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

[sajuukkhar9000]

I suppose another question would be, Why wouldn't they attack you if you paraded into windhelm with your companion both modelling your latest legion armour requesting the age of aggression in candlehearth hall before waltzing up to the palace of kings to say hello to Ulfric. :psyduck:

Probably because Bethesda removed the horridly implemented faction armor system from New Vegas.

 

I remember in New Vegas people somehow knew who I was when wearing a giant set of power armor that covered my entire body/face, yet when walking around in Caesar's armor, who everyone knows I killed, without a helmet of any kind, they automatically go ape s*** and start attacking me.

 

So wearing a face covering mask = they know who I am, but no mask = they totally forget?

 

 

New Vegas was a train wreak of broken ideas and illogical quest consequences, not that FO3 was better.

Edited January 16, 2012 by sajuukkhar9000

[Lachdonin]

Skyrim got some things right. Getting rid of those antiquated Classes and the useless stats, addopting a fluid leveling system and the Perk dynamic, the dual-hand combat and interaction system to name just a few positive changes. Particularly the perks and the dual-handed interface, if built upon, could dramatically increase the degree of individuality between characters.

 

They got some things terribly wrong though. Blacksmithing and Enchanting are broken, we have no spell crafting, the magic system is limited, characters are even more 2 dimensional than in Oblivion, the questlines are all short and lackluster.

 

Blacksmithing, Enchanting and spell crafting are all symptomatic of the same issue. Oversimplification. The ability to have access to (In principal at least) evey enchanting recipie, and every spell at level 1 is poorly thought out and reliant on the fact that large portions of the game cater to a more casual crowd. The Smithing (And to an extent the Enchanting %) are just a bad grading formula which could be easialy fixed by making the % increses static, rather than stacking.

 

In terms of characters and questlines, i don't fault Bethesda's writers. Every questline in the game has the potential to be monumentally epic, and dwarf even the main quests of previous games. In favor of quantity over quality, however, the implementation of these story arcs is terrible. The College of Winterhold is a prime example. Its story is worthy of having its own TES title, but instead we get 7 half done quests and the big bad artifact simply gets carted off.

 

I for one have the collectors edintion, which comes with an artbook which i have found very enlightening. There are many places in the world where character features were removed inorder to save time and effort. The throne in Whiterun, for instance, was SUPPOSED to be a giant shard of barely worked Garnet, protruding through the floor in its raw state. It was dropped because "With so much in the game we couldn't justify spending that amount of time on an object we'd only use once".

 

The focus on quantity over quality is very pronounced in Skyrim, and in that goal they have acheived a monumentous success. I have yet to run a dungeon which feels like a rehash of another. That said, quantity as the EXPENCE of Quality is not, in my mind, a good thing.

 

What i would like to see for TES6 is an expansion on what they have here. They have a good system of gameplay, a capable interface, and more than functional mechanics. What they need to do is expand on the weaknesses rather than trying to build something from the ground up, as they tend to do. The UI could stand to be refined, the AI needs 'tweaking' and several core mechanics (spellcrafting, functional Enchanting) need to be renewed.

 

Asside from core issues, i would prefer dual 'playstyles'. One being 'Casual' the other being 'Immersive'. I know a lot of people want Hardcore mode, but i would like more than that. For me, immersive gameplay should include more than just eating, sleeping and drinking. It should include faction attitudes and affection degredation, forcing you to maintain involvement in the various factions you join. The more factions you join, the more work you have to do to keep them happy. Factions should also have rivalries which adversely affect your interactions with their counterparts. The Legion, for instance, may not like the Fighters Guild because they are basiclly Mercenaries.

 

I'm reserving my opinion on whether or not proper character development and concersational interactivity is possible on how Bioware implements an open world in Dragon Age 3. If they can pull it off, and maintain the same depth of character, i'll expect the same of Bethesda. If Bioware can't, then i will stand by my statement that we should just go back to text.

[scottmack]

I suppose another question would be, Why wouldn't they attack you if you paraded into windhelm with your companion both modelling your latest legion armour requesting the age of aggression in candlehearth hall before waltzing up to the palace of kings to say hello to Ulfric. :psyduck:

Probably because Bethesda removed the horridly implemented faction armor system from New Vegas.

 

I remember in New Vegas people somehow knew who I was when wearing a giant set of power armor that covered my entire body/face, yet when walking around in Caesar's armor, who everyone knows I killed, without a helmet of any kind, they automatically go ape s*** and start attacking me.

 

So wearing a face covering mask = they know who I am, but no mask = they totally forget?

 

 

New Vegas was a train wreak of broken ideas and illogical quest consequences, not that FO3 was better.

 

 

I never even referenced to the faction armour of NV in my last post. The direction i was heading in was that factions should recognise their enemies armour especially if your part of the legion! If you were a stormcloak wearing it they dont have to go down the NV route and attack you since it could simply be spoils of war or a trophy prize. The deduction is, stormcloaks hate legion and vice versa. It makes sense to attack you if your legion, wearing the armour in a city like windhelm.

[sajuukkhar9000]

I never even referenced to the faction armour of NV in my last post. The direction i was heading in was that factions should recognise their enemies armour especially if your part of the legion! If you were a stormcloak wearing it they dont have to go down the NV route and attack you since it could simply be spoils of war or a trophy prize. The deduction is, stormcloaks hate legion and vice versa. It makes sense to attack you if your legion, wearing the armour in a city like windhelm.

 

I never said you did mention it? that is a pretty random thing to say.

 

I was pointing out why guards don't attack when wearing X faction armor, because the system was broken beyond repair.

Edited January 16, 2012 by sajuukkhar9000

[RokHere]

I never even referenced to the faction armour of NV in my last post. The direction i was heading in was that factions should recognise their enemies armour especially if your part of the legion! If you were a stormcloak wearing it they dont have to go down the NV route and attack you since it could simply be spoils of war or a trophy prize. The deduction is, stormcloaks hate legion and vice versa. It makes sense to attack you if your legion, wearing the armour in a city like windhelm.

 

Scott, as I mentioned in a previous post, news travel alarmingly fast in Skyrim, dude...if you join the Companions, every guard in the world finds out soon enough, if you become their leader, ditto. So really, regardless to whether I'm wearing a faction's freaking armor or not, according to the already existing game mechanic of "word travels fast here in Skyrim", the moment I join the Legion, I should become an enemy of the Stormcloaks and—at least most of, if not all—their guards and soldiers should recognize me as an enemy regardless to what armor I'm wearing. I believe that this is how it is "supposed" to work, completely independent of armor being worn, according to the obvious mechanic implemented: "word travels fast here". If they want to go one step further to make it extremely immersive, impressive, and just sheer amazing according to today's sloppy standards in most games, then they could implement it so that guards and soldiers of the enemy faction would only attack you in two conditions: 1. You are wearing both, the chest and head armor pieces of the enemy faction (only boots and/or only gauntlets wouldn't make much sense or justify an action like "attack on sight", and only chest or only head armor would not justify an "attack on sight" either, but could justify a suspicious question being directed to you), 2. You are not wearing a helmet or wearing a helmet that belongs to a "set" which shows the face, or simply put, they can see your face and you are within a certain distance.

 

And they can even go another step to make it more exciting by not making ALL, each and every soldier and guard act that way, but just most of them. So every time you come near a guard or soldier of the enemy faction (of your faction), there is a chance of, say, 80%, or 8 times out of 10, that that guard will recognize your face and know that you're that well-known hero who pledged allegiance to the enemy faction. Of course, if you are wearing both, the helmet and chest piece, of the enemy faction's armor set, then 100% of the guards and soldiers attack you on sight, because they don't care who you are, just that you are "one of them".

[sajuukkhar9000]

trying to use game mechanics to support what would be more of a Lore based thing isn't something you can do.

 

Lore =/= gameplay, and gameplay =/= lore.

[Syco21]

Let's say I join the U.S. Army. And the U.S. goes to war with Canada because **Filtered** the Canadians! Anyway, now let's pretend that I waltz right on into Ottowa wearing my uniform. Should I not then expect to be attacked by the Canadians or at the very least arrested and imprisoned?

 

Now in Skyrim it's a bit different. You're not just another soldier, assuming you've finished the main quest, you're the goddamn Dovahkiin. So most people are going to know exactly who you are, and the more you progress through the civil war quests, the more obvious it is that you're a crucial part of the opposition. It makes no sense for you not to be attacked and/or arrested by the enemy guards/soldiers and shunned by the townspeople and traders. Hell, a trade selling you supplies should be seen as a treason.

 

This does not at all compare to the pissing analogy. Few people are going to care if you take a piss on the side of the road. Everyone is going to care if you're a major threat to their faction,

Edited January 16, 2012 by Syco21

[sajuukkhar9000]

You being the Dovahkiin is probably exactly why they wouldn't attack you.

 

The Dovahkiin is the most revered character in Nord culture, attacking you is like attacking Talos.

 

The guards at the fort probably only attack you because you are attacking them first.

Edited January 16, 2012 by sajuukkhar9000

[RokHere]

trying to use game mechanics to support what would be more of a Lore based thing isn't something you can do.

 

Lore =/= gameplay, and gameplay =/= lore.

 

That's sheer lazy-man's logic really, not building game mechanics on lore or detaching them from each other; not that I'm referring to you as the lazy man, because you could be just not happy with that claimed status quo yet simply describing the bitter reality of the game-development life.

 

However, let me just point out that gameplay =/= game mechanics. So your second statement is irrelevant to your first one.

 

Gameplay = left mouse button is quick moderate-power attack and right mouse button is slow extreme-power attack. Gameplay = LMB is spell 1 & RMB is spell 2. Gameplay = I can mine minerals and collect wood in this game. Gameplay is something you, as a player, do, and how you get to do it, not something that happens to you. On the other hand, game mechanics is not "how" you do it, but what you can or cannot do; game mechanics is what happens to you in the fictional world. Game mechanics = you can only mine 2-4 pieces of ore from any single node. Game mechanics = you can only join Faction X or Faction Z, but you can join all factions A, B, and C, and joining X or Z will make you an enemy of the other.

 

So yes, gameplay =/= lore, at least not necessarily. I mean, generally speaking, they don't have to be too related, but certainly if the "lore" of the game says that mages in that fictional world can cast independent spells from each hand and simultaneously, then the gameplay will have to be built based on that, where you can cast two spells simultaneously by holding down both mouse buttons, for example. On the other hand, if the lore says that mages can really only focus on casting one spell at a time, and that both hands are used to cast spells, then gameplay will have to be based on that, and so on. So even if "mostly" gameplay =/= lore, that is still not by any means a rule, nor should it be.

 

On the other hand, game mechanics would be a completely different story. IF game mechanics =/= lore, or IF game mechanics are not based on the lore, then that's sheer laziness, and it is a recipe for disaster or for developing disastrous games. Game mechanics must really be based on the lore or both have to be in agreement; otherwise, you are seriously compromising your credibility and image as a game developer in front of potentially thousands of fans.

[sajuukkhar9000]

That's sheer lazy-man's logic really, not building game mechanics on lore or detaching them from each other; not that I'm referring to you as the lazy man, because you could be just not happy with that claimed status quo yet simply describing the bitter reality of the game-development life.

 

Then every RPG, FPS, RTS, Civilization game ever made are lazy, as none of those do not have realistic descriptions of what "really" happened.

 

Beyond that, gameplay mechanics DON'T have to built around lore or even close to it, Neverwinter Nights was so far from D&D lore it was laughable and yet it was still a great game.

 

It is not a recipe for disaster, a form of laziness, or anything negative at all, the fact countless game series dont make them match even remotely proves it.

Edited January 16, 2012 by sajuukkhar9000