Multiplayer, definitely. I share my game with nobody, nor would I want to pay for the game ten times over in monthly fees. Guns would come in as a close second for me.

I think a 1:1 timescale could be good, but it's the sort of thing that should be done with a mod.

Would add good reason to sleep, and none of that annoying crap where the sun quickly goes down when you need it most.

Ok i think we now have something to replace watching yourself...editing poll.

I think the save points would be TERRIBLE. Of course that goes for timescale 1:1 too...

But, if a quest says you need to be there at night, but doesn't give you a time when, you can't just wait until the guy shows up. You'd have to stand there, staring at the wall until he did. Fun fun.

Why do you think it would have to be monthly fees? Multiplayer WOULD be nice if it would'nt change the single-player experience. That is VERY hard, but hey, would be nice.

Savepoints would be another thing that could be good, but it'd require the game to be almost totally different so it wouldn't really work out.

The greatest blessing and biggest gameplay issue that is caused by quicksave is that you never really need to be careful or think out your actions. If you [censored] up you can just load the quicksave. Therin lies the other problem, the game often makes it way too easy to screw things up.

"Add a spell that lets us rewind time to correct our mistakes!"

"You don't need one silly, you have the quicksave button"


No, you hit the wait button. Please think before you write.

Wouldn't be too hard. Like I said, they could impliment a Red Dead Redemption type system where you simply have to open the menu and select 'Multiplayer' and it switches to a version of Skyrim occupied by other players. Just as easy to switch back to SP.

Ha ha i knew this kind of thread will apper! Well mine top 3 worst ideias is :
3. Creating a family/Having children
2.Dragon/Mammoths mounts
1.Guns

this is the most difficult poll ever. Congrats! :icecream:

Guns are the worst idea, totally would take away form the medieval style... That would be getting too close to Japanese rpgs, and we all know how Todd feels about that, and I agree with him on that.

Multi-player would be cool in a sense of having someone play a basic character not like Fable II that was just annoying and unorganized. I literally mean someone picking up a controller and temporarily playing a hired hand with default settings. That would be cool.

Game erases data upon death is the second worst idea!

I actually wouldn't mind the game ending after the MQ.

People spasm over it to much. But its a TES game, so it will stay, so don't worry. I prefer a proper ending anyways than just a few big graphical changes to a few places a nice set of trophy armour and a small reference that you saved the world from dragons.

Yay?! :biggrin: :mellow: :unsure: :confused: :shrug:

I'm not exactly sure what is meant by '3D' being a bad thing. Even Arena was pseudo-3D... so you want Skyrim to be 2D, tile based or something? <_<

A little clarification there would be nice. ^^

I agree that they're a terrible idea, but they wouldn't be as bad as most people think they would. Think about it; if they only created about 3/4 flintlock rifles, perhaps as rewards for difficult quests or wielded by specific NPCs, it wouldn't ruin the game to to speak.

Wrong again, whats with you people? Guns were made in the medieval ages.

Where is the option for adding spears! :flamed:

As a disclaimer, I definitely do not want any form of multiplayer ever. But multiplayer doesn't necessarily mean monthly fees and an MMORPG. Think of Demon's Souls. If you aren't familiar with it, Demon's Souls had a system where you would enter a certain area and then lay down a stone, other players in the same area would see your stone and if they wanted and were able to, they could summon you to help them through the level. It was also possible to "invade" someones game under very specific circumstances, but it was a rare occurrence even under those circumstances.

Not saying any of those specific things should be involved, just to point out that if multiplayer happened, it wouldn't necessarily be the worst thing in the world and wouldn't have to be an MMO-style.

Yes, but only in the late middle-ages did they become widespread, which weren't what most people percieve as the typical 'Medieval period'. Oblivion seems to be based on the high middle-ages when primitive rifles were only just starting to be used.

maybe should have been a multi choice, or separate groups. also, dragons should have been an option (even tho game ending would still top dragons, I hate that they put so much effort into something so trivial as dragons.)

The people with such a disdain for mp, I feel sorry for them. Being able to explore the world of TES with a friend or loved one going on adventures would be absolutely amazing imo. Not MMO, just simple co-op with a friend. Why people would DISLIKE that amazes me, so many hard headed people on this board.

For me I voted save game erase on death. I can take that as an optional-option for those that want it, but if it was for anyone, no.

Multiplayer is by far the worst.

I think save erase on death, games ends, simulating bodily functions, guns, and starting as a child can all be integrated well in Skyrim, depending on how they're done. For example, an optional ironman mode where savegame erases on death, or steampunk guns in accordance with the lore (Skyrim is set further along the timeline, or just retcon it, it's not like Oblivion had a problem with that), simulating bodily functions can be enjoyable to an extent, the others are just dependent on the story.

3d and motion control aren't even a problem (don't use if you don't like), but it's just that it's resources put into something that doesn't fix any flaws in the previous game, but adds more decoration.

Actually, save points and 1:1 are pretty bad, too.

I voted multiplayer, although save points are tied with it along with 1:1 timescale, and guns. Motion control and 3d are just stupid and are up there in the hatred. On the lower end of hatred is the game ending and starting as a child, thus ruining the prison tradition. I wouldn't mind save erasure on death due to my recent love of rouge-like games, and I also wouldn't mind bodily functions :hubbahubba:

Who said guns in TES would mean they are widespread? You don't need to fable stuff up by giving every tom dike and harry his very own musket. An Akaviri matchlock or Dwemer flintlock here and there in the game world wouldn't bother me.

That said, we aren't going to see muskets because it wouldn't be sound from a developmental level to make a new set of animations for them. So are you going to see them in TES? No. Would I care if they were in TES (assuming they weren't everywhere) no, I wouldn't; because I'm not riding the "irrational gun ignorance bandwagon"

Meherunes go back to where you typed this and check the quote. I in no way said multiplayer lol. I was talking about the game clock being synced to the system clock.

Elder scrolls is actually not medieval. its fantasy.
It takes place in a fantsy realm where magic does the work that technology does for us, so there is no need for an industrial revolution.
Besides that the setting seems much more renaissance-esque than medieval.

They have cities that are fairly modern, infrastructure, printing is widespread and not just used for religious texts..
Etcetera.