Where did they say that they're going to prevent people killing everybody?


No, it's about implementing things that would feel like you're actually causing damage, things that some people would call "immersive". Like when you kill the half of the town, when you leave the survivors shouldn't just get back to their business like nothing happened, killing an entire town should spread some rumors to other towns, killing a shop owner should make the shop deserted...
Implementing these just seem like way too much work for something you won't do in a serious gameplay...

Yep.

Honestly lets look at both sides here.

One side is like "Wtf if i can't kill them why are they here it just takes away from the fact that I'm trying to kill everyone, plus my they are just annoying." I agree with this. This isn't to say i want to be able to kill children, but it's annoying that they are just in there for looks. Plus really how many quests are there in which you have to actually help them. We haven't seen much of that in FO

The other side thinks it adds to the realism, and i agree with this as well. Being able to interact with children and help them on quest, is a good feeling, and makes the game feel real.

So we have to take the good with the bad, and hope if we go on a killing spree they just run out in the wild and get killed >.>

And what about dragon attacks? Children will just get hit by the dragon without anything happening? LAME. I hope they find a way to make sure children fit in the game well.

In terms of the overall article, somethings fishy. Some of this isn't news, and doesn't fit right. Maybe it's just the translation.

Thanks for posting!

I really like the bit about the revamped combat.

"Before" as in Oblivion's CS? Because I don't have any experience with that one, just Morrowind's.

If they're just giving us extra features, I suppose that could turn out well for me, but it'd still be a little disappointing. I really love modding, and have a lot of really awesome ideas that I want to put into action, but I just can't because it would either take too long or is just beyond my capabilities. So I'm really hoping that the Creation Kit for Skyrim doesn't just give me more things to do, it makes doing the old things much simpler and easier.

But of course, like I said, I have no idea how Oblivion's Construction Set works at all, so if it's miles above Morrowind's in terms of ease-of-use, and Skyrim's does even better that, odds are I'll be just fine.

He didn't say squat about all that perfect world stuff, all he said was it took months to make an entire town Killable STOP maybe its the translation...but I wouldn't put it past him, the PR beth has been dishing out lately is beyond stupid.

again, if its RS that took months and addresses such situations fine, but I find it hard to believe that Todd is all his years thinking people who are going on a killing spree do it with an intent to continue playing the game in that state.

making everyone killable.......but Spell creation and HORSES are a problem?

god :teehee:

This awesome! Three questions I wanted answered were answered. Two answers were shallow, but at least someone's asking.

Yes, in general it seems the European jounalists are asking more poignant questions.

Even if we get perks without gaining level we're still limited to 50 that's already confirmed. Unless you just meant more perks between levels.
Yeah it does sound like an increase to health, magicka, and stamina is pretty much all we'll be doing at level up.

this is the best skyrim interview i have ever read so far!

Good stuff although the thing about Gamebryo has got me worried. I hope Skyrim isn't going to be bug filled.

At least he acknowledged that Bethesda knows some of us will be playing 500 hour+ playthroughs, which is a good thing.

I don't see why so many people are opposed to having children in the game. You can't kill them? So what (you monster). I don't care if it isn't "realistic enough". You seldom ever see brutality against children in movies (often when there should logically be some) but that doesn't make it a bad thing, it's just about entertainment value (and keeping the age ratings low).

If you want to go into unrealistic matters, I don't like that I can't chop down trees in Oblivion, that there are immortal NPCs who can't die, that all locks work exactly the same, that guards are psychic, that quests happen the same exact way every single time, and that there were no Children in Oblivion, leading one to assume that all NPC's just "spawn" from somewhere. Those are much more important than worrying about what happens to a child when danger rears its ugly head. People honestly believe it's more immersive to be in a world where you can kill anyone but there is not a single person under the age of 25?

Children of Morrowind was one of the most popular mods available for Morrowind. When you started combat near a child, they would suddenly become master mages and recall themselves away. No one complained about that, it was still a good mod. Just remember where we came from, and stop fussing over the smallest crap you can find.

I hope I can abduct them though.
I'm Dutch.

What?

If your saying what I think your saying, I agree.

Skyrim is a far more complex game than Morrowind, in terms of systems, so I guess it'll be something along the lines of people being seriously scared of you on sight. When I killed everyone on Vvardenfell (that's another dollar for you!), I killed everyone in plain sight. Sure, I racked up an insane bounty (400,000 or something) and was attacked on sight by guards, but no one was really reacting, just standing there while I hit them.

I really hope Skyrim incorporates some kind of system that'll make me really feel like the most evil guy in the world.

Anyway, why does it say unconscious for children? Shouldn't that be killing?

EDIT: Oh yeah, just remembered the rule...

Honestly? Yes. But I guess we'll have to compromise, I mean it's not like games are serious or anything... -.-'

I don't know how children worked in Fallout 3, but I don't think they were the unstoppable killing machines everyone's talking about.
Wouldn't they just ask for help, then run away, probably disappearing?

Some of the kids in wittle wampwight attacked when provoked. Other kids were unarmed, so they ran instead.

On NPC genocide: that Q&A was my favourite part of the interview. It lets me know that they are lovingly trying to account for every bizarre whim of their geeky fanbase. I have had plenty of epic rampages in OB and FO and NV, often at the end of my playthroughs when there's nothing left to do. (If they wont grant me experience, then I shall take it!) I also enjoy orchestrating the demise of NPCs in the course of quests, sort of the way the Joker looks at death as the ultimate punchline. But theres always a hollow feeling at the end, when the jet wears off, feelings of remorse and guilt.

The reason Todd humorously expressed consternation at the extra time it takes to code for these possibilities, is because they're designing a game where you role-play a HERO. Perhaps a dark, anti-hero even; but not a sadist who butchers entire towns and gets away with it. And yet! the Bethesda team is stretching the limits of their imagination to ensure that you and I can frolic in Skyrim til our hearts content. Trying to make it so immersive that maybe you can continue playing a Quest based Hero game after slaughtering all the men, women and children whom you were supposed to be helping. They're trying their best to make the game feel realistic, which means giving weight to the virtual death our characters dish out.

Ive actually thought of a neat way to control players carnage with an in-game Wanted! system. With generous limits on the amount of destruction the player can do before becoming Wanted! throughout the kingdom. It would be a permenant fugitive status, perhaps with a secret solution, that would also impose permenant death. Using a radius like GTA that alerts guards to your presence, that grows with infamy. And they also check the scene of your last crime. The PC would be known throughout the land, for all the wrong reasons. And if your evil character really is a badass, you can play a new game and try to evade, survive and resist.

They're basically building an alternate dimension, an eternal digital realm beyond life and death, where stories live. They want you the player to experience the full story of Skyrim and its radiant inhabitants.

Bethesda is your DM. Submit.

What if I want to run faster.

What if a modder wants to use attribute checks in dialogue si that only intellligent characters can say certain lines. Or a strong/agile/personable/lucky person? The ability to create real fully fleshed out quests in a fantasy setting was one of the favourite things I was looking forward to for Skyrim. Bethesda has definitely improved their modding tools in terms of quest creation since Oblivion, and the two Fallout games are limited by the setting in terms of what quests make sense. So removing attributes puts a serious dampener on the ability to create roleplaying type quests.

They're talking about a character who specializes in running. You use running, yeah... just about everyone does, which was the point. How many people make a character that doesn't run? It's a useless skill because everyone always uses it. A different method would be needed to allow characters to specialize in running, that doesn't make everyone do it.

Then do perk and skill checks related to the type of intelligence you're designing for.


You have many more options now, not less. Instead of 21 skills and 8 attributes to check, you have 18 skills and 280+ perks to check. And as I understand it from those that modded for Fallout 3, it's rather easy to add perks, giving you limitless options. How easy was it to add skills and attributes in Oblivion?

Where do you see the Quality in choice for 280 perks across 18 skills? fallout 3 had around 90 perks DLC's included and half of them were repetative and included +5's this included Skills AND S.P.E.C.I.A.L......what makes you believe Skyrim will sport every single perk as something distinct? Perks in FO3 where just that, Perks nothing overly significant and wasn't touted as "numerous options"

So....really :shrug: NO attributes in Oblivion do not make up or supercede as they had their quirks.....A/P/S is a far better alternative and for those saying Perks make Attributes redundant Perks are for skills, Speech craft does not effect initial disposition and Merchantile effects Prices, niether effects how NPC's percieve you, Athletics and Acrobatics are out, and quite frank I personally don't shine on having to pick a perk that raises my speed +5 where actually TRAINING my character's speed and Athletics are far more "organic" then clicking a tech tree and giving my character permission to do something which should get better over time..not because a button says so.

and don't give me that sprint garbage either, you know full well what Im talking about

Where do you not? Do you think they would've dropped attributes and cut 3 skills if they couldn't come up with good perks?


In Oblivion and Morrowind that's how it worked. We don't know how it's going to work in Skyrim yet, but they've said the attributes' function will still work. If you don't trust their word, then fine, but you don't need to go around complaining that it won't work when you don't know that.


In principle, I'd agree with you. But how would you do it? Everybody runs, so it's kinda pointless to level Speed that way. Especially since levelling Speed will count towards your character level regardless of the type of character you're playing. Having to use trainers isn't much better than perks. Individual levels for Athletics were useless. The four perks it gave were the reason to level it. So now instead of picking Athletics to eventually get the perks, you can just eventually pick the perks. Cut the middle-man out.