I'd just like to point out that aside from your other assumptions, you don't know my gender, nor do you know my preffered method of euthanasia. :hubbahubba:

On topic, what are your observations on TES games, and what we know of Skyrim, with regards to Open-World RPG design.
Are there things that have enhanced the genre? Are there areas that still need improvement? Do you feel that defining your character and playing it out in the world is better with certain features, if so which ones?

Really, what do you think about the various TES games and the open-world RPG genre as a whole?

This.

If you really have such a huge problem with the direction TES is heading...DON'T BUY IT. Speak with your wallet, and let Beth know that you will not stand for this "streamlining" "dumbing down" nonsense.
If you, for some reason, are unable to do that and find yourself purchasing day one...maybe it's time to stop complaining? If you can't control yourself from purchasing it, then Beth is doing exactly what they need to be doing. Making a game you will give them $$ for.


p.s. I think Skyrim is going to rock.

you know people were told the same thing when Oblivion rolled around, same with Morrowind. turns out the speaking with your wallet thing doesnt work.

That was a good post. :tops:

When was that?

Its true, and its a shame IMO. Games had the freedom (and audience acceptance) for implied events and abstract detail. This made for a more believable world to the player who could visualize the micro-detail from the essential events, and did not need to see a minor thing depicted to accept it as a given occurrence... Like "Map Travel" for instance ~being just an implied walk, and not some magical hop to elsewhere. :shrug:

Fallout allowed the PC to torch a victim with a flame thrower, and the delivery was both horrific and comedic ~by design. Before FO3 shipped, I wondered how they could match it with FO3's realism and have it be of comparable effect... The idea of seeing the micro-details of a young woman (for instance) set afire and falling dead with crackling skin was not one I thought I want to see in the kind of explicit and excessive detail we were expecting of FO3 ~and I was right, and they did not do it really; and they certainly did not match FO's abstract effect of the same event IMO. :shrug:

In the case of spears, crossbows and throwing weapons, no. removal of the skill removed the weapon. With 1h/2h that may change, but we dont know.
But more broadly, its really not known if for example the removal of the acrobat skill will still allow players to roleplay their version of a cat-burglar, leaping from roof to roof.



Actually, being punished is something that many roleplayers enjoy. If you are playing a character that should reasonably be punished in that situation then thats exactly what the roleplayer wants. This is why level scaling of monsters was panned in Oblivion and to a lesser extent Fallout3. It removed the situations where a character got in over its head.

I don't know which you are implying, that people DID speak with their wallet and Beth didn't listen or that people DIDN'T speak with their wallet.

Seeing as though the game has increasingly sold more, I'd go with the latter.

That's not the same thing...

I meant by killing essential characters and being overly and definitely not reasonably punished.

Like in Morrowind where you just cannot continue the main story in any way (except if you kill that one essential character), or even better, the case of Fallout 1 and 2 where killing children would make everybody hostile to you, no matter the circumstances...

I will give you that.
You know by now that we are often on opposing ends of the spectrum, and you know that my opinion of Oblivion isnt that high.

But I will give you that even I have to concede that NPC's having a schedule, radiant AI (no matter how much it had to be reduced from what was intended, it was still there.) and scripted events are a marked improvement on anything the prequels offered and quite interesting to play around with.

The parts after scripted events, well, my opinion differs, the point is that I hope that this time around the game will have radiantness as was promised for Oblivion, possibly even better.
Because that most certainly is a wonderful mechanic for ensuring the feeling that the world doesnt revolve solely around the player, that everything isnt just there waiting for you.
It makes for a more interesting world and therefore adds to the shelflife of the game.

The post above mine I have to disagree with yet again lol.
Its what they call in my nation: If you burn your bum, youll have to sit on blisters.

This is a good point, to what extent does the change in expectations and technology affect the delivery of the open-world RPG.

I would say that AI has certainly played a minor role in the evolution. I agree that Radiant AI was dissapointing, but even though it was over-hyped it was an earnest attempt to imbue the world with more life. I dare say this trend of imbuing NPC's with more intelligence will continue in TES VI, VII and VIII. But will developing NPC smarts mean their is less focus on the development of the player character? Is this a change that open-world RPG players would want? I think such a move would make many seasoned players feel less attached to their characters, and it would reduce the clasical replayability of an open-world RPG.

But effectively that "A.I" contributed very little to actualy gameplay, In Morrowind and Oblivion enemies switch weapons based on distance, and used their spells and fled if outmatched, they didnt do anything different or groundbraking in oblivion that makes it note worthy NPC's acted like they were doing something but I hardly call cycling animations doing anything, and for someone who i've seen taunt people using the word immersion oh the irony would it be if you used that excuse.

atleast in skyrim there is a chance all that NPC work might mean something, regardless thats not A.I its scripted events that don't change, in Oblivion I can break a drug ring, but the lady will still make the run, and the buyers will STILL sit at the camp even if the runner is dead. so excuse me if thats not much of a drastic change worth mentioning.

Good post, OP.

Bethesda didn't just take some of the sand out of the sandbox, they threw the sand in our faces and hid our toys in the sand as we ran home to our mommies. Well, maybe not, but I still like the anology.


I remembered the claim from Oblivion, so I when I heard the same claim was being made again, I was skeptical. Skeptical about Skyrim as a whole. I will remain skeptical until I have played the game for at least twenty hours.

Yes, Morrowind is in my top ten favorite games ever (although I haven't played it in years). I was disappointed with Oblivion and I am certain I would have been disappointed with Morrowind if I had played Daggerfall. Skyrim won't disappoint, because I have low expectations this time. I still expect it to be better than any Fable game, though.

I have been trying but failing for a way to express this exact sentiment.
Its true.

I would argue that the former is perfectly acceptable to Role-Players, there is an action and a reasonable consequence, the inability to compleate a quest is not punishment but rather a valid consequence of your action. As for the latter example of fallout, thats borderline. Yes, anyone that would reasonably know you were a child murderer should want to kill you on site, unless they share that disposition. Where the fallout example breaks down is that it is not reasonable to expect that everyone you meet will magically know you are a child killer. This is a case of unreasonably being punished in the context to your actions and the way the world would react.

But this is precisely the kind of discussion I am advocating. Perhaps there is another way to deal with this situation that maintains the integrity of the open-world RPG and enhances the role-players experience?

I always assumed that the Fallout reaction to child killing was a display of the developers' attitude toward the action...

I read most of it and understand what it boils down to. In my view, it's not so much "removing features" as it is "replacing features", that hopefully is implemented in a better non exploitable way. A "real" RPG has a GM in flesh and blood that can punish a player trying to take advantage of the weak spots in the system. A CRPG does not. Here the system has to be designed to be non exploitable to provide fair and playable challenges. If you want to exploit the system, use cheats or addons that provide them. Like in FONV, there are addons that make you select a perk every time you gain a level instead of every other level. I never used it. We have a console command which allows us to cheat if we want to. I've never used any of this for cheating. I've made my character smaller, which tends to put me at a disadvantage (slower running speeds).

Sure, I'd prefer a system with 100 different skills. But there is no way to make a good perk tree for all of these, and we then get a pure numbers skill system without the possibilities to be able to do new stuff with it. Previously I also tend to become master of all trades, but the world was also highly static so it didn't matter so much. Daggerfall also had an insanely bigger sandbox, and every character went to places other characters had never been at. Todays worlds are just far too small, and obstacles in our way have to be made differently. I don't like being channeled into a route, but the small world pretty much allows no other ways.

Can we play like this and that type of character? Impossible to know, as we don't know all the skill perk trees, and secondary perks (like in FONV) if they exist. I hate to loose stats, but it could be just my imagination failing me - I have to play it to knows how it actually plays out. Maybe it works, maybe not. Seems to me you no longer start basing on a stat class, but rather spend the first few levels defining it a little more over time.

It's still a sandbox game. You can go wherever you want, and do whatever you want, based on the game system rules. Yes, the rules have changed, and hopefully to the better. A game with broken and exploitable game mechanics is not what makes it a sandbox game. Suffice to say, I expect the devs to have more common sense on what is "good game design" than most on these boards. Well, as long as there is hardcoe mode at least

Well, in Morrowind I think they focused on imbueing the world with an alien fantasy environment/culture, hence the mushrooms and ash and hard core Dunmer sentiment. They did carry forward much of the faction inteligence from Daggerfall, but your right, the characters were not smart.
Radiant AI in Oblivion was an attempt at smartening up the NPC's more broadly, but it really didnt work out. I feel that while giving NPC's a basic daily routine and simple needs they missed the boat on providing depth to NPC characters and as a result they ended up like repetative automatons.

I think the need for a hybrid of improved general NPC behaviour and scripted events was recognised and thats what is being attempted with Radiant story, but we've not seen enough to make the call on how it will turn out.

I play on console and I would do a lot for a mod that would reduce xp gains in Fallout: New Vegas.
I just dont find the game fun anymore once my character is 'finished'.
Ideally Id remove all xp gained from quests, I think that would make levelling speed more as I desire.
It is my biggest gripe with the game, above invisible barriers, above having to be a bad guy no matter what ending.
(I dont want to kill either the Brotherhood or House. I like em both more than the NCR or the Legion.)

But I disagree on what you call exploits. I call them choice, as unlike the levelling speed in New Vegas, things like 100% chameleon or 100 athletics in Oblivion were wholly and totally optional.
Im all for having a challenging gaming experience.
Im just not for removing options.
Sometimes I like playing an immoral untouchable murderer, my roleplay reasoning is that he is psychotic enough to ignore the (my invention) divine warnings against permanent invisibility and uses 100% chameleon regardless.
Fun things to toy around with on the 50th playthrough. Wholly optional and I would be sad to see them removed.

It would reduce the replayability of the game.
I never would have continued playing Daggerfall and Morrowind up to this date if it wasnt for the amazing amount of control they offer.
Some call that 'broken' or 'OP' or anything, I call it fun stuff that keeps me from shelving it after the first playthrough.

I never even played Dragon Age with all five backgrounds. There is no point, its too boxed in, linear, samey and boring.

You have made a reasonable anolysis, good post. :foodndrink:

What do you make of the argument that exploits should be fixed rather than removing troublesome systems?
Or the opinion that single player games can't be exploited by virtue of the fact they are single player?

I'm kind of on the fence with this myself. I always want more freedom as a player, providing it is within context of the game world itself.

The Mushrooms and alien thing are not what made Morrowind great,

you went from 13 diverse and varied factions with differing viewpoints and agenda's to 4-5 generic ones, there wasn't a world in Oblivion, just a theme park, everything was perfect, and designed to be played through -once- Skyrim is in the same boat as Morrowind was, in that it lacked intricat details of its region, its inner workings and political interplay in the region, seriously aside from being called TES there was next to nothing unique about Oblivion.

Did you see the 4 tusked mammoth? that right there is diversity, what a little change turning a real life animal into something no of this world and associated with giants, THAT is a twist, TES style thats doing something out of the box, not some generic fantasy monsters that Oblivion was filled with, that had next to no reasoning, you couldnt even learn about why Minotaurs and ogres existed, they just did. and you had slivers of information on Goblins, but there was so little info that it wasnt even worth caring about if you choosed to look for it.

I praise Morrowind not for its mushrooms, or Dwemer ruins, but for the world it offered, how TESy its was without reseblming every other RPG out theire, buecause there is enouch EURO medieval style RPG's running out their already, and theres is nothing that says Skyrim couldnt diverge from that.

How one cannt realize the loss in variety between two games made by the same company is beyond me.

Fair point. I loved the mushrooms myself, but more-so because of the Telvani, and their wierd nature. It was almost like a deeply conservative magocracy, with an arrogant streak.
The stilt walkers and the swamp to volcano environment worked so well with the near zenophobic attitude of the general population.

To be fair, with Morrowind we saw a major engine change, and yet they still maintained a reasonably complex faction system. And indications are that Bethesda have recognised the need to re-develop that lost complexity in Skyrim.
If they can regain the social complexity and provide a real decent level of NPC intelligence then the world setting itself will probably be in a good spot.

First - OP - that was a tremendous post, and I offer my congratulations simply from the point of view of a wordsmith. Well done.

And, in passing - to those who responded with nothing beyond some variation on "TL/DR" - I'll only share that that response has always amused me, since those who post it never seem to realize that it says more about them than it does about anything else, and what it says about them is.... not flattering.

Obliquely to the point - an anology regarding the history of the franchise and the history of criticizing the games:

You have a friend who's an extraordinarily talented baker. Years ago, you first got to try a cake that he'd baked. It was a marvelous thing - exceptional in ways that you'd never even considered a cake could be. But underneath it all, you couldn't help but notice that it was sort of.... bland. With all it had going for it - near perfect texture and sweetness - it was just sort of drab. Not that it had no flavor - just that you could tell that it could have more. After congratulating him profusely on it, you hesitantly offered up that bit of criticism - that it... well... could do with a bit more flavor. He sheepishly agreed and said he realized that and that he already planned on adding a bit more spice to the next one.

When you tried the next one, it was indeed just as flavorful as it should've been - a genuine feast for the palette. And...... it was no longer as moist as it could've been - as the last one was. The flavor was everything the last one could've been, but he'd lost something else along the way. Again, you congratulated him on the job well done, but then, a bit more boldly, pointed out that this time it was a bit dry. He admitted that it was, and said he had already realized that and was already planning how to make the next one better.

Jump ahead a bit - you're now on the fifth cake. Every single one has been great, all in all, but every single one has had some flaw - a flaw that really shouldn't have been there, because you know by now what he's capable of. These are all things that he's gotten right at one point or another, but for whatever reason, he continues to fail to get all of them right at the same time. At this point you know the pattern, so you come into it already expecting what you're going to find - not knowing precisely what it will be, but knowing that it will be something. And you take one bite, roll your eyes, put your fork down and say, "Seriously man - you left out the [censored] sugar? Are you [censored] kidding me?"

Just wanted to share that.... it's been wandering around in my mind for a while now, and if nothing else, I need the space for other things. All are free to do with it as they will.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Seriously, tremendous post, thankyou :thumbsup:

I want the entirety of your post as my signature.

You're so blatantly wrong with so much of what you say.

DAGGERFALL's world IS physically LARGER than ARENA's.

OBLIVION's world IS physically LARGER than MORROWIND's.

Bethesda has already officially stated these things, and fans that have gone and measured the actual game worlds have backed these statements up. Morrowind may have seemed larger than Oblivion just because there was no fast travel which resulted in tons of walking, and there was a larger amount of quests/things to do in Morrowind's world. Bethesda has already said that while Skyrim's world is the same size of Oblivion (WHICH WAS PHYSICALLY LARGER THAN MORROWIND), there is a much larger amount of content in it, and a lot more things to do. You just literally made a bunch of crap up to try and back up your 20+ paragraph rant. Most of what you said is completely incorrect. Please, actually know what you're talking about before going on a massive rant like this.

KONGRATULATION! YOU HAF MO KNOWLEDGE!

Srsly tho, srsly....

nobody cares.

Yeah I saw that flaw in his post too. Did it make it all invalid? No..calm down, The post was great. Along with the one about cakes, which made me not only hungry for cake, but for more intelligent posts.

And then I saw yours.