I get what you are trying to accomplish with your poll, but the thing is casual players being the casual folks they are, don't frequent this forum nearly as much as the more die-hard players out there who, we know, are mostly Morrowind fans.

I would like to see some of those options in the game. I can avoid fast travel if need be, but I'd like the option of turning off the compass and I think level/loot scaling should be out. You should walk into a place and if it's too tough, turn back around and tackle it at a later date. Not sure if hunger/thirst will make it, as the dev's have noted in the past that they believe that would not be fun, but tedious. I hope the GI article addresses this concern, most of us have, with the series continuing down a path where instead of adding to the game, they have stripped things out.

lol yeah
However console and mainstream gamers can still apply...plenty of those about here :shifty:

I think the level scaling of items and monsters should be based on the position not the player, thus if an area is low level, then it is filled with monsters and loot suitable for low level players, with a minimal chance of finding higher level loot in there.

And if the danger level of an area is mid-level, then it should be suitable for mid-level characters, with mid-level monsters mixed with lower level ones, and a mixed loot, mostly lower level loots mixed with occasional mid-level stuff and a low chance of finding higher level loots, except for boss monsters and their personal stash that should always contain higher level loot.

And if the danger level of an area is high, then one should find a mix of mid-level to higher level monsters, with occasional low level monsters thrown in, and the loot should be a mix of low level to higher level loot with the emphasis on mid-level loot, and a minimal chance of finding real treasures in the encounters, and containers.

There should also be ultra-high level places that would be too much even for high level characters, with increasingly more chance of finding really great loot in those areas as you advance toward even higher level places.

These places should be there for players that like to have more challenges even when they have completed the main quest, and developed really high level characters, so they can gradually conquer those areas bit by bit, while developing their characters even more and finding better loot to help them with the next area, and so on...

This way with any advancement of your character, and with any better loot you find, you become even more powerful and you can survive in new areas that you could not hope to survive, and this relatively safe area can rapidly broaden as you develop your character, but there would always remain some places deep within dungeons or in unreachable surface areas that would remain too hard for even high level areas.

This world is filled with immense sense of progression and achievement.

If you think that in non-level scaled world, players can cheat and using invisibility spells go into higher level places and obtain high level items, then this can be prevented, or made into an advantage for the game, so for instance:

The invisibility effect of the spells should never be absolute, or you might call that camouflage or obfuscate to show the fact that it is not absolute.

The monsters can have a sight power or keenness to counter the effect of invisibility, this way, although the lower level monsters would have low level of keenness and could be easily avoided with low level invisibility spells afforded for low level mage characters, the higher level monsters found in the higher level areas could easily break through the power of the spell with their higher level of keenness, or sight power.

Thus if as a low level spell caster, you cast a low level invisibility spell, you might be able to avoid lower level monsters, but would not get past those higher level guards in the higher level areas, so cheating is off.

This also applies to skills like sneak, and spells like unlock and so on, as those skills and spells might seem adequate in lower level areas, but as you enter higher level areas, you would find your arsenal lacking, and might have to advance with more caution to be able to develop your character and his arsenal with more deliberation to be able to overcome the increasingly level of challenge ahead.

But a clever player with a well-chosen set of skills and stuff might be able to stick to the shadowy areas, or might be able to use the environment to his benefit and outrun the resident evil of the higher level areas and with a bit of luck gain access to a high level stash of items and run away for his life back to lower level areas with an immense sense of triumph and enjoy the new found treasure for a while and it is his rightful trophy, and no one could say that it is a cheat.

When a quest leads you to higher level areas, you might have to wait for a bit to become more prepared to be able to complete the quest, and those quests should yield to rewards in proportion to the danger level of the areas that they are set.

As for character development, the level of experience you gain in any skill, should be in proportion to the difficulty of the task, so if you are a character with a high skill level of sword play, and you kill a low level bandit with a blunt low level knife, you should gain little experience in sword play, because your opponent caused you little trouble, and added nothing to your knowledge of swordplay.

But a higher level opponent would be a better chance if you want to advance your skills, so the players would automatically chose the areas that would give them a moderate challenge in their tasks, and would not linger in lower level areas to power game and advance in levels, because it would take a really long time that way.

Also the level of experience that a player gains while hitting a monster with a weapon should be in proportion to the damage dealt, not the number of times that you hit an opponent, so power gaming with low level weapons would be out, as it would not be different if you kill a monster with a low damage weapon or high damage weapon, but the amount of damage you dealt in total, so you chose your best weapon for each fight and the fights would end sooner and would not bore you.

This also applies to non-combat skills, like mercantile, so you do not sell your loot one by one to the merchant, but sell them all at once and gain level by the total value of the loot, not the number of items.

The spells should follow this rule and give experience with the total power of the spell effects not the total number of casts.

This would result in a streamlined game, with no need for power gaming and doing things repeatedly with low level items or spells in order to gain experience in repeating minimal actions.

In another note, low level foes should be more interested in saving their own hide and keeping their distance from higher level players, but as they would give relatively low level of skill experience and loot, then it would be no problem, but maybe some players enjoy chasing those poor bastards, and finishing them off with one blow, or spell.

I posted this here as I thought it showed my opinion on the subject perfectly, so no level scaling for anything, and with a suitable setting, you can have a game that gives you immense sense of progression and accomplishment.

Are you implying because i'm a console gamer that my opinion is worth less than yours?

This seems very flame-y to me.

1. It isn't hard to hook your computer up to a large screen. I play mine on a 52 inch television, and my rig is not very new nor very expensive.

2. You can talk to your friends in any number of ways, not just over live. And even then, you could talk over live and play on your PC as well if you want.

3. Self-control as far as cheats go. Don't blame the platform for a user's faults.

4. Connect your controller to your computer. Granted, IDK if thats possible with the PC version of Oblivion, and if it isn't then you have a legitimate claim here. But if it is, then I fail to see why thats an issue.

5. You don't have to upgrade your computer every year. At most, you may have to upgrade every five to eight years depending on what you expect to get out of your rig. If you expect to run a game that has higher demands than Crysis at the absolute maximum settings on a computer built five years ago then you're obviously setting the goal posts too high, but perhaps your computer could handle that same game at medium, which if you really think you're 'hardcoe' then the graphics level shouldn't matter so long as you're getting a decent FPS. And let me tell you, the oldest computers I've dealt with that could run Crysis at decent levels, albeit at low graphics settings, were about 7 years old. And anyway, upgrading isn't a hassle. Nor is it even expensive unless you order an entirely new rig from Dell the Devil or something. I recently upgraded my rig with a new graphics card that can handle virtually everything out on the market now for only a hundred bucks, and installing it took about 10 minutes not including the time it took to watch a youtube video on how to do it.

And also, the whole casual gamer thing isn't directed purely at console players. There are a multitude of PC gamers that would fall under that category. It's just the fact that your average gamer is most likely a console user that breeds this misconception amongst those PC dedicated gamers (and much everyone else involved in the debate, console and PC users alike) that all casual gamers are console users. And it doesn't help that the consoles are naturally inferior to the PC anyway. They cannot provide the same amount of content, graphical quality, and overall design perks that a PC could. UI's are one of the foremost examples of that.

And it should be noted that I am not trashing on you or anything of the sort, just making it clear that a lot of your preferences in consoles can easily be emulated in the PC and that your other issues are largely misconceptions.

You know what? Polls like this are useless. Not only because there's few casual gamers here, but also because they won't think like this. What does a casual/mainstream gamer want? A game that's not a chore to get into, but a game you can lose yourself in. A continued challenge, and if possible a true feeling of progression. A game that you can have constant fun with without having to do too many boring tasks. It doesn't matter what the specifics are of such a game, that's what the developers have to figure out.

That's where morrowind failed. Morrowind was far more of a chore to get into. You step in the wrong dungeon, and you're killed within two seconds. If you can't find the objective, you're left searching the entire area because the game won't help you out. That's not a problem for veterans of the series, and people who like endlessly searching for the next objective, but I quess they're just hardcoe.

This. Tired of people assuming that mainstream gamers can't take some additional features and choices in their games - if they enjoy the series they'll gladly grow up with it, just like how fans of System Shock welcomed the additions of the sequel and Quake players found ways to resume their movement tricks in later builds of the engine.

I agree. To hell with those elitist PC players!

I doubt a casual gamer would even be visiting these forums in the first place. Casual gamers have better things to do. I'm a hardcoe gamer, but at least I have the social awareness to be a bit ashamed of it.

I would like to have no item-scaling, but I like the idea of having a level requirement for better weapons. I loved this in Borderlands, when you get a great weapon and you're only a few levels below the requirement, because when you finally get to the level necessary, it's so fun trying out that new weapons.

Why the hate toward consoles? One uses a mouse and keyboard, the other a controller. In the end we are all gamers. (I play both console and PC, and I am a very hardcoe gamer) but yeah hate on the casuals.

Explain to me was a casual gamer is... as if you were Steve Irwin.

OP I hope you quit categorizing people into generalized groups.

How does having a console make me casual?

Please stop being an.......ehh its not worth it.

Another useless bashing thread, gj. How about you think of something worthwile to discuss, rather then just spaming a poll of what everyone else has already made threads for.

I find it humorous that people are actually holding small rivalries between each other based on whether or not one plays on a console or PC. Those of the "Master Race of Glorious PC Gamers" who find console gamers to be lesser than themselves need to look into the mirror and settle down a wee bit :thumbsup: . It is a game. Despite how much I adore the series and hope that the next installment sticks to its roots, 'tis only a game....

I despise all things leveled.... all things. The concept of leveled-[insert name] should be obliterated. Just because I'm at level 100 doesn't mean this rat or that flower or that crate or this person should be too.
And everything you listed above should be optional since players around the world are different.

It doesn't get much more human than "My thingy is better than your thingy. My thingy can kick your thingy's ass!". Still those sandbox arguments we had as kids in the sandbox, only now our sandbox is the internet :lmao:

I play games on the PC, and i don't really care if Skyrim becomes Oblivion 2. What does that make me?

Too... Many... Polls...

And yeah, everyone is still voting anyway.

What's with all the console bashing? I get there are way way more "main streamers" on console, but there are lots of mature gamers on console who dislike the dumbing down of their titles, not just TES but other series as well. I didn't like a lot of the changes in Oblivion, still a good game, but not nearly as as Morrowind was.

And ok, so I say consoles ruined scrolls, and will keep on doing so, couse of the world we live in, oh and banks perfectly fit in, more capital and more profit (like that post).
On PC it had a chance to be personal as personal it could get in that time,
if it wasn't,
this forum would not exist

Wait one second, I'm a console gamer but I wouldn't consider myself a "casual" gamer. Should I still vote?

If you're only looking for casual gamers opinions you won't find them on a forum, if people are interested enough in a game to register, then discuss this game and what they want then they're likely not casual gamers.

Hey! There goes my respect to you!

Offending people that you don't know isn't a good idea is it?

EDIT: Blah, I have failed so much. Sorry mate...

*NOTE TO SELF: Always, read OP*

I am not console, casual, or mainstream...so I couldn't vote. I consider myself a PC, veteran, and fanatic.

:thanks: