103 replies to this topic

[tetradite]

I'd be happier with that - that is consequences to your actions, that's not an issue, it's what I want.

Well a lot of people weren't happy with that in Morrowind, it is the very reason they added it into Oblivion, and to a greater extent in Skyrim, you should not be able to kill quest givers if you have no idea they give quests, nor should they be able tod ie mid-qeust as to deny you the reward to a quest you have finished but not yet turned in.

Denial of content you had no idea existed, and denial of reward for content you have already beat, is dumb.

As I said, do like FONV does and pop the "quest failed" message so you know you've done something that has effects, and if you're in doubt as to whether you really wanted to do what you just did, then reload.

Personally, I'd rather have a world with free{r} action, and the possibility of denial of content. It makes for greater replayability and makes having multiple characters much more enjoyable.

To me, without that freedom of action and having the ability to positively and actively close off some possibilities and quest arcs, it ceases to really be a sandbox (or an RPG) in any meaningful sense. It just becomes a linear game with a big map because the only thing you're really doing is chosing the order you do the quests in, and that's still mostly controlled.

Edited by tetradite, 15 June 2012 - 09:53 PM.

[sajuukkhar9000]

As I said, do like FONV does and pop the "quest failed" message so you know you've done something that has effects, and if you're in doubt as to whether you really wanted to do what you just did, then reload.

Personally, I'd rather have a world with free{r} action, and the possibility of denial of content. It makes for greater replayability and makes having multiple characters much more enjoyable.

To me, without that freedom of action and having the ability to positively and actively close off some possibilities and quest arcs, it ceases to really be a sandbox (or an RPG) in any meaningful sense. It just becomes a linear game with a big map because the only thing you're really doing is chosing the order you do the quests in, and that's still mostly controlled.

There is no real point to that because, as you pointed out, when people see it they are just going to reload a save before they killed said person. The way it is now it eliminates the having to reload part.

Replayability because an action you did caused you to lose content is kinda dumb. Real replayability comes from choices made in quests not "ohh man now I have to restart because I, or something else, killed X person"

You have the freedom to
-Do no quests at all, except the opening quest
-All quest let you say no to the person
-Do optional, or other, means of completing quests were appropriate.

[tetradite]

There is no real point to that because, as you pointed out, when people see it they are just going to reload a save before they killed said person. The way it is now it eliminates the having to reload part.

No, people CAN reload, it doesn't mean they always WILL and it certainly doesn't mean they have to. If I walked into Riften, and killed all of the Thieves Guild and it popped up "quest failed" I wouldn't reload. I'd smile and carry on. Some people get really ticked off with the idea of "unfinished" quests in their journal, you get ticked off with the idea of "losing content". Same urge for completeness, different manifestation.

The system as I'd like to see, and have seen it offers a greater choice - you can carry out the action and reload if you don't like it's effect, the current system prevents you from having a choice just in case you do something you regret.

If an NPC really needs protecting for the sake of the integrity of the game it's usually possible, and more desirable, to do so by other means (for example placing them in a location where you can only enter after a bodysearch/removal of weapons etc, or sticking them in a room with so many hefty guards that you could not attack and live without using cheats). Making them literally unkillable (unless something in the story dictates they should have such god-like status) has it's place but should be a tool of absolute last resort. Skyrim uses it as the first preference.

Replayability because an action you did caused you to lose content is kinda dumb. Real replayability comes from choices made in quests not "ohh man now I have to restart because I, or something else, killed X person"

But there AREN'T choices in the quests though are there? In very few cases are you offered any choice beyond a) do it and b) walk away. That's not a choice, it's an offer.

With so little in the way of actual choice the "replayability factor" in Skyrim amounts to which quests you pick to do and what you're wearing while you do it, not really how you chose to do them, or the choices you make in them.

You have the freedom to
-Do no quests at all, except the opening quest
-All quest let you say no to the person
-Do optional, or other, means of completing quests were appropriate.

"You can have any colour you like, as long as it's black..."

[sajuukkhar9000]

No, people CAN reload, it doesn't mean they always WILL and it certainly doesn't mean they have to. If I walked into Riften, and killed all of the Thieves Guild and it popped up "quest failed" I wouldn't reload. I'd smile and carry on. Some people get really ticked off with the idea of "unfinished" quests in their journal, you get ticked off with the idea of "losing content". Same urge for completeness, different manifestation.

And most people will. I, and obviously Bethesda, have seen more people who care more about losing access to quests altogether, then having a left-over journal entry, and games are built to cater to the largest crowd possible.

The system as I'd like to see, and have seen it offers a greater choice - you can carry out the action and reload if you don't like it's effect, the current system prevents you from having a choice just in case you do something you regret.

If an NPC really needs protecting for the sake of the integrity of the game it's usually possible, and more desirable, to do so by other means (for example placing them in a location where you can only enter after a bodysearch/removal of weapons etc, or sticking them in a room with so many hefty guards that you could not attack and live without using cheats). Making them literally unkillable (unless something in the story dictates they should have such god-like status) has it's place but should be a tool of absolute last resort. Skyrim uses it as the first preference.

That is a lot of unnecessary coding when the current system of "making them unkillable" gives the same effect.

there is no reason for you to go around killing 95% of these people anyways.

But there AREN'T choices in the quests though are there? In very few cases are you offered any choice beyond a) do it and b) walk away. That's not a choice, it's an offer.

With so little in the way of actual choice the "replayability factor" in Skyrim amounts to which quests you pick to do and what you're wearing while you do it, not really how you chose to do them, or the choices you make in them.

I can think of at least 15-20 quests that have multiple ways to end them, and a large number more that have multiple ways of getting to the same ending.

Also many quests dont have multiple endings because it would be illogical for them too.

"You can have any colour you like, as long as it's black..."

That literally makes no sense given what I posted.

Many quests in Skyrim give you several options to complete them.

Edited by sajuukkhar9000, 15 June 2012 - 11:50 PM.

[tetradite]

And most people will. I, and obviously Bethesda, have seen more people who care more about losing access to quests altogether, then having a left-over journal entry, and games are built to cater to the largest crowd possible.

I'm talking about preferring the system used by a 2010 Bethesda Softworks publication, so I see little relevance in the linking of your position with Bethesda's.

That is a lot of unnecessary coding when the current system of "making them unkillable" gives the same effect.

Cooking a proper meal is a lot of unnecessary work when you can just microwave it in 90 seconds and get the same effect. Unless you have a genuine love of food of course. If all you want to do is fill your belly with anything then the microwave option is fine.

I can think of at least 15-20 quests that have multiple ways to end them, and a large number more that have multiple ways of getting to the same ending.

Feel free to share, it would improve my Skyrim experience no end if I knew where these were because I have evidently missed them (notable exception - the dark brotherhood), in spite of them being so completely protected from being denied to me.

"You can have any colour you like, as long as it's black..."

That literally makes no sense given what I posted.

Having only the color black means who have only one option while in Skyrim there are several options available to you.

I was referring to the misattributed Ford quote regarding people being able to have any colour car they wanted as long as it was black by way of comparison with the "choice" that Skyrim offers you to do the mission or ignore it.

In both cases the "choice" on offer was take it or leave it, without options.

[sajuukkhar9000]

I'm talking about preferring the system used by a 2010 Bethesda Softworks publication, so I see little relevance in the linking of your position with Bethesda's.

Bethesda Game Studios =/= Bethesda Softworks
Bethesda Softworks = a publishing company owned by Zenimax
Bethesda Game Studios = An entirely different company that develops games, also owned by Zenimax
Fallout New Vegas = made by Obsidian, published by Bethesda Softworks
Obsidian =/= Bethesda Game Studios

Bethesda game studios, the people behind the making of Elder Scrolls, were in no way connected to the making of New Vegas, nor is Obsidian owned by Zenimax.

Why would you think they would use the design choices of a sequel, not made by them, or a company that their parent company owns, that got lower reviews?

Cooking a proper meal is a lot of unnecessary work when you can just microwave it in 90 seconds and get the same effect. Unless you have a genuine love of food of course. If all you want to do is fill your belly with anything then the microwave option is fine.

LOL, "genuine love of food", are you being serious?

what if someone genuinely loves the taste of popcorn, or ramen, or nachos? all makeable via microwave

Feel free to share, it would improve my Skyrim experience no end if I knew where these were because I have evidently missed them (notable exception - the dark brotherhood), in spite of them being so completely protected from being denied to me.

-Paarthurnax
-Season Unending
-The Black Star
-A Daedra's Best Friend
-Ill Met By Moonlight
-Pieces of the Past
-The Taste of Death
-Waking Nightmare
-The Blessings of Nature
-No One Escapes Cidhna Mine
-Promises to Keep
-In My Time Of Need
-Delayed Burial
-That Was Always There
-Dragon's Breath Mead
-Sanuarach Mine
-The Straw that Broke
-Under the Table
-The Lover's Requital
-A Lovely Letter
-All of the Civil War quests end depending on what side you took, which is about 6-7 more

I was referring to the misattributed Ford quote regarding people being able to have any colour car they wanted as long as it was black by way of comparison with the "choice" that Skyrim offers you to do the mission or ignore it.

In both cases the "choice" on offer was take it or leave it, without options.

Well what options are there before taking a quest beyond taking it or not?

Edited by sajuukkhar9000, 16 June 2012 - 12:43 AM.

[StayFrosty05]

You can tell Brynolf no, I have done it on every character I have.

You go along with the conversation until he tell you he want to plan the ring and you pick the line that's like "that's illegal" and hes like "ohh sorry I usually have a good eye for these things" and he walks off.



also how is beating Rolff Stone-Fist in a fist fight in front of everyone NOT humiliating him?

The only problem with the "It's illegal' response is your playing a Warrior and s/he feels something like a pansy with that response...I found instead of responding, just quitting the conversation triggers the same response from Brynolf (though either way, he still harasses you every time you accidentally get too close, would be nice if he got the hint and backed off) .....I find a lot of the dialog quite childish actually, which is a real shame.....Dovahkin has absolutely zero depth.

As for the Molag Bal situation, it would certainly be a big improvement if telling Molag Bal to go to hell did actually fail the quest and close it....as it stands if you choose to wander the reach after speaking with Bal, you will eventually stumble across the Priest anyway...releasing him is a b*tch if your refusing to do Bal's quest, having the option to warn him of Bal's intentions and being able to release him that way would be a vast improvement.

[tetradite]

@ sajuukkhar9000

I know the difference re Bethesda. You said Bethesda. Bethesda Softworks published both games so if you wish to specifically mean your previous post to apply solely to Bethesda Game Studios and not Bethesda Softworks then I'm afraid you should have specified that.

Beyond that, if you honestly don't see any difference between real food and microwaved junk (especially re something like ramen) or the basic principle of satisfaction from doing a job properly rather than as easily as possible then I'm afraid it is pointless discussing any matters of taste and quality with you.

[sajuukkhar9000]

The only problem with the "It's illegal' response is your playing a Warrior and s/he feels something like a pansy with that response...I found instead of responding, just quitting the conversation triggers the same response from Brynolf (though either way, he still harasses you every time you accidentally get too close, would be nice if he got the hint and backed off) .....I find a lot of the dialog quite childish actually, which is a real shame.....Dovahkin has absolutely zero depth.

As for the Molag Bal situation, it would certainly be a big improvement if telling Molag Bal to go to hell did actually fail the quest and close it....as it stands if you choose to wander the reach after speaking with Bal, you will eventually stumble across the Priest anyway...releasing him is a b*tch if your refusing to do Bal's quest, having the option to warn him of Bal's intentions and being able to release him that way would be a vast improvement.

Its only a pansy response if YOU make it so. It could be taken in any number of ways like "my warriors honor prevents me from doing such a thing" type response, that is how I imagined it when I did a warrior character. The only tone in the Dovahkiin's words is the one you apply to it.

Isn't that exactly what the intimidate option is? you telling Lograf that you were sent by Molag Ball? Anyways Lograf is a crazy Daedric cultist, even if you HAD told him he still would have done w/e his lord and master Boethea told him to, which would have led exactly where the quest did anyways.

@ sajuukkhar9000

I know the difference re Bethesda. You said Bethesda. Bethesda Softworks published both games so if you wish to specifically mean your previous post to apply solely to Bethesda Game Studios and not Bethesda Softworks then I'm afraid you should have specified that.

Beyond that, if you honestly don't see any difference between real food and microwaved junk (especially re something like ramen) or the basic principle of satisfaction from doing a job properly rather than as easily as possible then I'm afraid it is pointless discussing any matters of taste and quality with you.

When discussing game design why on earth why I be talking about a publishing company who has no hands in the actual development of the game?

I didn't think it would be so hard to figure out that when referring to game design I would be talking about the game designer, and not a publisher, that I needed to specify which Bethesda I was talking about.


All things meant to be eaten are "real" food. The difference between "real" food and "junk" is an arbitrary line that YOU place for yourself.

Beyond that making people unkillable is doing their job properly, it may not be in a way YOU like, but that doesn't make it any less proper or correct then your method.

Your specific taste =/= the only right one, and not following it =/= they didn't do it properly, and if you cant tell that then I'm afraid it is pointless discussing any matters of taste and quality with you.

Edited by sajuukkhar9000, 16 June 2012 - 02:26 AM.

[Heartcloud]

Lol those 2 things you listed, how are they game-breaking?
Btw did you even read the old man's dialogue? No he's not some holy priest, he's like a devil worshipper with a really rude attitude. How can you possibly feel sorry for him?