39 replies to this topic

[Scorch621]

A mod customizer type thing wouldnt be a bad idea actually, the latest splinter cell game has something similar I think with a "Perfectionist mode" where players dont get Radar, Sonar goggles or drones to help them out like in previous games, you only have access to gadgets which were in previous games etc. etc. (I havent played that mode yet)
Along with the Spies Vs Mercs multiplayer mode, players have SvM Blacklist which has all the new features of the the game like Sonar etc. but Players can play SvM classic which is more about hiding in the dark than using your gadgets effectively or using your flashlight.

So a game like the Elder Scrolls could benefit from a "realistic mode" or "Immersion mode" where players cant do everything (guild wise etc.) in one playthrough, need to eat and sleep and stuff like that.
It could probably be kinda like Hardcore Mode in New Vegas.

Whats I find interesting is how newer games have instant feedback due to the internet, and social media, I mean back 10 years this wasnt so easy Devs had to wait a really long time to figure out what was good or bad about their product, with all this instant feedback you get content patches and DLC in the first few days of release, with the devs doing their best to improve the product or appease an angry mob...
 

Edited by Scorch621, 29 August 2013 - 01:23 AM.

[Lachdonin]

And just because you try something, it doesn't mean it is done right so of course you will get backlash if your attempt is lacking and or still doesn't resolve the issue presented.

 

There is a difference between doing something right, and doing it for the sake of an outspoken minority. The overwhelming majority of the 10 million + Skyrim Owners are NOT hardcore RPers. Frankly, with the exception of Battlefield and Call of Duty, I doubt there is a franchise on the market which actually survives by catering to a hardcore anything. Well... Maybe DOTA, those people are nuts...

 

Anyway, the point is, some RP oriented features make things far, far too complicated to just switch off. If your choices had overt consequences, for instance, it's not a feature that can be easily disabled. Lets take the Civil War for instance... If your choices had consequences, and you joined the Legion, the Stormcloaks would attack you on sight, the rebel Jarls wouldn't deal with you, and you'd be pretty much relegated to the Western part of Skyrim until you had completed the Civil War. Oh, sure, you could put in a disguise dynamic, wearing Stormcloak armour to sneak into rebel cities, or even put in a mechanic to remain undiscovered by the Stormcloaks while in disguise, but how would you turn that off?

 

Features which can be easily turned off tend to be centered around the PC and ignore the NPC's altogether. Having to eat, having to drink, freezing to death in the Pale etc. They did this rather well with Fallout; New Vegas, and I admit they could easily implement it in a TES game (along with some other features which we know for a fact can be done... I've posted those elsewhere and won't re-post unless specifically asked to) but consequence is another issue altogether...

 

Consequences, Guild-Rivalries, Variable Reputations, even Summoning Days are things which appeal to a minority of players* and would adversely affect sales to casual gamers. Since it's the millions of casual gamers who keep games like this going these days, I'm personally more than willing to let things slide for the sake of more TES games.

 

 

* Bear in mind, I AM one of that minority. I'd like to have the in-depth experience where I, a member of the Imperial Legion, have to sneak over the walls of Windhelm in the middle of the night just to hand in a quest. I'd like to be able to starve to death, or freeze in a snow-storm. I'm not the developer though, and even if I was, I don't think I could in good conscience force them to make a game for ME as opposed to one i'd still play but would sell better.

[TheObstinateNoviceSmith]

I disagree with you because I don't think such things only cater to hardcore RPers... at least not the stuff I commonly see complained about.

 

In fact, I am willing to bet that there are even people that would classify themselves as nonRPers that would enjoy a game more that plays differently on different playthroughs as well as doesn't progress and or end the same all the time. This specifically adds to a game's replay value.

 

I mean what is likely to be played more times all the way through, the game that progresses and ends virtually the same way no matter what you do, or a game of equal quality in every way to the first game, except it has 10 different ways of progressing and 20 different possible endings?

 

Now that's just an example, but it illustrates my point well enough. Catering to decisions that effect things would most certainly do well. In fact, I'd say games are trying to move in that exact direction because the desire for such a thing is growing.

 

Besides, Mass Effect survived just fine and that was their MAIN selling point hence the widely publicized hatred regarding the "endings" of the 3rd.

[Lachdonin]

Besides, Mass Effect survived just fine and that was their MAIN selling point hence the widely publicized hatred regarding the "endings" of the 3rd.

 

Mass Effect built up the idea of your decisions changing the story, only to come to the end with the unfortunate reality that all those choices you made would have requires an immense number of endings if each and every one mattered. Mass Effect is, frankly, the prefect example of why i say these things aren't doable (yet). Bioware went in with big promises and high hopes, then discovered they had missed the mark and simply could not deliver what they had promised. And that's in a tightly linear, scripted game. 

 

Realistically, with the exception of who Grunt and who survives from ME2 to ME3 (most of which just give you a touch of dialogue and a bonus few points to your Readiness score) Mass Effect doesn't give you any more impact than Skyrim does. What do you get for your past choices? News reports. Your interview is mentioned, the is a report about the Destiny Asention completing its tour, some slaver ring disappears etc. It's no different than having NPCs thank you for helping them, or guards mentioning your skills and what groups you've joined. 

 

Mass Effect is perhaps the best example of a game where your decisions have impact, and really, they don't have much impact at all. You get a few extra bits of dialogue, and some extra points at the end of the game, that's about it. Asking for more, when it has yet to be proven doable in a heavily railroaded game style, is being rather demanding, especially when asking for it in a open world sandbox game. 

Edited by Lachdonin, 01 September 2013 - 10:07 PM.

[TailAbNormal]

   Another game that succeeded a lot better at this was Dishonored. It offered multiple endings and the game actually adapted to your choices throughout the game. 

   Unfortunately the way it adapted hardly made any difference. Still, It was a really awesome game, and a good example of how to add consequences.  

[Scorch621]

What about the witcher?

[Lachdonin]

I feel the need to point out that both Dishonoured and The Witcher are extremely linear games, even more so than Mass Effect... 

[TheObstinateNoviceSmith]

Lachdonin... Yeah, but the only thing I was referencing or using Mass Effect to counter in what you were saying was that there were only a few people that were interested in the things being complained about and those people were only hardcore RPers.

 

Mass Effect proved that wasn't true by being a high selling and successful game and their main selling point was the very thing you said only a minority would be interested in.

 

I didn't say the successfully pulled it off, I was just saying that you underestimate the number of people who would be interested in games that could pull it off.

[Lachdonin]

To be honest, i may be getting my discussions mixed up. Too many conversations on too many forums (40konline, Reddit, here, Facebook, the Beth forums... Maybe i should settle down...)...

 

Anywho, you are right. However, i reiterate that Mass Effect really didn't offer any more impact or consequence than Skyrim does. Your choices get you, at best, some extra dialogue. It was just, for some unknown reason, more satisfying than in Skyrim... 

 

It will be interesting to see if Bioware can pull off what they claim with Dragon Age; Inquisition, though. If they can, Bethesda is going to have to step up its game. 

[TheObstinateNoviceSmith]

LOL, that's okay.

 

But yeah, I and tons (hehe) of other people agree with you on that for sure!

 

But they came pretty close in the first two games. I had multiple saves due to them all being different... well seemed different. As you point out, deep down decisions didn't really change much.

 

Now, it was more satisfying because at the very least, decisions did affect more at least on a superficial level than in Skyrim. People could be killed, you could be or not be a Spectre in the second game, some quests wouldn't have certain options available and some quests weren't even available.

 

That's pretty sick if you think about it.

 

You also brought up another good point regarding difficulty in execution, that I kind of hit on before at some point. I mention my disappointment, but I also understand how difficult it is to accomplish such a thing due to budget, time, and other restraints.

 

It would almost be like packing multiple games into one.