And the PHYSICS! Bethesda should take note.

NO!

Ubisoft and Bethesda have their own unique style for producing and developing platform titles; a cross between the two could ultimately warp the experience of the next "GREATEST GAME EVAH!!!" rather than enhancing it.

However, that is not to say that certain elements that have been incorporated in past titles developed and produced by Ubisoft would not be welcomed by fans. For example, there exists Assassin's Creed 1 and 2. Specific elements, such as the core free-running mechanic were innovative ideas when combined with the graphical illustriousness of the titles, and could definitely have a place for an individual attempting to play a stealth-character type for, say, the next TES installment (which I will be referring to from this point on). Combat also had a unique place in both Ubisoft titles, with the stylized combat portraying a sense of legitimate competence on the protagonist's part, while allowing for creativity and development in the field. Would a speed-kill system be welcomed for the next installment? Sure, maybe. Also, high and low profile actions are a brilliant way to increase character immersion by generating a realistic crowd-response system; the idea is that individual NPCs or crowds of the characters would draw realistic individual/group response reactions to socially unacceptable or impressive behavior. An individual attempting a feat outside local or national law or of known infamy would not want to call attention to themselves, as that has the potential to draw the attention of law enforcement or the attention of authority figures, who would surely spell trouble for the individual. Lastly, in both Assassin's Creed titles, whenever a piece of equipment was acquired, it would become an observable item that was fitted onto the character in-game. Daggers, pouches, swords, maces, armor, and even other items could be easily identifiable when the character was examined thoroughly.

However, with those postulations stated, these elements cannot simply be ripped directly from Ubisoft's titles, due to complications that would arise from the gameplay mechanics. The core of gameplay developed in TES titles III and IV had a very specific feel, specifically founded on the precepts of character development, and exploration, the main focus of the game revolving around these two essential elements. If the elements drawn from the Assassin's Creed titles were directly pulled directly from the titles and transplanted into the next TES installment, there would all of a sudden be this tremendous shift in gameplay, because both said elements were the key focus of gameplay for both the Assassin's Creed titles. The focus of gameplay for the Assassin's Creed titles revolved around the characters' ability to go anywhere and strike from any point, and high and low profile actions that would allow characters to either blend in with their surroundings, or blatantly call attention to themselves, relating to the acquisition of intel relating to the target of interest, the actual assassination of the target, and the evasion that would follow.

Rather, Bethesda would need to alter these elements so that they serve to the original and true intent of the TES franchise, and not ultimately have it be the other way around.

Anyway, that's my two cents. Also, please forgive the next TES installment rant, but I figured it a perfectly logical hypothetical for the given situation.

i want bethesda, ion storm, and bioware to have a threesome and make a baby.

Bethesda do graphics just fine. If you take a look at Fallout 3, it isn't crysis, but there's atmosphere and it isn't really that bad.

Bethesda's biggest problem are the faces, and interestingly enough the faces arn't really made by them, not from scratch anyway.

Bethesda should provide the game, and Ubisoft, the DRM. Sounds great. :celebration:

Lets see, what would Ubisoft contribute to the game? Well, chances are they'd force their incredibly ridiculous DRM on the game, ensuring I don't get it for the PC, and then they wouldn't let Bethesda http://www.geek.com/articles/games/ubisoft-to-use-eco-friendly-cases-stop-shipping-paper-manuals-with-games-20100420/, which would ensure that I don't get the game at all. Oh and considering how buggy the majority of Ubisoft-developed games I've played are, combined with Bethesda's not so spotless bug record, would make one of the buggiest games in history.

Yes, I can see how that would be the best game ever. :facepalm:

Not sure! One thing I will say is that their games lack depth. Pretty Graphics indeed but repetition and short/boring gameplay svcks even if the graphics are nice.

No thanks, I like .ini files in my games, and the ability to play them without an amazingly consistent internet connection.

Bethesda for the open-world.
Bioware for the characters.
Kojima for the convoluted and gripping plot.

Haha, I like how you guys can boil a whole company down to "Graphics good! Gameplay baaad." As if they don't have separate teams and even entirely seperate studios who make games of differing focus and varying quality.

I agree with this post!

I think I'd like to see Piranha Bytes given the TES universe, Blizzard's budget, 2K Marin's artists, and Sony Santa Monica's or svcker Punch's programmers/ developers.

Or just get the interplay team back together if you want the best game in the world, Bethesda killed Fallout, period, all they did was remodel Oblivion with mutants and insects, it was no way Fallout, Morrowind, was an update version of Daggerfall, Oblivion was an updated version of Morrowind, there was hardly any original content in the games, just updated graphics. Open world game play, that's a lie, it's still a litterbox, if you want to call something open world, make it a sandbox. Only difference in game play is a few quests and dialog, the world is not forever changed by a single action, you cannot change how a quest will turn out, it will effect things the same way no matter what. You cannot alter the thieves guild other than becoming headmaster, same with all other guilds, what if you want to destroy a guild instead, rip it apart, you cannot. I have never and probably will never see a true open world game, it can be done, but companies don't want to spend the money or time to do such. If you die in Oblivion all you have to do is reload your last save, you never die, you never age, your body never changes, you're the same person from start to finish, you get cut, you never scar, you get nearly killed yet heal in a matter of hours, if you make a bad choice you can just reload until you make the exact choice you want. All I'm trying to say is if you want to make a game good, add challenge, make it unique, not an updated copy of every single title you've made.

Ehh I think ya want http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Black_Isle_Studios, not Interplay (many of the developers did join together and form Obsidian Entertainment). Interplay laid off Black Isle Studios when they were making http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Van_Buren and instead, Interplay made http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Fallout:_Brotherhood_of_Steel.

Hence why I said Interplay Team, as in the whole lot. Which would include Black Isle, Micro Forte, Shiny, and numerous other studios that worked on projects for interplay

No one touches TES but Bethesda.

Is it odd that I can't think of a single Ubisoft game? Really, I call myself a "gamer", but I only get around in very specific circles...(i.e. gamesas/Rockstar/Atlus)

I don't think that Ubisoft and Bethesda should combine. As many before me have said, Ubisoft isn't that good with content, Bethesda is.

I love Oblivion, and would enjoy it even more if it were multiplayer. I'm sure I would have much more fun if I were to be running by with guards chasing me, while my brother rides his horse up to the village's blacksmith. We would have many humorous moments. I would hate having some invisible rope between me and the other player. That kind of multiplayer is useless and utterly idiotic in this kind of game. It's sad that it came about in Fable II, which was to be a good game.

Well, if we're going to resurrected dead developers, I say let Troika write the plot and dialog, but get someone else to do the scripting/programming so that the game isn't bugged to kingdom come!

I don't see how it would be so bad. Ubisoft was involved with Morrowind.

Developing or publishing?

Not sure. I just see Ubisoft's logo and name on the side of my Morrowind case.

http://www.elderscrolls.com/news/press_011102.htm.

I don't care much about graphics. I wish more effort would go into gameplay, and that graphics would become an afterthought, rather than the reverse as seems to normally be the case. A bad game can be pretty. Just makes it a pretty bad game.

This. Why trust anyone else.