BallsOFyre

If Fallout 4 ended up being a MP design- and I think that it could be, I think a radical departure from what everyone else is doing should be considered. If it were me designed the concept, I would place the world in an unnamed American destroyed metropolis, and design the world with the idea that the players themselves band together to build a secure area or town of their own, to try and protect themselves from the super mutants and radiated what-not that is trying to destroy what is left of civilization. So, instead of a million Lone Wanderers and the illogical stupidity in that approach in a MP game, you have a survival/building cooperative approach. There can be competitive villages. The players in "Goosetown" are on one side of valuable resources while the players in "Blade VIllage" are on the other, and both sides need to control the power plant between them. So you have cool PVP mini wars on a large scale with real meaning, because, whomever controls the power plant has lights. The wars, however, won't be just for war's sake....they will happen naturally, with real, meaningful results. The combat will only be half of what there is to do in game. Getting your own house, and block in order, back to a civilized state would be as much fun and important as the fighting aspects of the game. Cities will grow. People be elected to psitions of power, or murder their way into control, if it's some fascist government. Game resources will be spent building towers, walls, underbround bunkers.....cool stuff for the players to help keep their town safe, and player housing would be a big part of the game, rather than some afterthought. Players would be working to make their home safe from invasion. Over the long term, towns will rise and fall, and perhaps eventually some take hold to begin the process of civilization again.

I like the fact that the world is truly open for adventuring where you want to, when you want to. You can scale most of the mountians, access hidden areas- it really feels like you are exploring a physical place. I like the logical approach of the environment. I would rather see a consistant and "realistic" place rather than one that mixes jungles next to the arctic climes. I like the beauty of the land. Bethesda is tops at creating an interactive, natural world to visit. I enjoy most of the more "streamlined" interface elements of Skyrim compared to the earlier games. I like Bethesda's writers sense of humor and their tendencies to toss in the unexpected from time to time. I like the attention to detail in the books and interesting written items...one of Bethesda's strong suits, again. **** I dislike the lousy conversation "trees" that offer zero choices. I hate the lack of some sort of paperdoll option to let me really look over my character if I choose. I despise the lack of moral judgement of my character's actions within the world. I want to see my good and evil actions matter more. I

The truly Hardcore Roleplayers are the ones that play Skyrim using no electricity.

There are aspects of the general streamlining of Skyrim that I do enjoy....it's simpler and more immersive overall than the past games....but I do hate the lazy conversation constructions greatly. The way skills are handled, I think, is pretty cool. And the health bars popping up just in combat is an excellent addition.

I like the game a great deal, but it does very much lack much in the way of dialogue "choices" in a great many instances....this leaves you "moving forward" in dialogues, rather than roleplaying a lot of the time. The second worst issue is the lack of knowing how you are doing, morally, in the eyes of other people. The only way you know people hate you is when they are trying to kill you. I miss the more subtle shades of grey when you do some little good or bad thing, and can check and see where you stand in the general world of things. I think this hurts the game sense of interactivity within the world. It's a letdown from FO3 and Oblivion, in my opinion.

Spoiler ahead. At the Thalmor Party when the head Lady began getting nosy and repeatedly asked me who I was, I complimented her saying I had heard so much about her, and she got interrupted in her thought and someone else began talking to her, and I scurried over to another guest....so, you can avoid giving her your name if you are slick about it. I really thought that was fun, being able to thwart her attempt at discovering my identity. I then fed the drunk extra drinks, and he created a scene giving me a diversion to go stealthy. Cool stuff.

Won't be long and our characters will be freezing to death and starving and passing out from lack of rest....modders are rubbing their hands together and waiting on the release of the toolkit! Can't wait!

Evilllamas just touches on the idea of what the "ultimate" Sandbox game would seem like...it isn't that far away, technologically, from being possible, either, at todays incredible pace of computer development. My vision of the perfect RPG on the computer would combine a rollover world that you could walk or sail around like a globe, that had seamless, invisible computer generated quests alongside live play with others in an Elder Scrolls like setting.

Lachdonin said- "As for the speech thing... I have yet to find a game where i couldn't think of a better thing to say than the options i was given in at least 50% of the conversations. Even Biowares games leave a bad taste in my diplomatic mouth, and they are widely regarded as the forerunner in conversational choice. There is no game on the market which gives you a realistic conversation system. It just isn't possible. Skyrim may indeed be limited in its choice, but saying it's falling behind is an absurd assertion. It's running the middle of the field right now, and TES games have done so for over a decade." What is absurd is Skyrim's tendency to have ZERO conversational choices for the player in a great number of it's quests, when it's clearly a case of there being specific and obvious moral implications in the choice made. I go to Riften, and talk to a merchant in the city center while searching for the old hero Esberth from the Blades. He wants to enlist me in driving some other merchant I don't know out of business in a sneaky fashion. My character is given the quest WITHOUT being asked if I will do it. I don't have the luxury of telling him to go to hell at all....the game assumes my character is apparently no good, and will accept. My only in game choice is to take the guy up on it. kyrim isn't just FALLING BEHIND in it's roleplaying conversations....it is downright negligent in even offering a "choice 1" or "choice 2" option in a great many conversations that are important in defining the basic character you play. So, yeah. Skyrim with it's no choice at all conversation trees seriously falls behind in offering a modern game where your character gets to make meaningful decisions about his moral stance in a great many instances, and there really isnt any excuse for this at all.

Skyrim, in my opinion, doesn't offer anything truly new or original- it simply is a maturation of a linage of a gaming franchise or concept brought up to todays technological standards. What it does, it does extremely well....but it uses ideas now more than a decade old. Not all that much has changed from Daggerfall, really, outside of the physical looks of things. The basic concepts are still there... and it could be that these concepts are now somewhat dated. I suspect that Bethesda should really consider throwing some money into studying what is possible for the future, and go places where The Elder Scrolls have never been. Yes, I'd love to see real conversation choices that led to more creative and unique places because of my decisions. Bethesda is behind the game curve in this regard. Skyrim, in particular, is very stodgy when it comes to real freedom of speech....and really, there is no longer an excuse for this. I'd like to see a much more destructive or mutable world as well. Stoneshape spells- that says it all. A more "realistic" setting, with forced eating and drinking and harsh death settings would not be hard to incorporate. Sure, modders do this anyways- but it is a desirable feature that a whole section of the core base fans would greatly support and appreciate. Bethesda has let the results of player's moral choices slip away in Skyrim; rather than focusing on having the character's actions have meaning, the designers have fallen back on the games good looks and the plotline holding up the game's lack of a conscience. I think this definately hurts the roleplaying aspects of the game, and there is no good excuse for this. Housing is weak in Bethesda's games. Being able to make choices- the color carpet you want, the size rooms you need- where your furniture sits- these are important elements ina roleplaying game where your "HOME" defines your character. With todays technology, there is no excuse for the preset homes in Skyrim- it's lazy design work that they get away with because of sticking to the traditions of past games where you couldn't pull off certain things. I also think it's time for Bethesda to take on an online-play game. How great would an Elder Scrolls Game be if more than just you were actually alive? Don't get me wrong, Skyrim, like all of the ES games before it, is fun and interesting. It just is a 1990's concept that needs retooling for the times we live in, to give us what todays technology really has to offer gamers. Just my 2 gold pieces on the subject. Balls

Bethesda has departed from the regular "good side"/"bad side" conventions in Skyrim....which is kind of refreshing. While you personally can choose to do "good" or "bad", the situation you find yourself in is typical of the real world. There isn't any group out for the benefit of mankind....every faction is out only for power and itself, and just pretends they are in the right.

Theorectically, modern human beings have inhabited this planet for 100,000 years. A great many civilizations have risen and fallen in that time, and it seems like it's only been in the last 400 or so years....out of 100,000 years.....that we've gotten away from spears, bows and swords. Apparently technology evolves slowly up to a certain point. It takes forever to go from wood to bronze to iron to steel to gunpowder. 200 years is nothin' in the scheme of early man.

My character is not quite level 30, and I have 120 hours in the game. I'm having a fantastic time, and I'm exploring for the most part- just wandering. I've joined the Stormcloaks, cleared a couple towns of Imperials for them in large scale battles. I've climbed the steps, and have a lot of shouts and have returned the horn to the dwarves. I've slain a dozen dragons, solved the murders in Winterhelm, bought a couple houses. Saved the land from vampires-three times, Swiped info from the nasty high elves, been pursued by multiple assassins, met Cicero, found the lost hermit on the unscalable mountain and survived his voodoo doll. Two score of bandit camps have fallen to my arrows. I have one 100 perk, in sneak. The dragon shouts are cool, and powerful as hell...but only if you are imaginative in their use. I'm not bored,I've hardly started and rather than get led around by the nose just following the main quests, I strike out on my own around the various cities I find myself in. That's the way to get the most out of this game. Don't do the main quests in sequence....live a little and walk instead of fast traveling about!

In my opinion, the game designers opted for a "No one is right" scenerio here to plop the player into....which, is rather refreshing, and more like the real world operates. Absolute power corrupts, absolutely, and t doesn't matter who it is that conquers, in the end, they are out for themselves...amassing power and wealth. So, ones choices are more about being a "part" of this epic sequence of events. Joining one side or the other, or staying neutral makes you think about what is happening. The more you ponder whom is right the more you realize that it's war and destruction that is bad, and that no matter whom wins, all of civilization is worse for the death and destruction. I went Stormcloak, by the way, just because I prefer the Nord's look, their more underdog station, and that great, tough, Nord General with his muscles and tree like build. He is hilarious and my little dark elf spy is so amused by his nicknames for her and how opposite they look physically that I'm glad I chose this side.

I think Skyrim's world is visually believable, logical. After all, it is mankind set in a pretty hostile environment with picks and axes. It's too cold, and it's pretty obvious that the people here are hanging on to an earlier, more prosperous civilization. The people who built these stone cities lived better. These later inhabitants are trying to cling onto the accomplishments of their ancestors or those they conquered, but the basic environment is harsh. I like it. It's more believable than if every stone was in place. It gives a feel of age and neglect and....struggle. The visual look and atmosphere, size and variety in the world are the game's biggest strengths, in my opinion.