...Make it TOO simple.

Many game developers in the past have done this believing that it would make a game better when it only destroys the replay value and variety of the gameplay.
Ok so a VERY little amount of games have managed it in the past, but I'm usually dissapointed in the developers who think that this is the only thing gamers want, for example, when fable came out it was a extremely popular game, offering loads of options with marriage, real estate and brilliant character customisation. Almost definetaly one of the best rpg games alongside morrowind. Then Of course fable 2 was released, still managing to retain the same varietys but with even more things like better house customisation, dyes, online, LOADS of quests etc.

But then came fable 3.

To be honest... The only respectable thing they did was a few quests. The rest of the game was shrouded with terrible shops, letting you only buy around 2 certain items for each one, less clothing, ONLY legendary weapons which got boring and a short, predictable story line. Sure there were some notable side quests, and the online was a tad better, but apart from that it's like they got fable 2, covered it in sh*t and served it to gamers on a silver platter. Just terrible.

Even games like mass effect 2 took away the option to buy guns and customise them, took away shops and decreased the amount of side missions.

So PLEASE Bethesda, continue expanding the overwhelmingly big mountain ranges and vast expanses, keep up with all the customizable options available and don't stop with the player owned homes. Because if you did what the infamous head develpor of lion head studios did, then I can confirm one thing:

You will lose ALOT of publicity.

BTW, using the ipad which has touch screen so excuse the constant mistakes please
(customisation = customization etc)

EDIT: I recently read http://badasspanda.com/first-skyrim-screenshots-and-info-from-game-informer/2566 that in skyrim, some quests will be auto generated to suit the players skill sets, and of course while this may be a good thing once we have exhausted the games scripted side and main quests, I still hope that they put some time into a wide variety of objectives so it's not just wood elves constantly running up to you with the same objectives, for example; "could you retrieve a family heirloom in *insert dungeon here*?" or "Please help! Bandits have kidnapped my son! Please save them! You can find them at *bandit camp name*, hurry!"

What do you all think of it?

too

and I think that the worst possible thing to do is not make it, but charge double for a nonexistant game that secretly harvests your organs in the night.

From everything we've heard I highly doubt this to the case.

Hell, let's face it, even Dungeons and Dragons recently took out crafting in order to simplify. Bethesda is doing the opposite and putting crafting >in<. When Bethesda has the balls to go old school and Dungeons and Dragons doesn't, then I'm not worried that they'll try to simplify things.

And hell, let's face it, the perk system has made customization essential. Now even if two character chose the exact same skills, the perks insure that they'd be two different characters.

I think we'll be fine. :icecream:

You would think I would see that after looking through it twice. :brokencomputer:

Thank Akatosh TES isn't like Fable...

Customization.
Its Morrowind. Respect.
Customization. Again.
Customize....
and Developer.



Just saying. :thumbsup:

Two'ed.. play nice.

Yes alot of games try to make things easier / simple / user friendly / streamlined..

Most botch it up, ME2 had a great user friendly, easy, simple combat system, fast and furious.
However they did this with the story as well.. bad move, keep gameplay simple / friendly.
Make roleplay / story complex.
DA:2 the same from what I've seen.
Oblivion again made it more friendly for first time players, again at the expense of dialogue / story.
Then made a huge error of adding bad leveling ( note bad leveling, not leveling. )

BG2: shadows of Amn, then released an expansion that was a shadow of the game it expanded.

The thing is alot of people ask for different things, the teams try to do their thing, but also make use of those wants.
Unfortunately theirs is a computer market, as such they focus more on those features of design.
Until we stop playing or at least buying games that don't live up to depth then the market won't change.

Dungeons and Dragons is a very well known tabletop RPG, but not a good tabletop RPG. Using them as an example is like saying Final Fantasy 13 is a good example of console RPG streamlining.

I think simplicity does work in a lot of games (Nintendo are good at this) but with an RPG like TES the game lives and dies by the depth of gameplay. I don't think Bethesda are going to make it too simple - a lot of the things being discussed are more about making it tighter and better designed.

That's just, like, your opinion man.

It consistently outsells all competitors. I love all kinds of tabletop RPGs, but when it comes to medieval fantasy dungeoneering D and D is where it's at. :mohawk:

Peter Molyneux recently announced Fable 4. Here is a little blurb on it:



It's a joke but it makes my point. Simplification is BAD!

The worst possible thing Bethesda can do to Skyrim is...Tell us a week before release date, "Nah, we were just kidding, we're not gonna release it now :hehe:

IMO the worst thing they could really do is add guns and multiplayer, or to make it Morrowind 2.0 or Oblivion 2.

I would not mind blackpowder style guns, personally. As a fantasy world tech levels in The Elder Scrolls are screwy anyway.

Take away the sense of awe and exploration that I think we all got from Morrowind.

For such a massive game, Oblivion sure felt very linear.

Not to get too off-topic: If you want to get technical, at this point D&D is a wargame compared to any other tabletop RPG. Required reliance on a placemat/figurines and skills that almost never do anything outside of combat. By their logic of "roleplaying doesn't need rules!" I could make WarHammer or even chess as much a dungeoneering RPG as D&D. Every other tabletop RPG has evolved, and quite rightly so, where 4th D&D has actually regressed to the very retro original D&D boxset that was little more than a fantasy update for Chainmail (the original D&D, by the way, was little more than a wargame. AD&D was where it started it's roleplaying roots.)

Streamlining is an inevitable progression of a system. When you "streamline" out very obvious, and very central, gaming tropes that are used to identify what game you are playing then you are changing what the game meant to begin with.

Luckily, Skyrim doesn't seem to be doing any of that. Furthermore, they seem to understand that streamlining can actually lead to a more complex game (such as the condensation of skills, but creating perk trees for each skill). I don't have any worries that Skyrim will do wrong with what they're changing.

You should post in my topic that addresses this very issue
http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?/topic/1168354-having-a-toggle-for-the-compass-optional-journal-quest-notes/

I think you are being rather unfair to Fable III in the comparison department to its predecessors. Among other things, Fable III is VASTLY larger, in terms of region size, than the original and significantly larger than Fable II. The graphics are better, the heroes look better, the spell weaving is a major improvement on the spell options, the Local co-p is infinitely better, and the sanctuary is fun.

Interestingly, most of the places where that game f***s up, and there are definitely some places where it does just that, are not areas that altering any of the above things would have fixed. They took away some of the spell options. . . and made them potions instead. Stupid. They took away control of the emoticon wheel. Also stupid. They offered less lore and took away some of the best features for replayble sidequests, like monster attacks on villages and constant conflict between the Temple of Light and The Temple of Shadows (ES could actually stand improvement in the replayable quest department also, I'm afraid), which is something that had nothing to do with engine capacity, it was simply a lack of insight and effort on the part of their creative writing team. Less creatures, heaven only knows why. And they actually made the shop system MORE complicated, by adding the annoying feature of players with vast realestate holdings being foreced to constantly go back and fix up houses in order to continue getting paid rent. That last feature was meant to add more complexity and verisimilitude, bu tended up just beang a pain in the backside.

Pro tip: it's -ise in most of the world, not -ize.

I disagree with this heavily, but that's as far as I'll go with getting off-topic. I think we can agree to disagree and be on our way.

Hahaha I just made that Oblivion 2 comment a few seconds ago on another thread.

However again, TeS and simpicity don't have a good track record.

This. TES doesn't have anyone as bad as Peter Molyneux(sp). If anyone says Todd Howard you should have your head examined.

Plus, this game has been in production for 5 years. I'm not worried that it will be too "simple"

You contributed nothing to this conversation. Take a long hard look at yourself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7E-aoXLZGY


As for complexity, I too want a more complex game. More depth to the cultures we interact with, especially. Oblivion had no culture, just cities with a few eccentric individuals. Clothes were the same, mannerisms were the same, there was no music, no festivity, no mourning rituals or social duties, no culture shock to be experienced. The only things they did well were social classes (poor vs. wealthy). Architecture and wealth are the easy things to portray, but they lack any real depth. Unless they were insane or had an agenda, almost everyone was the same. Fallout takes this to an extreme, but both games fit the amusemant park bill very well. Caricatures painted with a broad brush.

not only would making things too simple hurt the game, but they could also do damage by making the game too complex. I love the idea of all the customization that they claim will be possible in Skyrim, but there is a fine line before they make things so complex, that no one wants to use it, and that could go for a lot of things. Add too many options, or too many menus, or just simply too many items, and you can kill a game just as fast as if you made it too simple.

I'm reminded of the Mechwarrior series. Numbers one through three worked on the same formula. They were about giant robots plodding along, trying to shoot each others legs out. Microsoft (I believe it was) got a hold of the series and tried to change things up to appeal to a larger audience for Mechwarrior 4. So they sped things up and made a number of other changes, including simplifying.

The result? The changes they made failed to bring in new fans. At the same time, they alienated the devote fans of the series. As such, the game flopped and was the last one made.

'cause of magic, bro.
Even the most advanced technologies (Dwemer) are developed on the foundation of a strong understanding and practice of magicka.