to the side.

I would make two fatigue bars. One for combat fatigue, of which running out of leaves you short on defense and dodge ability. One for daily fatigue, of which running out means you pass out where ever you are for twelve hours. Unless you have the adrenaline perk I suppose. Physical exhaustion should be a factor in the game. This daily fatigue (even if you have enough that you can go longer than a day) will mean that you can't dungeon dive for days without resting.

» Sat Feb 19, 2011 11:10 am

About the fatigue:

Has anyone else felt like the character in elder scrolls is just too tireless and even when his stamina is 0 he can jump and swing gigantic swords-with the only penalty a little bit on damage?

I'd like to see a change here, maybe make the maximal fatigue level bigger or consumption lesser, but when your fatigue get near 0 you would be so tired you couldn't swing a anything bigger than a dagger and even that would be slow and deal less damage, or jump, or run at full speed. Blocking when fatigue is near 0 would also cause an auto-stagger animation to you, or whatever will replace it in the final version, making you easy tokill if you don't watch your stamina. The last thing might be in oblivion, it's been so long since i last played t that i don't remember/know.

Anybody else feels the same? Or feel differently?

http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Oblivion:Fatiguei, Fatigue is already a crucial component of damage inflicted to your opponent w/ melee weapons.
And a drained character with little to no fatigue will be easier to knock down than a fully rested one.

I can't find any qoutes/sources about other things, but I'm pretty sure fatigue already plays a role in other aspects of gameplay as well. If you argument is for a greater impact on your character's abilities, I agree as long as it doesn't become a chore or depreciate any fun factor. Adding simulationist elements to a game for the sake of simulating reality is a no-no, but you probably see it as a way to introduce strategic elements to combat. It can be a fun expanded game mechanic, if it is done right

I would rather see damage to HP altered to more of the way it is handled in Fallout 3. Or maybe a completely new system that dumps the current mechanics all together and replaces fatigue/health/mana with a new concept.

» Sat Feb 19, 2011 6:56 am

@people advocating for limited saving:
Although this might make us care more about the consequences of our actions, there's three things we have to remember:
1. Convenience
2. Bugs
3. Save game corruption
Having saving only upon quitting/at checkpoints would make you vulnerable to 2 and 3, and remove some of 1.
Saving at sleeping or similar arrangements would remove some of 1, but you wouldn't be doomed if 2 or 3 happened to you.

@epona
Sorry for misspelling your name :-P

» Sat Feb 19, 2011 2:09 am

@people advocating for limited saving:
Although this might make us care more about the consequences of our actions, there's three things we have to remember:
1. Convenience
2. Bugs
3. Save game corruption
Having saving only upon quitting/at checkpoints would make you vulnerable to 2 and 3, and remove some of 1.
Saving at sleeping or similar arrangements would remove some of 1, but you wouldn't be doomed if 2 or 3 happened to you.

@epona
Sorry for misspelling your name :-P

The way I see it, saving upon quitting would remove the problem of convenience almost entirely. Maybe it's just that I'm used to playing ES on a console that I hardly ever (if ever at all) experience bugs or save game corruption. If there would be limited saving at all, there should be both the option of saving when quitting, and saving when sleeping or some other form of limited saves. But about the frustration, limited saving would be part of an eventual hardcoe (or realistic) mode, which would probably have more frustrating stuff like this. That's the whole point of the mode. Taking away features that are a bit too convenient, and making the experience of playing without it more satisfying.

» Sat Feb 19, 2011 12:57 pm

What's keeping the fanatics (harcore = euphemism) from turning off the autosave and only saving once in Oblivion? Am I missing something here? Or is this like people on diets forcing the people around them to abstain from eating junk food because they don't want to?

» Fri Feb 18, 2011 9:10 pm

What's keeping the fanatics (harcore = euphemism) from turning off the autosave and only saving once in Oblivion? Am I missing something here? Or is this like people on diets forcing the people around them to abstain from eating junk food because they don't want to?

Exactly. If you wanna do some serious roleplaying, go ahead, no one's stopping you. Doesn't mean they have to make it a part of the game.

edit: Okay, now that I've got a proper keyboard, I can expand a bit further (I was on my cellphone before).

Look here, if I'm in the roleplaying mood and wanna do things the "hardcoe" way, I don't go back if I [censored] something up. If say something wrong, fail at a quest or lose some health, I'll just continue and see where it takes me. That's my choice as a player, and I think it should be that way. We don't wanna force all those poor casuals out there to play like us (and even thought it pains me to say it, I sometimes play like them...when I don't have time for "real" playing)

But still, my main argument for not allowing us to make saves is the possibility of save game corruption and bugs. I play on a computer, and sometimes I get bugs that really wreck the game, and the last saved game can't be loaded. You could just be stuck inside a rock too -- that's annoying as well. Having to run for minutes or fight several handfuls of enemies over again because you fell through the ground or was trapped inside solid rock is more immersion-breaking to me than "cheating" by reloading a quicksave I made just seconds ago.

» Sat Feb 19, 2011 4:15 am

@people advocating for limited saving:
Although this might make us care more about the consequences of our actions, there's three things we have to remember:
1. Convenience
2. Bugs
3. Save game corruption
Having saving only upon quitting/at checkpoints would make you vulnerable to 2 and 3, and remove some of 1.
Saving at sleeping or similar arrangements would remove some of 1, but you wouldn't be doomed if 2 or 3 happened to you.

I've never encountered save corruption in any games using that system (Diablo-style and roguelikes, typically). That's really more of its own programming issue than a save-system issue. I have experienced crashes in those games, and in all cases reloading simply took me back where I was with a small portion of whatever I did most recently missing. I can't claim familiarity with exactly how the computer is handling it behind the scenes, but the system seems to be running on a chain of background autosaves, and when a crash happens takes you to the most recent working one. Not really any different from the current system taking you back to whenever you last saved manually and losing whatever you did between then and the crash. Note that the save on quit applies as a "hard save", but you're not doomed if there's some kind of glitch, since all you really lose is current location.

What's keeping the fanatics (harcore = euphemism) from turning off the autosave and only saving once in Oblivion? Am I missing something here?

Aside from the entire point? That's basically the same as the "if you don't like it, don't use it" argument often cited with fast travel, i.e., completely hollow. If you have a problem, "pretend it isn't there" is seldom a good solution. Want spears back? Just imagine the weapon you're using is a spear. Wish the last boss was harder? Just reload and fight him again, and pretend it's the same fight taking twice as long. No, it doesn't really work like that.

Deliberately changing gameplay to create a personal challenge is a separate thing entirely. Obviously, no game is going to be able to make itself the ideal for every player. It has to pick something as the framework for its various features, pleasing some and annoying others. All you're really saying is "it's not fair for the game to force me to play it a certain way. What it should do is run how *I* want it to, and the fair solution is for everyone else to have to forcibly change their playstyle to their own preference".

» Sat Feb 19, 2011 8:43 am

Aside from the entire point? That's basically the same as the "if you don't like it, don't use it" argument often cited with fast travel, i.e., completely hollow. If you have a problem, "pretend it isn't there" is seldom a good solution. Want spears back? Just imagine the weapon you're using is a spear. Wish the last boss was harder? Just reload and fight him again, and pretend it's the same fight taking twice as long. No, it doesn't really work like that.

You really think that's an appropriate anology? And I have made the "it's an optional game feature, no one's forcing it on you" argument in the past... as have others. And your response echoes the responses prior comments received, it's "hollow?" Really? I don't get where you're coming from. Do you lack the willpower to not save your game or walk to Anvil? Seriously, I need clarification...

Pretending your weapon is a spear, when it isn't a spear, is clearly the same as Bethesda holding a gun to your head forcing you to save your games.

Deliberately changing gameplay to create a personal challenge is a separate thing entirely. Obviously, no game is going to be able to make itself the ideal for every player. It has to pick something as the framework for its various features, pleasing some and annoying others. All you're really saying is "it's not fair for the game to force me to play it a certain way. What it should do is run how *I* want it to, and the fair solution is for everyone else to have to forcibly change their playstyle to their own preference".

Oh hello pot! My name is kettle!

» Sat Feb 19, 2011 10:01 am

Aside from the entire point? That's basically the same as the "if you don't like it, don't use it" argument often cited with fast travel, i.e., completely hollow. If you have a problem, "pretend it isn't there" is seldom a good solution. Want spears back? Just imagine the weapon you're using is a spear. Wish the last boss was harder? Just reload and fight him again, and pretend it's the same fight taking twice as long. No, it doesn't really work like that.

Deliberately changing gameplay to create a personal challenge is a separate thing entirely. Obviously, no game is going to be able to make itself the ideal for every player. It has to pick something as the framework for its various features, pleasing some and annoying others. All you're really saying is "it's not fair for the game to force me to play it a certain way. What it should do is run how *I* want it to, and the fair solution is for everyone else to have to forcibly change their playstyle to their own preference".

Sorry but I feel this is a bad anology, The experience of you not saving and bethesda forcing you not to save, is completely identical. The experience of me imagining my non-spear weapon being a spear, and actually having an in game representation of a spear is vastly different.

Secondly, in regards to fast travel, the "if you don't like it, don't use it" argument is only hollow, if your arguing for a in game alternative world recognized fast travel system, not (and this is important), if your arguing for an inability to fast travel.

If your arguing an inability, or limit of something, and not an alternative, than the "if you don't like it, don't use it" stands firm.

» Fri Feb 18, 2011 11:18 pm

To weigh in on the limited saving thing: I honestly don't like the idea of limited saving. I like to create many, many different characters. I like to make sure that my game doesn't glitch up and make me have to go back 12 hours. I like having saves of my characters at different points in their "lives" so I can see from whence I came. Only having x amount of saves would keep me from doing this. Does that make me not a "real" player?

» Sat Feb 19, 2011 9:23 am

I have a suggestion/idea in regards to save games and convenience.

Like the poster above, I enjoy playing various characters and often have several saves. On the console (X-box), it is not possible to name the saved games and they are simply numbered and sorted in a list chronologically. It can often be chaotic, and a way to sort the saved games on the Load screen would be very welcome. I'd like to see the saves sorted by character and maybe w/out numbering.

» Fri Feb 18, 2011 10:06 pm

About the fatigue:

Has anyone else felt like the character in elder scrolls is just too tireless and even when his stamina is 0 he can jump and swing gigantic swords-with the only penalty a little bit on damage?

I'd like to see a change here, maybe make the maximal fatigue level bigger or consumption lesser, but when your fatigue get near 0 you would be so tired you couldn't swing a anything bigger than a dagger and even that would be slow and deal less damage, or jump, or run at full speed. Blocking when fatigue is near 0 would also cause an auto-stagger animation to you, or whatever will replace it in the final version, making you easy tokill if you don't watch your stamina. The last thing might be in oblivion, it's been so long since i last played t that i don't remember/know.

Anybody else feels the same? Or feel differently?

i concur with this, but i really i don't know how any of these could be implemented without reducing the fun i get when i play this game. what about your stamina recharging slower the more you use it that day, forcing the character to sleep, and somewhat fixing the stamina problem

» Fri Feb 18, 2011 10:13 pm

Combat. I want to actually HIT the people I'm fighting, I want to cut throats and stab people in the back and decapitate them. It's already implemented in Oblivion with mods like Unnecessary Violence and Deadly Reflex (that really saved Oblivion for me), but I want this in the Vanilla game. I want to be able to sneak behind someone and stab them in the throat, so they don't even have time to call out before they're dead on the ground. I want to be able to pierce someone's lungs through their ribcage with an arrow from behind a corner and have them be useless in battle because they can't breathe anymore. More diverse attacks, location-based damage. I don't want opponents to be like blocks of wood with health, so that you hack and hack but in the end the hacking only reduces their energy bar. They don't get any wounds (unless you count ketchup-like blood spatter in places not even remotely related to the place I just bashed with my longsword...), they don't get hurt, and even after they die the only way you notice is that they stop moving and the battle music ends. Yay?

No more unnatural, choppy dialogue and creepily robotic conversations. I want people to have more personal voices (just a couple more voice actors, pleeeease?), more dynamic dialogue (NPCs treat you differently depending on who you are - no more being sneered at by everyone even though you're the Nerevarine, Hortator, Champion of Cyrodiil, Gray Fox, Arch-Mage, Morag Tong Grandmaster, Listener for the Dark Brotherhood and the Fighters Guild Grandmaster...), more rumors (if I hear about one more mudcrab sighting, I swear I'll kill the one who said it)... NPCs had schedules in Oblivion, but that just somehow made them feel less realistic than ever. Voice acting's great, but it brought the problem of having one voice actor for each race/six being so noticeable it was really a pain. NPCs are now robots that do the same things every day and say the same things as each other and speak with the same voices as everyone else. I want them to be human. I want the way they percieve me noticeably change depending on how I treat them, who I am, who they are and what they want from me.

Bigger cities, more small towns, more to do in towns. Less than 10 miscellaneous quests per town (I refuse to use the word 'city' to refer to any of the settlements in Cyrodiil) gets boring. I want to have wider ranges of activities to do in cities and I want to meet more (and different types of) people. More diverse guilds, not just the basic Fighters/Mages/Assassins. Joinable Legion, joinable Temple, et cetera. Morrowind had a lot more guilds, but in Oblivion they got rid of a lot of them. Another thing that's already been brought up by many people that I totally agree with also is something to do after you're the master of the guild. Can I pleaaase kick that one brat that's been bugging me for the whole of the time I've been in the guild? Can I recruit some new members? Can I give people tasks? Oh yeah, and pretty NPCs. It's not nice if the PC is the only character in the game whose face doesn't make you think of inbred pigs.

Full-level scaling in Oblivion was absolutely horrible. I really don't want to be able to go everywhere when I'm level one, because everything else is level one too. I want there to be areas I'm terrified to go in until level 25, because I know there's dangerous creatures there. And on the flip side, I don't want every single goblin to be a fight to the death at level 30+. I want to be able to kill a Goblin easily when I'm level 37, not have said goblin be level 37 right along with me.

No more quick travel, or at least have it toggleable. I don't want to be a magical being capable of just deciding to go somewhere and POOF! I'm there. I'm a person, not some transdimensional superhero who just decides to go somewhere and can. Bring back Morrowind's travel system - Silt Striders, boats, Mages Guild teleportation, Levitation, Almsivi/Divine Intervention, Mark&Recall... I really miss that, and it adds so much realism and immersion to the game just getting rid of the POOF!-type travel. And it makes the world seem so much bigger.

I want seasons and more diverse weather conditions. Storms, lightning, hot/cold temperatures, wind, etc. I want the weather to affect the environment more. Ideally, when it's hot and dry you'd lose fatigue faster and fire-related spells (etc) would cause brush fires easily, but when it's cold you'd not be able to move as nimbly and it's take you longer to change from walking to running and to reach your maximum running speed. Animals behave differently according to the season (for example bears would attack aggressively in mating season/when they have cubs, hibernate in winter and be pretty much docile/timid at other times, unless provoked). Dynamic nature would be interesting too. Animals would react to weather conditions and seasons, be either nocturnal or day-time animals, animals hunting each other, animals eating plants, animals bearing young... Just make it more realistic.

I also really agree with this. I want more noises than just my own footsteps (I'm not sure if they even have that in Oblivion anymore, but in Morrowind you did), animals sometimes making some noise and battle/cave/normal music. Footsteps would be different depending on what terrain you're on (this would also affect sneaking), you could hear a bear from behind a tree because it's making some kind of noises even though it doesn't see you, you could hear yourself breathing and be worried if the person you're sneaking up on can hear it too, etc.

As for weapons, I want diversity back. I miss throwing knives, darts and stars sooo much from Morrowind. Crossbows, spears and staffs you can use as blunt weapons (not just spell throwing devices) are also missed by many. As weapons I should be able to use miner's picks and a knife from the kitchen table, or even a bottle of mead if I want to.

I want a more eccentric location. Cyrodiil is boring - I'm not playing a game in medieval Earth, I'm playing a game in Tamriel!

That's just what I'm talking about. I loved Morrowind. I could almost smell the blight disease in the air when I was walking near Ghostgate. I was actually afraid of going into the Ghostgate and Red Mountain region, because I was so scared of catching the blight. I want to feel I'm immersed in a completely different culture, with working politics, religion, festivals and the like. Oblivion was much more stagnant as a world, because it didn't feel so realistic. In Oblivion, Bethesda lost a lot of the wonderful immersiveness that I experience when playing Morrowind. Like MouseMage said, it feels like a game, Morrowind feels like a world.

That given, ditch the freaking Map Markers already. Make the game un-gamey. Oblivion, to me, is almost as bad as those games where you run down a single corridor and shoot at everything that moves. You just do the obvious, and everyone tells you exactly what you should do. Morrowind required you to think and that really brought this whole new dimension to it.

Don't make everything so prissy and pretty and clean, like in Oblivion. Morrowind was realistic because it was grimy at some points. Diseases? Oblivion's got it. Are they anything to be worried about? No, just drink a potion and you'll be okay in a second. Grossly distorted, horrifically mutilated walking corpses that have a disease you're terrified to catch? Morrowind's got it. Is it prissy and pretty? No. Is it realistic? Yes. You really should care about whether or not you catch a disease (the only disease you care about anymore is Porphyric haemophalia, and even then you just drink a potion and it's gone... unless you sleep). Just as an example. It doesn't all have to be gross and unsterile and icky, but it's not all cleanliness and stuff either. Give us a balance. Morrowind was nice in this aspect.

Clothing under armor, armor split back into pieces again.

... I could still think of a lot more, but this post is already so majorly long I think I'll stop here for the time being.

EDIT // And I really wish the game wasn't in Skyrim... Snow is icky. Pleaaase, Valenwood or the Summerset Isles or Elsweyr, pleaaaase!

Skyrim all the way! Valenwood? do you remember fargoth? the adoring fan? i dont want to see annoying elves talking to you on a sunny hot cruel day with the same enemies in cyrodil please! i want to see the tough barbarian nords who know how to survive in a ice age like skyrim, nord holidays like christmas, decorations in cities during a nord holiday quest, nord mead in the skyrim bars for everyone during their holiday, traveling up snowy mountains, snow blizzards, snowflakes falling, ice caves, and that mountain near witherun is larger than that red mountain in morrowind i want to go there! plus new creatures, snow wolfs, polar bears, grahls, horkers, tusked bristlebacks, walruses, penguins, killer whales, seals, and fleeing albatross birds.

» Sat Feb 19, 2011 12:55 am

This discussion about limited saving is going completely nowhere.

In the post I suggested it on page 8, I think I made it quite clear that saving while sleeping would still work like normal, which means you can still get multiple savegames of your character at different points of his/her life. It's only when you're in the middle of something and you have to quit that there would be a different kind of savegame which deletes itself when it's loaded. I don't know if I didn't make it clear enough, or if people just didn't read the whole paragraph.

Also it's apparantly not clear that this would be part of a seperate realistic or hardcoe mode, because someone pointed out that this should not be forced upon casual players. Again, hardcoe mode is all about taking away conveniences, or limiting the player so that he/she feels more part of a believable world. Yes, we can choose to not use fast travel, or choose to eat food every once in a while, or choose to only save when we're in a safe place and not use autosaves, but then it doesn't feel like you're actually playing the game. It feels like you're not playing it like it's meant to be played, and it feels like a futile exercise. I it will feel more real for some people, and that people with a pc can just download a mod or two to make this happen. Sadly, the same can not be said about people with a console.

That's just my last 2 cents on the subject.

» Sat Feb 19, 2011 5:40 am

Also it's apparantly not clear that this would be part of a seperate realistic or hardcoe mode, because someone pointed out that this should not be forced upon casual players. Again, hardcoe mode is all about taking away conveniences, or limiting the player so that he/she feels more part of a believable world.

I understand where you're coming from, but I would still like to challenge that view, I don't view hardcoe mode as being all about taking away conveniences, but more about making world consequences more real or severe. In the below section of your answer you provide some things you see as hardcoe material, I'll address which I agree with, and which I don't, and why.

Yes, we can choose to not use fast travel, or choose to eat food every once in a while, or choose to only save when we're in a safe place and not use autosaves, but then it doesn't feel like you're actually playing the game. It feels like you're not playing it like it's meant to be played, and it feels like a futile exercise.

Again, given that were talking about a separate hardcoe mode, most of the disagreements on this topic disappear. Nontheless, I feel that not saving, or not using fast travel, is different than choosing to eat food every once in a while.

First thing is that not using save/fast travel and being forced to not use save/fast travel, results in the same experience, I don't feel this is the case with simply choosing to eat once in while, and actually having an in game need for food, because the experience will be different, neglecting to eat in one scenario results in no consequences, while in the other results in an in-game recognized consequence (hunger).

This is where I see the difference with regards to hardcoe mode, it is not about losing convenience, it is about the world reacting more harshly to your presence, or more in game world rules applying to your character, sure some of this will result in inconvenience, but this is a side-effect, not the main point of hardcoe mode, IMO.

As such, I see a lack of ability to save, or fast travel, as something which doesn't contribute to the game world reacting more harshly, or more sever in game recognized consequences to a player input. I see it more as an adjustment just for the sake of inconvenience.

We already have that you can't fast travel in unsafe areas. Now instead of lack of fast travel, had you suggested random encounters in said fast travel, in hardcoe mode, I would have been just fine with it. Because this is a world recognition that you are traveling through it, and such a thing is not likely to go undisturbed.

» Sat Feb 19, 2011 3:37 am

I would like The Elder Scrolls series to begin taking more inspiration from the Ultima series, specifically Ultima 6, and Ultima 7: pt1 and pt2. While I will grant you TES is it's own series, and thus should stay true to what makes an ES game an ES game, there are some great things that could be integrated from Ultima to make TES a game I think we would all find even more fascinating. In many ways, TES already attempts to be a successor of Ultima. The Elder Scrolls is one of a very few games that picks up the mantle of a free roaming world, NPC's that eat, drink, sleep, have daily schedules, get angry if you steal from them, call the guards, etc... I do believe, however, that TES can still take lessons from Ultima.

1. Ultima excelled at weaving story elements into the game in surprising, almost easter-egg ways. (Easter egg is not exactly the right term as that implies finding something in the game which is not actually related to the game world at all in many cases. An example would be in Duke Nukem: 3D where you can find Homer Simpson's office at the nuclear power plant complete with donuts). Rather, what Ultima did was introduce story elements in a side quest, or main quest that were extraneous to completing it, but that you can find much later in the game for some really cool "ah ha!" moments.

An example would be an NPC saying: "Well, I built this contraption once years ago to capture lighting strikes to harness the energy from the heavens. Suffice it to say it didn't work very well. I do believe, however, that I have mastered the technique. Would you be willing to join with me in getting the device calibrated. I just need you to..." and so you help the old wizard capture energy in a gem or something. The kicker is, when much later in the game, you're exploring in the wilderness far away and you come across a rickety burned out old tower with the skeletal remains of NPC's scattered around it. I guess the old wizards experiments really didn't go well! What made it cool was that nobody told you to find his old device, it wasn't part of the quest, and you may not have believed it would exist in the game world anyway; that maybe it was just a throw away statement.

2. NPC's in surprising locations. One thing that TES does very poorly is having neutral or friendly NPC's anywhere besides a settlement. A farm, village, or city is likely to have plenty of neutral, or friendly NPCs, but 99% of the time if you see another human outside of that context they will try to murder you on site. That is not creative. That is not surprising. That is not immersive. In Ultima there were certainly hostile NPC's, but not every NPC in the forest, or cave wanted to slaughter you.

In Britannia the earth was riddled with caves and dungeons. Inside you would find cyclops, goblins, daemons, etc... but sometimes you would also find fellow explorers who would ask for your help. It is a very nice change of pace.

3. Creative dungeons/dungeon quests. One thing that Oblivion in particular did a poor job with was dungeon design. They were a few different tile sets (for lack of a better term) and they just went to town making a hundred caves that basically were the same. All the talk about traps, and physics, was just that. Talk. I rarely came across a trip wire or alternate means of killing a goblin outside of the starter dungeon. That was not the case in Ultima.

While there are many, many examples of how Ultima is superior in dungeon design, the one that sticks out the most is when you are sent to a mountain prison in Ultima 7: pt 2. Natually, unless you want to sit in your cell and quit the game you must escape. There are no obvious clues how to do this. Through trial and error you figure out what you have to do. As you make your way through this dungeon you come across other convicts who have had more or less success also trying to escape. Some of these people have been here a very long time and are completely mad by the time you come across them, and offer little assistance or just attack you. Others have kept their sanity and will assist you a great deal. One or two are actually essential to escaping. Since this prison, as it turns out, was originally built to hold powerful rogue mages, you come across fantastic parts of the dungeon that were actually constructed by long imprisoned wizards who have made this place their home. It's just a great, great dungeon quest. Tons of imagination went into making it. There traps, puzzles, NPC's, monsters, surprises, etc...

4. Game elements that introduce strategy and challenge. In Ultima you had to eat, and sleep in order to survive. While that is a controversial topic in this forum, I feel it could certainly be implimented ala 'hard-core mode' like FO:NV ( A great game that is more Ultima-esque than the Elder Scrolls actually are despite being post-apocalyptic). Beyond this, however, are a few other things that added a lot of interesting elements. For instance, in Ultima 7: pt. You needed to eventually explore the frozen northern most reaches of the game world. In order to do this without freezing to death you had to add warm clothes over your cold-conducting metal armor. Nothing stopped you from going north without the requisite fur hat, cloak, gloves and boots, but the farther you went the more your characters would complain of how cold it was. Eventually they would start getting frost bite and then finally keel over and take damage until death. It was not hard to find merchant who sold warm clothes so it wasn't a major obstacle. It just added a lot of depth and a bit of thinking/strategy.

The previous ideas are just a few of many things TES could use as inspiration from Ultima. I realize that most of you have never played Ultima since you're too young to remember it. I've been playing RPG's since 1989 and can assure you it's worth playing even now, with the comparatively poor graphics. Ultima 7 and 7 pt 2 can be played via a conveyance known as Exult. Find it here: http://exult.sourceforge.net/

Keep in mind that Todd Howard himself has cited Ultima 7 as tied for his favorite game of all time. It's not an accident he went into deep RPG's. I feel if he returns to his roots a bit he can take an already great game in TES, and make it even better.

» Sat Feb 19, 2011 10:55 am

Would like to see a more realistic first person point of view. In borderlands, you can see your feet, hands and in some scenarios(such as going beserk) your vision clouds, giving you an understanding of the pain your character is going through. When earing a bulky helmet with a tiny slit allowed for sight, surely vision would be minimal -> it may be interesting to see part of the inside of the helmet, minimising the view of teh actual player. This would give the feeling that you are inside that helmet, adding to a greater first person experience

» Sat Feb 19, 2011 2:01 am

First thing is that not using save/fast travel and being forced to not use save/fast travel, results in the same experience, I don't feel this is the case with simply choosing to eat once in while, and actually having an in game need for food, because the experience will be different, neglecting to eat in one scenario results in no consequences, while in the other results in an in-game recognized consequence (hunger).

That's true, it's easier to simulate the one than the other. So of course things like effects from eating would be most important in a realistic/hardcoe mode.

This is where I see the difference with regards to hardcoe mode, it is not about losing convenience, it is about the world reacting more harshly to your presence, or more in game world rules applying to your character, sure some of this will result in inconvenience, but this is a side-effect, not the main point of hardcoe mode, IMO.

As such, I see a lack of ability to save, or fast travel, as something which doesn't contribute to the game world reacting more harshly, or more sever in game recognized consequences to a player input. I see it more as an adjustment just for the sake of inconvenience.

We already have that you can't fast travel in unsafe areas. Now instead of lack of fast travel, had you suggested random encounters in said fast travel, in hardcoe mode, I would have been just fine with it, because this is a world recognition that you are traveling through it, and such a thing is not likely to go undisturbed.

First of all, the definition I had in mind was not only the world reacting to you in harsher ways, but also you having to react to the world in more realistic ways. To make the world react to you takes a lot of developing effort that isn't spent improving the standard mode for the game (which most people will play), and I'm afraid that the devs won't have too much patience for that. It's generally easier to force/encourage the player to react to the world in different ways. And often, those two things aren't the same.

For example, the random encounters give a great feeling that you're travelling through the world. However, the way you approach traveling to a far away cave doesn't change. You just click fast travel, and then kill anything on your way. If fast travel would be limited to traveling on horses and traveling between city stables, roadside inns and roadside villages, you'd go about the whole business of traveling differently. You'd plan your trip to first go to a nearby inn, and from there move to your location. You would make more of an effort to find these inns and villages because they make traveling easier, just like how travelers in real life make stops at inns and villages. Also if you know you'll do a lot of traveling, you're more likely to buy a horse because it's actually convenient beyond having less time go by while looking at a loading screen. Just like more easily dying as a consequence to your actions won't make you play differently too much if you can spam autosave.

I understand that a lot of players will find this irritating, but for people who don't quite have the imagination of the most hardcoe roleplayers out there, these things really help the experience. The most important things for an eventual hardcoe mode will still be based on how the world reacts to you, with random encounters and effects of eating food as examples. But personally, I'd like what to see what I described above too. It's fairly easy to implement, and it could be made entirely optional.

» Sat Feb 19, 2011 9:46 am

First of all, the definition I had in mind was not only the world reacting to you in harsher ways, but also you having to react to the world in more realistic ways. To make the world react to you takes a lot of developing effort that isn't spent improving the standard mode for the game (which most people will play), and I'm afraid that the devs won't have too much patience for that. It's generally easier to force/encourage the player to react to the world in different ways. And often, those two things aren't the same.

I would say that if the world reacts harsher, or more realistic, you will automatically have to adjust your approach to a more realistic way.

For example, the random encounters give a great feeling that you're travelling through the world. However, the way you approach traveling to a far away cave doesn't change. You just click fast travel, and then kill anything on your way. If fast travel would be limited to traveling on horses and traveling between city stables, roadside inns and roadside villages, you'd go about the whole business of traveling differently. You'd plan your trip to first go to a nearby inn, and from there move to your location. You would make more of an effort to find these inns and villages because they make traveling easier, just like how travelers in real life make stops at inns and villages.

Also if you know you'll do a lot of traveling, you're more likely to buy a horse because it's actually convenient beyond having less time go by while looking at a loading screen. Just like more easily dying as a consequence to your actions won't make you play differently too much if you can spam autosave.

I disagree with regards to traveling far away. The battles that come in your way will be exhausting, and drain your resources which would lead the player to do short fast travels between inns to resupply, instead of getting killed because you took the whole trip in one go. If horse combat would be implemented, there would be more advantages to having a horse, and let's not forget that you already can't fast travel to somewhere you haven't been before (shivering isles, and some quests in OB), so a horse is already necessary for quick travel to places you haven't been, essentially installing your scenario.

I disagree with regards to easy death, spamming autosave doesn't make the failed approach better, it will only be the difference between dying 1 time and 1000 times, you'd have to adjust your approach to overcome the enemy, if your current one is inefficient, having no autosave would just add frustration since you can't adjust your plan of attack immediately.

I can only see lack of autosave creating a delay on the same solution you were gonna apply, had you had autosave.

I understand that a lot of players will find this irritating, but for people who don't quite have the imagination of the most hardcoe roleplayers out there, these things really help the experience. The most important things for an eventual hardcoe mode will still be based on how the world reacts to you, with random encounters and effects of eating food as examples. But personally, I'd like what to see what I described above too. It's fairly easy to implement, and it could be made entirely optional.

Well as long as it is optional I can't see it being a problem, there are just some things in hardcoe mode I would like to experience, without having to also give up autosaves or whatnot. I guess it will depend on if a potential hardcoe mode is adjustable.

» Sat Feb 19, 2011 8:37 am

I agree with the more realistic first person point of view, it's going to seem absolutely ridicules if you pick something up and your character actually doesn't pick it up.