Criticism, praise and hopes for Bethesda's next games after Skyrim

[Rimland]

All NPCs already have a disposition stat that increases/decreases based on actions you do to them, and affects what responses they give you.

 

And all the "factions" beyond The Empire/Stormcloaks are neutral to each other and The Empire/Stormcloaks. It wouldn't change much.

 

i know that !

 

but, what i'm saying is, factions and reputations in New Vegas felt so much more significant than in Skyrim.

 

don't know why, just does. they feel they're missing, in relative terms, in Skyrim compared to NV.

[RokHere]

Asking a person who lives in Cairo or Tokyo will only give you a biased view on the city making it out to be better or worse then it actually is. The only real things you can learn from people in the city is how biased one way or the other they are, and the locations of places. The true history of a city is probably found elsewhere from people in another town without said biased who have not had the history of said city warped by cultural propaganda. Devs doing this to NPCs in game is not "lazy" or "f***ing up" it is making it realistic.

 

It has nothing to do with being delusional or self-righteous, it simply has to do with how people act IRL and how game devs mimic the real life actions of people in game characters.

Holy crap, that's all you really needed to say from the beginning; I cannot believe how cynical you are. No wonder your attitude is so aggressive and insulting right off the bat. You did not even go far with your counter-argument to say something like, "You have to ask a thousand people in a city to get the full, unbiased no-nonsense details about it". You said that you'd only find out how biased people are one way or the other, period. You just reek of cynicism, hostility, distrust, and it is sickening, dude. Hey, thanks, but I'm really better off the way I am? I trust people until they prove me wrong, just as I would like to be treated by others? I also don't necessarily take the word of the first person for granted, but if I hear the same from another and another, then I am happy to believe that that's the real deal? You live and think the way you do if you really have to, but the world is much better than the way you see it luckily, and you are just living in your own delusions and pretending that that's fact, and that Devs are actually as cynical and distrustful as you are, or that they have any idea to begin with what you're talking about. Getting info about cities from books because citizens will be biased. Huh. As if authors cannot be biased. Man, you seriously need help, I swear it.

 

Fine then if Sins is to "niche" for you then play Warcraft 3 or Starcraft online. The online components of those games is FAR from "trial and error", going against people who have dedicated their lives to playing the games with such tactics doesn't work.

They do, in fact. The person who wins in multiplayer RTS games isn't necessarily the more strategic intelligent contestant; more often than not, it is simply the person who is more experienced in the map, or dealing with the "custom" map produced after having played so many of those maps, and who is more experienced with the units provided, and which units compliment each other best, and how many units exactly are needed to defeat which enemy units or destroy structures the fastest, etc. etc. In other words, the person with the most experience tends to win most of the time; in other words, the person with the most comprehensive "trial and error" track record. Pretending that strategic maneuvers like flanking or surprising the enemy from behind works in today's RTS games is just self-delusion; today's RTS games are about optimized "matching", you match the correct friendly unit with another complimentary friendly unit, and match them both with an especially vulnerable enemy unit with them both, and about quantity through speedy production, which comes from good shortcuts, mechanical repetition or muscle memory (which is more prominent in FPS games), and experience in the game. Seriously, don't kid yourself; RTS games would have to be a thousand times more complicated and realistic to truly teach valid strategic thinking. I have seen older non-gamers get impressed by a strategy game and sucked in, and failing to finish certain campaigns and asking for my help, and it was never because they were less intelligent or less strategic than me, but simply because they didn't remember all the "matching" tricks. And while you are only partially right that multiplayer matches are far more demanding than matches against AI, this still doesn't mean that they primarily require a lot more than experience or "trial and error"; I firmly believe that the primary requirement is not strategic thinking in its real sense, but simply knowing as much as possible about the "matching" system of this specific game: what with what, and how many, which can come from either reading or trial and error. The rest is mechanical: good shortcuts and a good gaming keyboard and mouse. Thinking another way would be grossly misleading and overrating today's RTS games.

 

What those people care or don't care about does not change anything, It just makes them ignorant of the world around them.

 

Secondly much like the real world a vast majority of knowledge comes from books, you arent going to overhear a casual conversation IRL about the details of the American Civil War, you wont hear talk of how The roman Empires legal policies are still found in our governments today, you wont hear conversations about how Pagan Gods were adapted into being in our modern religious, most of that is solely found in books. The ES series is no different, you will never know any large part of its history without reading, exactly like you wont learn much of the real worlds history without reading. Expecting game devs to create NPCs that just blather on about every little part of the game world is unrealistic.

You write all those things as if authors cannot be biased or downright lying, or misled themselves! I also read books that tell me that every known major religion today can be traced back to monotheism, if it doesn't already preach monotheism. This would downright neutralize the atheist agenda of the books that you read that describes how pagan deities (so there is no such thing as "gods" as we keep getting brainwashed in games and movies, there is "God", and then there are "deities") were injected into modern religions, because paganism is by definition polytheistic, even if there are beliefs in one pagan deity out there; the philosophy itself is practically polytheistic. Moreover, I read books that go into detail about why evolution is a hoax and is much of a theory as the theory of God's existence, and can never be actually proven or observed scientifically, so there is no reason to treat it as a dogma or given. Now...which books do you want me to believe? Those books, or the books you read? And why? Look, man, books are the primary source of knowledge in countless fields, but there are many things that you cannot learn or understand from books, things that must be experienced and seen and discussed; basically unpredictable things (like human beings) and constantly changing things (like cities). In order to truly understand and know about such things, you have to see them for yourself and experience them first-hand, not read about them. I'm a big advocate of reading and books, but I have also read enough to eventually realize when books cannot help me. If you haven't realized when they can't yet, then keep reading and hopefully one day it'll dawn on you.

 

Beyond that I made none of the implications you seem to think I did, I find that it is YOU who needs help in communication as you seem to love pulling thing out of nothingness to support your baseless arguments, and seem to lack understanding of the meaning of words.

I do remember I had better understanding of the word lore than you did; I even quoted the dictionary to support my "baseless" argument, hehe. =)

 

The "spirit" of the Fallout series is something that the Devs get to choose, not you. Fallout 3 is no more or less accurate to the "spirit" of Fallout 1 and 2 because Bethesda, the now owners, chose it to be so.

 

Beyond that I did enjoy borderlands but I don't see how it even remotely resembles the first two fallout games or how its mechanics would have been good for it. Fallout 1 and 2 were heavily stat based while borderlands had none.

Yes, the spirit of a game is the choice of the owner, but even from a purely marketing or profit perspective, when you buy a franchise or trademark because you know it has a passionate or rabid fan base, then one of your priorities should be to retain the spirit of that franchise or name, because essentially that's what will keep the majority of the fan base passionate about that name or brand name. Lose the spirit, or replace it with something too different or alien or less, and you lose a huge chunk of the fan base. As I said, Fallout 3 was a lot more reminiscent of Oblivion than of the original Fallout, and that's not because it was changed to a first/third-person view; after all, I said Borderlands had more of Fallout's spirit, and Borderlands is even more different (and a different genre). You mentioned stats, and that's what I meant when I said that we'd just need to implement the RPG rules of Fallout into Borderlands, change the story, script and the looks of some enemies, enhance the strengths of available characters (like stealth or melee), add conversation and their options, and we'd have ourselves a game that is more addictive and more true to Fallout than Fallout 3 was.

 

Also due to graphical/hardware limitations of the time each ES game will be different from each other and have many added/removed features from the sequels. Expecting them to be consistent is foolish as hardware changes weekly and with it so does what can and cannot be put in the games. Asking for a consistent ES series is asking for stagnation as it would totally ignore the advancements in technology made between now and the next game.

 

Beyond that due to the ever changing nature of the ES series the book are the only think we can really go on because the Devs will always be trying to bring the gameplay as close to the books because the books are the real lore.

I don't see how hardware can ever be a limitation or obstacle for consistency, unless you're going back in time. Hardware only facilitates doing more as time progresses, so it is never a limiting factor, but liberating one as far as sequels are concerned. Your statement "due to graphical/hardware limitations of the time each ES game will be different" is misleading, because it should have been more along the lines of "due to graphical/hardware advancement, each ES sequel will have more options and more things to do". And more things to do, more options, are not necessarily a bad thing and they shouldn't contradict the lore. Why the heck would I feel that I must contradict the lore because now I can do more?! That's absurd to say really. And if just because the hardware allows me now to emulate that "cool" bullet-time effect that that other cool company put in their game and the game sold so well, so I must implement it as-is in my historical RPG, then I surely need help; I'm not bashing the reflexes perk in Skyrim, by the way, it was well done, but just giving an example. If hardware is allowing me to do more things, and I'm gonna do more things that contradict the lore, then I surely am doing something wrong there or being lazy and pathetically uncreative. You'd need to bring specific examples of advanced technology and hardware limiting what a developer can do and forcing a developer to "change the game" to the degree of contradicting the lore, because I cannot even begin to conceive a way for advanced technology to force me to contradict the lore of my previous games, again unless I am using this as an excuse for my pathetic lack of creativity and laziness.

[RokHere]

Ya know, I'm thinking that a return to text based conversations would do these games a world of good. Or atleast some sort of blend, whereby the most important characters can have voice actors and the rest use text.

 

Yes, lets set back all of gaming 10 years for nostalgia reasons.

 

Actually, Syco21 is conditionally right, and you wouldn't be set back 10 years, because World of Warcraft, which is still being played by millions of fans until this day, and whose numbers are more than those playing the new Star Wars MMO—which makes all its NPC-given quests voiced by voice-over actors, WoW works exactly the way Syco21 described and is still going strong. The most important characters have voice actors and the rest use text; the more important quests have non-cinematic cut-scenes and voiced introductions by the NPCs, and the rest are just readable in the quest log.

 

Frankly, it's a budget issue, not a modernism issue. Meaning, if the game developer/publisher does not have the budget to get all the conversations voiced, and to have access to the actors for future corrections or additions for "patches" and DLC, then the developer or publisher should just focus on creating the best gameplay and visual presentation possible, and make the most important lines and conversations voiced, but leave everything else to just be readable as text. If this is what it takes for the developer to create a better, more cohesive game, and a world and lore that makes sense, then by all means, I'd be happy to play such a game. Yes, it'll take some convincing and getting-used-to to play the game, but the convincing will mainly be in how fun the game is.

 

I can actually also use an example other than WoW: Borderlands! Borderlands was fairly addictive and fun to play, and the lore or story just needed a bit of a push to be something much better (and apparently that's exactly what they're doing with Borderlands 2), and...Borderlands only had brief voiced lines. The rest of the quest details had to be read about on the boards or quest log. I'm sure many players didn't care to read about the quest details, but I did, and I'm sure many other players also read the quest details like me. So my point is that what Syco21 described can indeed work today, and work well too; it is done countless times in Japanese games, and was done in successful Western games too. It just needs to be done creatively and with good directing and art, and sprinkled with just enough voiced lines to keep things lively and interesting. And the central message here is that IF a developer's budget cannot get the sheer amount of script or conversation voiced, but there is enough material to create an abundant and rich world, with lots of amazing relationships, mechanics, and reactions, then by all means, they should go for it and get only a limited amount of script voiced, then make the rest readable only.

[justwannaddl]

Criticism: Poor UI. Faction quests were not as engaging. Most quests are far too linear. NPCs, especially guards, generally treat you like dirt. Destruction magic is far too weak. Conjuration magic lacks variety. Exploration is a chore due to impassible mountains at almost every corner. Horses are pointless. Everyone except the kids look old. Kids are invincible brats unless you mod them. No water combat. No meters to tell you how much longer an effect lasts. Did I mention the UI sucks?

 

Praise: Graphics are better than stock Oblivion. Random encounters on the road are more varied. Leveling system does not force players to focus on raising certain skills they do not care about to max out stats. No athletics and no acrobatics means no need to restrain oneself from running and jumping because one worries about leveling up involuntarily. Voice acting has improved over the crap in Oblivion. Traps have improved in variety and quantity. Necromancy is fun. Evil missions are a lot more evil.

 

Hope: They make a better UI next time. Faction quests will be more detailed and involved. There will be more mazes. Fame and infamy will be reinstituted. Spell customization or creation will be put i the game. Conjuration will have more options like scamps, bears and spider daedra. Climbing or flying is implemented. Horse combat, saddle bags or faster horses are added. No NPC is made essential. They die, then you reload or play on. Allow some kind of water combat, even if it is limited or even dangerous. Bring back the meters so I know how much time is left in my spells. Did I mention make a decent UI next time?

Edited January 17, 2012 by justwannaddl

[RokHere]

Maybe one day speech synthesis will get so good, it doesn't sound awfully robotic anymore.

 

That would really revolutionize games indeed. And heck, I heard some synthetic speech before that didn't sound that awful, and would perfectly fit a game TODAY with a sci-fi theme and lots of robotic characters (like Geth in Mass Effect), for example. Meaning, imagine a game with a good story set in the Mass Effect world and only on a Geth planet with countless Geth characters, and a few human beings here and there, including in your crew. If such a game were to be developed today, and there is a lot of conversation, then it can work fairly well to use synthetic speech for all the conversations of the Geth NPCs, except one companion like Legion.

 

With all that said, synthetic speech can never be used exclusively, because even if would sound "natural", in a big game with a rich and deep story, synthetic speech will always eventually sound "monotone". People may even turn it off eventually...hehe. =)

 

But yes, you make a good point. And the technology can be used wisely and creatively today, not just when it gets better.

 

 

If there are real choices in a game that have real consequences you will be forced to choose an option that will render a different option impossible. Doing so does not "deny content" it creates a reason for further replays with different characters choosing different outcomes.

 

Every faction need not feed into the Imperial vs Stormcloak story line. Vigilantes of Stendarr for instance, would have concerns far removed from the civil war, so would the Thieves Guild or any number of other possible factions. By giving the player the option to join various factions (and become the enemy of others) you provide reasons for a more tangibly defined social identity in the game world. What other games were able to do or not do with factions isn't directly relevant to their possible implementation into Skyrim through mods or DLC. If one doesn't like factions, that's fine. Others do and interested in speculating about how they might work in Skyrim.

Very well said, CalibanX. You make an excellent argument and mirror some of my own thoughts, especially the point about re-playability of a game via those defined social structures. This worked in a genius fashion in games like Mass Effect and Dragon Age, where lots of fans went back for another playthrough partially out of curiosity about the romance development with other possible companions. When you "limit" what a player can do in a single playthrough using smart social structures, this is a reason for the player to go back to the game afterwards and give it another playthrough.

 

And as I have been pointing out the factions that exist in the game really don't have much reasons to deny you access to them because you joined another factions...

 

...Bethesda did a great job at making logical reasons as to why no one is attacking each other.

You brought up all the examples that not too many people are fussing about anyway, and ignored the two factions that feel nonsensical to most people in their current form: Legion and Stormcloaks. Yes, not all merchants will refuse business because you belong to the enemy (some don't really care about anything other than money), but definitely more than a single merchant from the enemy faction should refuse my business; saying one merchant is enough would be insulting and cynical to the loyalty and values of lots of people in the real world. People can be very passionate about their own teams or countries or factions that they will gladly refuse money or business with the enemy. And in the specific example of Skyrim's two opposing factions, most people on this thread weren't bothered that much with the mechanics related to the Companions or Thieves' Guild, but mainly the mechanics related to Legion vs. Stormcloaks; there should have been limitations and consequences for choosing either of those two factions, and anything else is hogwash to defend lazy and sloppy development, which helps the developer sit back and lack and enjoy the acclaim and not do any better in sequels; well done.

[Syco21]

Ya know, I'm thinking that a return to text based conversations would do these games a world of good. Or atleast some sort of blend, whereby the most important characters can have voice actors and the rest use text.

Yes, lets set back all of gaming 10 years for nostalgia reasons.

1. The TES games aren't 'all of gaming'

2. There are damned good reasons for wanting a mixture of text and speech, has nothing to do with nostalgia. Text is easier to produce, it's cheaper, faster and requires a hell of lot less space than audio.

 

I prefer having voice actors voice all of the dialogue. But if using text means that there can be far more dynamic conversations, including consequences for many of the actions you take, then I'd willing to accept a mixture of voice actors and text.

[sajuukkhar9000]

1. The TES games aren't 'all of gaming'

2. There are damned good reasons for wanting a mixture of text and speech, has nothing to do with nostalgia. Text is easier to produce, it's cheaper, faster and requires a hell of lot less space than audio.

 

I prefer having voice actors voice all of the dialogue. But if using text means that there can be far more dynamic conversations, including consequences for many of the actions you take, then I'd willing to accept a mixture of voice actors and text.

 

1. I never said TES was all of gaming.

2. No there really isn't a good reason to want both text and voice, text makes games tedious for many people and would only be a regression in technology.

 

 

WoW is an example others above have brought up, which I don't think I should have to remind you but it has been losing members by the millions for several years now, but what they seemingly fail to take into account in SWTOR which shows that even large scale MMORPGs can have a fully voiced game, going backwards in technology is not what is needed, we just need to get Bethesda off their asses and make them do conversations right.

Edited January 17, 2012 by sajuukkhar9000

[Syco21]

1. You did.

2. What works for other games doesn't work for all games.

 

So you don't want to read a couple lines of dialogue, poor baby. WoW is a terrible example. It's a game I have no desire to play and has very little to do with any lack of voice actors it may have.

[sajuukkhar9000]

1. You did.

2. What works for other games doesn't work for all games.

 

So you don't want to read a couple lines of dialogue, poor baby. WoW is a terrible example. It's a game I have no desire to play and has very little to do with any lack of voice actors it may have.

 

1. No I didn't, I said going back to text would make gaming go back 10 years, that does not imply that ES is all of gaming. Please learn to read.

 

2. It doesn't work for this game either, the simple FACT that larger more expansive games can have deep speech based conversations shows text is not needed.

 

3. I care not about reading text, I got use to it from every RPG from Baldur's Gate to Morrowind, however MOST PEOPLE probably don't want to read text and Bethesda as a company has to target most people with their games.

Edited January 17, 2012 by sajuukkhar9000

[faifh]

1. You did.

2. What works for other games doesn't work for all games.

 

So you don't want to read a couple lines of dialogue, poor baby. WoW is a terrible example. It's a game I have no desire to play and has very little to do with any lack of voice actors it may have.

 

1. No I didn't, I said going back to text would make gaming go back 10 years, that does not imply that ES is all of gaming. Please learn to read.

 

2. It doesn't work for this game either, the simple FACT that larger more expansive games can have deep speech based conversations shows text is not needed.

 

3. I care not about reading text, I got use to it from every RPG from Baldur's Gate to Morrowind, however MOST PEOPLE probably don't want to read text and Bethesda as a company has to target most people with their games.

1. You did. So a) learn to know what you said, b) work on your attitude, dude. Seriously. There is hardly one you posted with that you didn't piss off.

 

 

Ignoring that sajuukkhar troll, If having to choose, because of budgetary constraints, I'd rather have text and a deep world with all kind of interaction than voice and for example stupid secret-fire still telling me to join the college, albeit I'm the archmage. I just suppose as the market works today, non-through voice acting will get bad reviews, will hurt sales :(

 

Its still behind the horizon, but I believe that one day, speech synthesis will that good, that it won't just even sound natural, but also non-monotonous. Already today you have a variety of different speakers available, albeit yet they all sound like robots. Who knows when it will be common place. On the other hand, remember how games looked 10 years ago? 20 years ago? So it's not too far fetched to assume such things in 10 or 20 years in future.

Edited January 17, 2012 by faifh