Sure.The mini-game represented the direction of conversation in the assumed banter between characters, and the PC's attempt (during that conversation) to "push the right buttons" as it were, for that npc's personality; In abstract, just as a skilled speaker would.

Not from where I see it. The minigame in Oblivion was better than Fallout 3's version, but both versions put the player behind the picks, when its the PC that is supposed to be skilled (or unskilled at locks).
I found it annoying. Instead of just a quick click to see if they are competent enough to pick open the door... Every time I my lock expert tries to open a lock, I have to sit there and fiddle with make believe lockpicks, instead of just having him deftly open the lock. :banghead:

This is where I have the trouble with the ' It's an rpg, it must not be about player skill.' I want to role play as a character, and to me that means controlling some, or all, of their actions, not merely watching them unfold. If you take this argument to an extreme, the computer would prevent you from certain actions, not just picking hard locks but entering whole dungeons, ' You can't enter this dungeon, the rumours you have heard mean your character is too scared.' Imho, controlling the lockpicking, speech, combat and archery means more of a role playing experience, and one that is less akin to watching a film with a few player driven choices.
That said, the minigames should more accurately reflect your character's skill, the problem being more of a question of difficulty curves. Someone said the games get repetitive, in my opinion the mini need to be replaced by much harder games at higher levels of lock difficulty, not just the same minigame but slightly faster.

I think they're lame and eventually become really boring.
Oblivion's lockpicking mini game eventually annoyed me and bored me so much that I just spammed that auto-lockpick button.

I hated it. Grrrr.

If any case, the skeletal(ton?) key completly made the security skill obsolete, so tha kinda svcked. And yea the persuasion system was a joke in OB, and the lockpicking system not a whole lot better, though not AS bad

I like the minigames but agree they can be improved.I agree with those that say the char skill should have more of an influence on the mini game.

For example the popular lockpicking.
For those that believe that the char skill should be the only consideration you have the autoattempt option.
For others not so adamant if you attempt to pick a very hard lock with a very low skill it should be so sensitive that if you sneeze IRL the tumblers all drop.As you improve it should get easier(but never easy)to pick said lock.

As to the speechcraft minigame at least they made an attempt to make that skill fit into the way they level skills.It was a valiant effort that IMO did not pay off.

Minigames can add a great deal to a game and I hope Bethesda continues to improve current ones and add creative new ones.

I dislike minigames because it takes the emphasis away from character skills. It's an rpg, so what's the point of making it based on player skill? I want my characters to grow in game, not rely on my skills.

As an RPG player who does not pretend to be the character (personally) in the game world, but rather views the character as an individual of that game world; and who makes choices based on extrapolation of that character's skills & personality... What you describe sounds pretty good to me. I want to watch the actions unfold. I want to have the PC attempt to pick a lock and sometimes damage their tools or spring traps; I want situations where I have many, many dialog options, and can choose the one best suited to my PC's personality, history... and even current mood. I don't play RPGs to play at simulation; I don't play to pretend to be a wizard, or a wasteland survivor; I play them to explore the possibilities of a specific individual in a specific setting. If my PC was afraid of the dark ~they'd never go in a dungeon ~period. :shrug: If they were phobic of rats, they'd run away from them ~even if they'd just killed an Atronach minutes before.

When my thief character approaches a lock, I want to see them pull out their tools and start working on it, and hopefully open it ~because they are skilled at opening locks and it should be a feature of playing a skilled lock-picker, that they can gain access to places that other characters you may try cannot. When I play a PC that cannot pick locks, I want most of their attempts at lock picking to fail ~because they cannot pick locks very well... yet occasionally they might get lucky ~it happens.

*That said... I have in the past suggested that TES might benefit from a lock pick mini-game that works on the premise that a skilled locksmith knows the interior of the lock (by type), and that as the PC's skill increases, the game could reveal more of (or more accurate) lock internals, and by virtue of seeing what you are doing, the lock picking becomes easier, or even just possible for the more complicated lock interiors... and there should be several, and it should be possible for an experienced player to guess wrong about them when playing a PC with poor lock picking skills.

Yes.
Minigame is fun at first but becomes boring after a while.Also makes skill kinda useless,only chance multiplier for auto-pick.

http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?/topic/1173213-how-to-fix-lockpicking/page__hl__lockpicking if anyone is interested in looking.

I hated the mini-games when I first started OB, but my hate grew less the more I played/understood them. I still think they need to be greatly improved. They made things too easy and helped make Security and Speechcraft/Personality pretty much meaningless. I remember specifically taking Speechcraft and boosting my Personality in MW because it made it easier to persuade/taunt NPC's because it was a skill check. Same for Security. As was mentioned before, at least the lockpicking mini-game gave an option to make it a skill check with the auto-attempt feature. I would like Taunting to be an option in the mini-game if they put it in.

You could swing your sword and never miss as no skill check was required in OB. It was all about player skill not character skill. The skill just affected how much damage your weapon did I believe. In MW you could miss, I believe. Not saying they should go back though.

Mini games are player oriented when the game is supposed to be character oriented.

I do deeply want minigames, i love spending time in the Saloon's in Red Dead Redemption just drinking beer and playing Blackjack...here would be nice if Beth puts some mini games in Skyrim.

I haven't played many, but the 3 main reasons why I don't like them:

1) I didn't too well with them
2) They take too much time when I could just click and be done with it
3) After the first dozen times they become boring
4) I have a skill, so why don't I use it? (and yes, I didn't care that my "hits" in MW were actually misses)

Mini-games help hold the attention of kids with ADHD... or something about casual gamers I forget....

Hey what's that over there?

Haha, so true.

Good ideas. Races and archery competitions would indeed be sick. :thumbsup:

I like the minigames, personally. However I agree with those that have said that it should be based on my character's skill and not my skill as a player. Keep the minigames, and even add a couple more, but implement them differently.

Well, because in an RPG game minigames like that simply do not belong.
Apart from being a total imersion breaker, mini games rely on player skills. Its an RPG. It should be reliant on character skills.
When I open a lock the only thing that should influence how well I do it is my level in security/ agility.
Not how well I push a button.
Apart from being totally boring and lame, like Im playing 1980's atari games again, not everyone has the same real life motor skills.
It is total nonsense that I would be unable to open a lock because I do not possess real life skills, that my character who has a high security should be able to open easily.
I absolutely needed the skeleton key. No ifs or buts about it.

Its not fun to be reminded of real life limitations constantly when Im playing a game to escape reality for a while.

I can't count the times that I ran the Witcher, just to go find someone that would play dice.

I do like the minigames. I found the Speech game in Oblivion more difficult because people had a high disposition towards me as I had more fame and I kept forgetting to do it. I also wasn't sure how much a higher Speechcraft even mattered in my dialogue. In FNV, I could definitely tell so if it was more like FNV, that would be great.

The Lockpick game just frustrated me on my first playthrough but I did learn it and got way better so that feels like an accomplishment. I don't have the Skeleton Key yet in my current Oblivion game and it's ok so far.

More minigames would be great...challenge me.

I have to somewhat disagree. On my second play through in Oblivion I don't think I picked a single lock. I used the auto option and success/failure was indeed based off my characters skill, so the option was definitely there. If like you said and you played a character with high security, you could of just used the auto pick option and you'd rarely fail to pick a lock of hard and below. Very hard might take 1-3 picks sometimes, which seems reasonable to me.

As for mini games having no place in an RPG, again I disagree. One of the things they did right with Oblivion was not forcing you to play the mini games. You could opt to just bribe or charm instead of using speechcraft (for the most part), and of course the auto pick option when lockpicking. So, in my eyes, it seemed like a fair system. Games were there for those that liked them, and there were alternative options for those who didn't.

Am I incorrect in this characterization?

One group plays the game with the char being a chess piece that the player moves about.A more hands off approach.

The other group prefers more interaction with the game world.A more hands on approach.

If I am correct in this is there any happy medium between the two?

once again lockpicking as an example
the autoattempt is for the hands off faction the minigame is for the hands on faction.
Would adding an animation to autoattempt be enough or does the mini game have to go?

I am truly interested to hear opinons on this.

I agree and am curious as well. Personally I do feel there is such a thing as a happy medium, and Bethesda did good in Oblivion grasping that concept. The games weren't forced upon you - you had a choice.

Yes, I'd say that's correct, but it can also be on a per game basis...
The easy solution (perhaps even the preferable one, is to make different games for different player bases).

The problem as I see it, is that by including both options... A hands on player activity, and a PC based skill.. you devalue both, and create situation where the player benefits from the PC in some cases, and ignores the PC in others. Also, any hybrid solution would [seem to me to] require that the player be forced to tolerate aspects of the other method.

Auto-pick would cost you more lockpicks.It wasn't really wise to choose it.At least I didn't want to spend 5 picks for a medium lock at security level 70,and I could pick very hard locks without losing any picks at securtiy level 10.

The only times I used auto-pick feature was "OOoh,I've had enough of this!!!111" moments.(Killing like 30 picks in the process)
After I got the skeleton key,I never picked manual again. XD

Yeah, it isn't a question of game mechanics, how good are the mini games, it is a question of the philosophy of role playing, should they belong in a rpg at all.
To one camp, you make the major decisions for your character, but their success at any action is determined by their skills alone, not your game playing 'twitch' prowess. To them this is the heart of a role playing game, the character's abilities are all, so something like Morrowind's chances to fail at casting a spell, or miss completely, are the way things should be.
The other camp wants player control, within the confines of the character's abilities, so the OB method of combat, where the dice rolls are taken out, your use of controls decides when you hit, and character skill is reflected in weapon damage, is more appropriate.

Personally I fall in the latter camp, which can be accused of 'casual gaming' or preferring to play action rather than rpg games. The thing is I do enjoy pure role playing, in pen and paper games, and want computer games to benefit from the player skill that p and p does not offer.
The main problem to me is die rolls, personally I have no problem rolling a die, getting a one, and my character failing to pick a lock, but have a deep hatred of being told I have failed because a computer has rolled a die and says no.

Yes, that'd be correct


Probably not?
For the hands-on person, they have no control. They're merely clicking a button and waiting for the right click to trigger the animation.
For the hands-off character-based, it could be a nice addition since adding only an animation per click still bases the action on a skill number.

At least that's how I'm interpreting your idea. I used the button clicks (automatic) almost exclusivly.

Combat is the same way for me. I was content with Morrowind's combat system (and was apparently the only person who was). I could accept that my "hits" were misses since it was based on dice rolls and skills. The animation was fine. For many others (perhaps the hands-on crowd and realism crowd), when they control the attacks, they expect to hit or miss based on their own proficency. To me, Morrowind's combat was the happy medium. Oblivion (and probably skyrim) slant heavily towards the hands on - so much so that I play almost exclusivly archers since I'm not good at all of the control manipulations now required for melee in TES.

edit: adding to what Gizmo stated about making two different game titles, the hackneyed argument of making something optional, or catering to both camps also takes something away from both camps in that niether aspect gets fully developed. The "at what cost, man, AT WHAT COST!"