imperistan Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 I'm going to reply to a couple of things: Morrowind could only allow you to kill every single NPC because NPCs in Morrowind were static, unmoving, and never in any form of danger. You could kill every NPC because NPCs could only die your hand, and your hand alone. However, with the implementation of moving NPCs, with dynamic schedules, and the implementation of things like Dragon attacks, Vampire raids, or even NPCs just going outside the city walls to visit their farms and such, NPCs had to be made unkillable because they could die by some other hand then your own. The death of NPCs in Morrowind was a deliberate choice by your part, and it was solely your part, with no outside factors influencing it. However, this is not the case with Skyrim and Oblivion, and thus, expecting the same level of killability with NPCs is unfounded. Even going by this, making certain NPC's completely immortal wasn't the answer. Make them immortal to NPC or Creature damage sure, but if I want to kill Martin or the Greybeards or someone else, I should be able to do it and damn the consequences. Still not completely on the level of Morrowind, but still, its a fair compromise between the two systems that for Roleplayers at least, would be easy enough to ignore. After all, characters that have plots behind them in other media almost always have plot shields as it is, so a roleplayer could easily write off the continuing survival of these NPC's and go about their business with their suspension of disbelief intact. -As for quest markrers, it has nothing to do with hand holding, it has to do with, once again, NPCs being more dynamic. Morrowind needed no quest markers because you knew a NPC would stay in one place the entire game once you found them. However, with the addition of NPC schedules, finding NPCs became 10X harder, having to spend 30 mintues searching a city for a NPC becuase they took a stroll just to turn in a quest isn't fun, and wanting to know where they are has nothing to do with handholding. I for one, would have loved a dynamic system of asking NPC's where quest targeted NPC's are. And it wouldn't have been too hard either. Have the NPC's say generic responses (IE, HE's over there, or He's in X District/House/Building) thats basically it beyond setting up a system of detecting the cell an NPC's in. Attributes are gone because they killed character diversity, and only imposed conformity amongst characters. You didn't do it right then. But even then, the issue could have been resolved rather easily by removing caps (and greatly upscaling the rate of progression past level 50, thus preventing anyone from becoming a master of all trades without actually putting in the time to achieve such a status) and having attributes increase over time based on your skills and more importantly skill usage. Rather than just going by skill number values, go by average time using that skill. For instance, if you use two handed weapons all of the time, then your strength will rapidly increase over time. And so on for each skill/attribute combination. Doing so removes the intentional selection of attributes (and all those meta-gaming issues that come along with it) by forcing you to actually sit and play in order to get anywhere with them. And as for Luck, I'd say it could increase at every level milestone. Say, level 10, level 25, level 50, etc. One could tie in open-ended classes (where level increases based on skills and attributes (I'd say, 5 1-point skill increases and 5 attribute point increases for a level up) regardless of class, but sticking to your chosen class (Which can be changed at great cost and in-game time) would allow you to level quicker) and boom, character diversity that minimizes meta-gaming massively, while also appeasing roleplayers. And if we're going to argue the health problem (Which in truth was the only real problem with Morrowind/Oblivion's character development systems) then the solution is simple. Rather than tying health (and to a lesser extent stamina, which funnily enough I hardly see anyone complain about) to a single attribute, tie it to 3 different ones at different levels, the selection of which would be based on the classic RPG triangle of Warrior > Rogue > Mage > Warrior. Endurance, a primarily warrior's attribute, would increase health and stamina the most, with a small bonus to health increases, as a warrior deals with health loss by directly absorbing it, and consumes stamina at a fairly substantial rate. Intelligence/Willpower would increase the two the least, as a mage would deal with health loss by completely mitigating it via magic, which these two attributes would also increase. For a sense of balance, Magicka would still increase heavily because of these attributes, but health and stamina would not, as a mage's magicka should by and large replace the need for health and stamina. And lastly, agility would increase health and stamina about midway between Endurance and I/W, as a stealth type would do its best to avoid being hit (but while still being able to roll with the punches) and would consume the most stamina, as a stealth type would use speed and quick power attacks rather heavily. And one could still mix and match these (and likely will depending on how they play). There would be no eventual transition into a MOAT (Without specifically raising each skill to a hundred and using them enough to increase every attribute to 100, which under this system would take months of real time to do) as your playstyle would directly define your attributes. So yeah, they removed attributes, but they replaced them with a system that, quite provably, adds more character diversity, and THAT is what matters in a RPG Problem is, in Skyrim, I can become a MOAT far easier than I could in Oblivion or Morrowind. Perks don't replace actual character development, they augment it. -Saying all races are the same except looks is 100% false, each race has their own unique powers, and their own set of skills that start off higher then the rest... exactly like past games. Not only that, but each race, and each gender, has their own walking/running speed influenced by their height. So, races, if anything, became MORE diverse then in past games. Problem is, those differences make about as much difference between the games as the side of the road I pick to travel on. They're superficial. -Everyone could do everything in past games also. Nothing about Morrowind/Oblivion's system prevented someone form getting 100 in all skills/attributes. That is true, but you never reached the apex of being a mage if you started out as a warrior (your magicka is handicapped, you can't level using your mage skills, etc etc). In Skyrim I can start out a warrior for 10 levels and by level 40 be just as powerful as if I would have started out as a mage in the first place. And then, I could switch back and so on until I've reached 100 in everything. Perks are the only things that prevent one in Skyrim from being a total master in everything, but they're just doing what the old system used to do, but in a a very jerky way that doesn't make for smooth character development. (and quite obviously is just pieced together from the remnants of the old system) And with other certain systems in the game, any perks you don't get (and if you're smart about it the vast majority of perks you don't select aren't worth picking as it is) are rendered worthless anyway. Quite frankly, there wasn't much thought put into the character development system for Skyrim, and if there really was, then it was clearly focused on appeasing one type of player rather than the playerbase as a whole. Few if anyone would have complained about character development in Skyrim if they made it a compromise between the two extremes, and for that matter actually hammered out the issues with the system that truly wasn't that bad to begin with. I for one think its time Beth stuck by a system and developed it, rather than scrapping it when it doesn't turn out absolutely perfect the first time. No one on this side of things really wants Morrowind 2.0, but no one period wants Hello Kitty Island Adventure: The Dohvakiin edition. --Joining one side in the civil war makes all enemy camps hostile to you. Completing the civil war replaces the Jarls and guards of half the holds in Skyrim, and completing the civil war causes soldiers to occupy many of the forts across Skyrim, turning them from dungeons full of enemies into safe havens for the player. So, a couple of new enemies and what amounts to a pallete change is a legitimate consequence. Okay. Joining the Thieves Guild allows players to tell the thieves that randomly try to mug you that you are in the guild, which causes them to back down, and if you have advanced far enough to become Guild Master/Nightingale, they give you a cut of their Money. Also, becoming guild master causes you to be able to bribe the guards in all the 5 main cities to ignore your crimes, and opens up a series of 7 fences with 4,000 gold each for the player to pawn their stuff off to. Cute, but minor. Joining the DB causes the random DB attacks on you to stop Oh wow! Completing The Blessings of Nature causes the Gildergreen to be restored, or chopped down and replaced with a sapling. Pallete change. (I'm going to snip the rest) -more random bodies to kill. Woo -Fascinating, that man with one line now sounds nicer. Fascinating. All in all, we on the other side of the fence do recognize what small merits Skyrim does have. But we got over those small merits. We don't put them on pedestals and hold them as redeeming aspects of the game that completely erase all the other problems with the game in a blinding light of holiness. A couple random things in the forest doesn't make the game any more fun to explore after you've already realized there's less dungeon types than Oblivion and even less monster types, and nearly every dungeon (That isn't a couple of rooms) being its own mini-pseudo-quest doesn't help either when they're virtually spammed across the world. But I recall a time when Morrowind came out and Daggerfall fans called it the end of the ES series because of how bad Morrowind supposedly was, and then when Oblivion came out Morrowind was a jewel of a game, and Oblivion was the most abominatable thing ever, and then when Skyrim came out Oblivion suddenly became perfect and Skyrim was trash, and I fully expect that when the next ES game comes out the very same people who hated on Skyrim will change thier utne, calling it a great game full of depth, and the next game to be the worst EVAH!!!!. Morrowind was the midground between modern ES games and the Daggerfall/Arena era, and quite frankly it was a good compromise between a more mainstream, modern game and the classic RPG's of 2 decades ago. Yes, it was far simpler than Daggerfall, but it made up for it on an equal level with the world it delivered and the the fact that it still did maintain a lot of the roleplaying possibilities. Taking Morrowind's general design forward (IE, maintaining the basic gameplay design and others but adding onto them and fixing the issues) would have made for some very, very interesting RPG's. Oblivion was a kind of mashup. On one hand, it still had that basis in Morrowind, but the problem was that it tried to push too far ahead and didn't maintain all of the original design aspects that spawned Morrowind. That can be seen in the Radiant AI system that never was and the choice to generate the almost all of the game rather than build it by hand, as well as the god-awful level scaling system that stabbed us all in its own special way (IE, with a sharpened brick). With these kinds of issues, Oblivion became a game that it really shouldn't have been (and personally, I don't think it was supposed to have been this way either) and rather than being a full blown RPG, it had a lot of elements of a basic action-adventure game. But then we come to Skyrim. The problem with Skyrim is, is that its trying to be the perfected stage of the game that Oblivion wasn't supposed to be, but was. Skyrim is an excellent action-adventure game with an open-ended twist, but it is no RPG. Yes, it has its roleplaying elements, but all adventure games have RPG elements to some degree. Far Cry 2/3 are all open-ended action-adventure games with RPG elements, but they are no RPG's. "Fact is, it's just not doable with todays technology." Full on-choice is in fact not doable. But giving more than just a few choices is quite doable. Even Bioware's level of choice (on its good days mind you, not the mess that Mass Effect became, for instance) would have been excellent in Skyrim for the vast majority of quests. "Please try again, because all of the quests you mentioned only start when you talk to someone, not when you just pass by them." Right and thats the problem. If I want to talk to a certain NPC about a certain topic, say, out of curiosity, I shouldn't be railroaded into a quest. And I shouldn't have to tab out of a conversation just to escape the ones that don't give me a direct option to say No. My character isn't rude, I shouldn't be forced to be rude. And I can name a quest that always, always, always ends up in my journal no mater what I do, Dawnguard. Just walking through town that quest will pop up if I even so much as get near anyone talking about it. Same with all the courier force greets. (no, I don't want to visit the museum in Dawnstar thank you very much Oblivion throwback quest) "If you dont want to do a quest chain, you shouldn't do it." That's not the point. A quest started is quest started, and if a quest is already started before I want to do it (IF I even wanted to do it) then that breaks up the story I could otherwise be following. It breaks up the roleplaying experience to have Sam start a quest for me when I'm trying to play the part of the bounty hunter just because I walked by him in the tavern. "If you dont want to do the MQ, then dont do it, if you dont want to fast travel, then dont do it. asking for it to be removed/delays is not only selfish, but it is petty. " Again, missing the point. If simply not partaking solved the issue, there wouldn't be a problem. No one is so stupid that it wont' click with them that they can just not do it. We all realize that we can just ignore certain things, but thats not the problem. The problem is breaking up the story we are trying to write for ourselves, (And before you say it, this isn't just limited to hardcore roleplayers like myself) by forcing new threads to the story with every conversation. Its like reading a book where the author shoves in a plot point or even a completely new subplot every other page. Its confusing and doesn't make for a very entertaining or smooth story. "you actually don't like it" Show me a game that can actually directly compete with an ES game on the "open-world RPG" level that isn't 20 years old, has the modding capability and accessibility of an ES game, and all in all has the same general quality to it. The reason people can "hate" on Skyrim but still play it is because there is not a single game in the world that's anything like it, and that is why people get so vivid in their dislike for the game. Because if Skyrim isn't holding up, then what other game is there to play that will give a similar but better experience other than an older ES game, that for a lot of us (me especially) have gotten to the point where they can't even be played anymore, not because of their age, but simply because we've played those games to absolute death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeCap Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 I saw someone mention how you can be accepted into various factions in spite of how you've acted prior to that. Seems like they could have implemented something to handle this. A simple counter that tallies the number of time you've done something (or more accurately, been caught/seen doing something) and has a threshold (or multiple thresholds) that prevents you from joining that faction. The conversation with the Companions leader could check the counter to see how many times you've been seen/caught killing innocent NPCs and if the number is more than the threshold he won't let you in. Could even get fancy and if you were below that high threshold but above a lower threshold you would be made to do some things to prove your worth/dedication to the faction. This would have worked really well with the Stormcloaks/Imperials. Imagine a counter that tallies the offenses you've committed in holds/cities controlled by either of the civil war factions (you could weight the various offenses appropriately and even weight the location) and then when you approach the faction leader that counter is checked against one or more thresholds. If they don't outright turn you down they could make you earn your way in. This could be very cool for these two factions; "Oh? If you truly want to be a part of [stormcloaks/Imperials], if you are truly sworn to [The King/Talos], then you will have to prove it. I do not trust you; your history leads me to believe that you will never be truly dedicated to our cause. But if you wish to prove me wrong...there are some things you could do to prove so...I warn you that these are not easy tasks and it would be best for you to simply accept my denial and walk away; Then, you are given a quest to Scout out the enemy encampments because the previous scouts have all been killed or some such. Maybe even make them scout every encampment. Put preference on them managing to scout the encampment without being caught. Would be a great early-mid quest for a thief type player and would be a brutal, but intriguing, quest for a fighter build Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sajuukkhar9000 Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 (edited) snip-They did create a system where NPCs could still be killed by your hand, but not by other NPCs, it's called the "protected" status. The problem with the protected status is that its not perfect, NPCs can still die via physics glitches, area of effect spells, power attacks, poisons, and other over time effects, which is why it isn't used often. Furthermore, I have to ask, why do you care that you cant kill a NPC you have no reason to attack in the first place? I have never seen anyone ever provide a reasonable explanation as to why you should be able to just kill EVERYONE for no reason. -But here's the thing, NPCs can be in so many different buildings, and on so many different vertical levels, that there really is no way to record every single possible direction a NPC could be from another NPC, and in all possible direction combinations, such as up, and to the left. Not to mention that, by the time you walk over there, the NPC would have most likely moved, thu making said directions pointless. -There were no caps in the attribute system, which was the problem, you could get to 100 in all attributes, and all skils, in both Morrowind, and Oblivion, with very little power gaming, but then again, putting caps is a problem in of itself. Furthermore, your system doesn't fix the overall problem, making attributes raise by skill use would, if anything, only make the problems worse because, while we RPers only focus on one or two things, the average player is a meta gamer who tries everything. All your system does is change everyone getting high/maxed attributes from putting points into them into "everyone gets max/high attributes because they use everything. Your system does not solve the problem, only changes it from one form into another. -The problem with this statement is that it's impossible to become a MOAT in Skyrim. There are 250 perks, and only, at max, 80 possible perk points, with most players not even getting up 50, and when combined with the fact that, due to the way the skill system is structured, skill level is totally meaningless to the skill's overall effectiveness, it is, quite literally, impossible to become a MOAT in Skyrim. One can have all of their skills at 100, but that doesn't mean anything because the skill level is just a number, all powers come from perks, and it's impossible to get every perk, thus it's impossible to become a master of everything. In fact, Skyrim is the ONLY TES game, out of Morrowind, Oblivion, and Skyrim, that you CAN'T become a moat. -Races differences are supposed to be largely superficial, they have been since Morrowind. They are just there to give you a few skill level boosts in skills those races normally use, and a little advanced power. -The problem with your statement is that it is 100% false. Nothing about Morrowind, or Oblivion's systems prevent warriors from getting the same total magicka as mages, because classes themselves had NOTHING to do with how much magicka you started off with. Magicka was based off of the formula (2*INT) and while it could be modified by various factors, such as race, or birthsign, neither of these was needed to become a "perfect" mage, as a "perfect" mage had 100INT, which was VERY possible to get by anyone. Furthermore, due to the fact that Morrowind threw money at you, it didn't matter that you couldn't level with mage skills, one could just buy trainers, and get to 100, noting being able to level up with those skills had no real detriment, and by making you able to level up with every skill, Skyrim make character progression far more smoother, because it rewards your use of everything, so if you have to switch to something else then what you normally use for a mission, you got rewarded for it, instead of losing out on leveling time like in Oblivion ,and Morrowind. Also, it had nothing to do with not turning out fine the first time, it is an inherent flaw in attribute systems, every game with them, from Fallout, to Dragon Age, to Elder Scrolls, has it. -From a story standpoint, yes, it is. anyone can just say "well, all that changed was generic NPCs being replaced by other generic NPCs, but that what almost ALL video games do, ignoring the story aspect of it doesn't get your argument anywhere. -As for your claim of dungeons and monsters number In terms of dungeons-Oblivion had -Caves-Forts-Alyeid ruins. -Skyrim has -Caves-Forts-Dwemer ruins-Old Nordic tombs -Oblivion had 3 dungeon types, Skyrim has 4. How exactly did 4 become less then three? As for creatures-Oblivion had-Animals-Monsters-Goblins-Undead-DaedraWith a total of 50 creatures between them Skyrm has-Animals-Daedra-Dwarven Automatons-Monsters-Undead With a total of 40 creatures between them. both have 5 different creature types, with Skyrim having 10 less overall creatures then Oblivion. HOWEVER, Skyrim's creatures ALSO have different level variations.-Dragur have 11 variations-Charrus have 4-Flamer have like 8-Dragons have 7Just to name a few, and when we take that into account, there are a larger total number of monsters in Skyrim there were in Oblivion. As you can see, the claim that Skyrim has less then Oblivion, in terms of both dungeon types, and creature types, is false. Also, how is giving more dungeons quests bad? -Well first off, I disagree that Skyrim is any lesser of an RPG then Morrowind, if anything, it allows me to play roles FAR better then Morrowind did by giving me far more choices instead of imposing artificial limits like classes on me, but beyond that, The Elder Scrolls series, ever singe Morrowind came out, has always been a "open-world, fantasy, ACTION-RPG". Morrowind's official classification is that of an ACTION game first, and an RPG second, and that's been the entire point of the series since Morrowind. -The problem is that Bioware game's choice only works because the game is largely linear, yes you can pick which of 4 paths you want to do in any order, but all of those paths are linear, and all of those paths lead to the same pre-planned event, and because everything is so linear, they can make more impactful consequences on your choices because they know exactly where and when you will be in the game. However, that system of choice/consequence desn't work in a large, open-world, game like Skyrim, because the player can be anywhere at any times, and do thing in almost any order they wish. Bethesda could do Bioware's level of consequence, but they would also have to make the game linear, and not an open world to do it. -But you aren't railroaded into a quest, because no one makes you do it. Also, talking to people and them asking you to do something is something that happens naturally, it makes less sense for NPCs to have a giant "this starts a quest" marker on dialog topics because people dont work that way, just casually chatting with someone and then being like "ohh can you help me do X" is natural, what you proposing isn't. How people asking you to do things like people would IRL break roleplay is beyond me, in fact, I find it more unnatural for them to be like what your propose. -Yes, it IS the point. Having people ask you to do things, and then your character write it down in his journal, is no way breaks RP. A journal is something that a person uses to write down stuff about the people they met, and what those people asked you to do. A quest appearing in your journal should, in no way, beak RP, because it doesn't make sense that your character wouldn't make a note of it. Your intention to act upon it at that time, or ANY time, is irrelevant, its just there as a note in your journal, and it being there doesn't mean you are railroaded, or forced, to do anything, nor does it break any sense of RP. -there is a large difference between a book, and the elder scrolls games, a book is a linear story, made specifically to drag you along a neat and organized plot-line, the elder scrolls games are NOT that, the ES games are worlds, world that you NOT supposed to play for some linear, neatly packaged, story, but worlds you are supposed to live in, and worlds are not neat, nor would the world be coherent if you just walked around the world, going into every big city, and chatting people up, but THAT'S THE POINT, that's what makes the world, a WORLD. Edited February 1, 2013 by sajuukkhar9000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imperistan Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 snip -This is why you perfect it. And besides that, Beth's tendency has been to place almost all important NPC's (ones that end up with essential tags) out of any direct harm or intended harm except when they're supposed to be in danger. So the issues would be minimal anyway. -May be I don't like him. May be I want his stuff. May be I just want to kill him for no particular reason. It doesn't really matter the reason. In a game where freedom is supposed to be the point, we should be able to kill whoever we want even if it screws up later quests. -You're over thinking it. You only need 2d directions (semi-3D for interiors, but that would be a far easier thing to tackle than 3D exterior directions, as you'd only need up or down) and the people who could actually give you directions would be limited to a small area around the person's location), and having them not be in the first couple of places you look is the point of having to find someone. You actually have to find them, not just the person who will point you to their static position. And quite honestly, I doubt anyone would object to optional quest markers. And just for devil's advocate, Skyrim does in fact have optional quest markers. Problem is however, they're the only way to find anyone unless you happen to already know where they are or you run into those few quests where their location is actually mentioned in dialogue. -100 is a cap, which is what I was referring to. And I also mentioned a soft-cap in the form of heavily reduced skill progression past a certain point, which, using my system, would in turn slow attribute progression by the same degree. There's also the problem of why one would start using every skill in the book. If you don't want to be a master of all trades don't act like one. Its almost as if you're begging for the restrictive classes of old, but something tells me you'd abhor that idea. And as for the average player, I have yet to meet one who does try/do everything to do and then complains that his character isn't unique or whatever. And besides that, look over my system again. Progressions slows down past a certain point, and honestly I would say that it should slow down so much that the only way to actually progress any further (Without countless hours of grinding that is) is to take up a class that will allow you raiser a certain set of skills faster and more reliably until you hit, say, 75-85, at which point you slow back down again. To change one's class would require thousands in gold due to the Census office, the revoking of any unused perk points, and so on. In this system, no one can just merely dabble in everything and become all powerful in everything. If you just dabble, you'll only be the equivalent of a level 1 mudcrab in that particular skill. Only just skilled enough to have some minor use for it. For instance, low, unspecialized stealth skills would still allow you to tackle locks, hunt, and sneak around, but you won't be breaking into any vaults or avoiding high level monsters or taking a down a dragon with but a single arrow. The same for mage skills, just enough to light a fire, heal minor wounds, perhaps even disappear for a few seconds. Low warrior would know enough just to defend himself and perhaps get away. -Except you're missing that the vast majority of perks are either worthless, or completely mitigated by another choice. Having all the perks doesn't make you a master when having a handful of the actually useful perks leaves you just as powerful. And you're also underestimating the importance of skill level. If skill level was pointless, there wouldn't be people chain boosting their crafting skills. You can have all the perks of one-handed, but that won't make you a powerful one-handed user if your skill in it (Somehow, this is hypothetical) is still in the 20's. -This isn't a good thing, and not only that you're skirting the issue and completely ignoring what you actually said. You said the races had substantial differences, and now you're saying they don't. Which is it saj? -100 Intelligence didn't make the perfect mage. 100 Intelligence and Willpower, combined with either Atronach or the Mage birthsign (Apprentice if you were good enough to mitigate the weakness) and intelligent and creative use of spellmaking, enchanting, and alchemy made the perfect mage. And this isn't going into how mages didn't even need intelligence over 40 anyway. I've had great success with pure Willpower mages that used creative spellmaking to completely make magicka a pointless thing to raise. -For one, only Oblivion had you get in trouble if you switched off to something else and for some godawful reason managed to level up in the process. (Hint hint: You don't always have to be leveling, and if you're going off-class you shouldn't be leveling at all) Morrowind didn't do this, and even when it did it was easily fixable within the game. Even in Oblivion it was possible to muck up meta-gaming and still be able to compete at high levels. -I can say that the balance of power changed and change some palletes around to "prove it", but if there's no real change then it may as well not have happened. There is no inherent benefit or detriment to a pallete change. You don't get less or more by one side winning. You don't get any more or less if your side wins or loses. You can ignore Alduin or you can rush to face him head on in a blaze of glory, no one cares. The world is not alive (something that's often used to describe Elder Scrolls games) if all these supposed lifeforms are all just singing "its a small world after all...". Gods forbid Bethesda actually makes a world thats alive even if it isn't mainstream. It isn't hard to make the gameplay that makes Skyrim fun to people, so no matter what you do with the actual world itself the game will still be fun. Beth chose to make the world shallow and soulless, and there was no reason for that at all, not with the funding this game had. And no, it doesn't have to be the ideal game where its mere steps away from being the Matrix. Any small amount of real life, real consequences, real choice in this game would have made it much better. -Wrong. Oblivion had: Aylied RuinsFortsCavesOblivion GatesSewers(and though it wasn't utilized for the most part) Underwater dungeons. Skyrim has: CavesFortsNordic ruins.Dwemer ruins. The problem with Skyrim is that, like Oblivion, between the different dungeon types there wasn't much variation in what you actually saw. Once you walked through Vilvarin you knew what Ayleid Ruins were like. Once you walk through Bleak Falls Barrow, you know what all Nordic ruins are like. However, with Oblivion dungeon types were often mixed. A cave could turn into an aylied ruin. Few dungeons in Skyrim are mixed together in this way. At least with Oblivion, you had different monster types to tackle in any one dungeon. In Skyrim, if you walk into a Nordic ruin, its either all draugr or nothing, with a few oddballs that have a mix that always end up preferring one type by the end of it. And its the same with each dungeon type. In Oblivion you could find anything from Undead to bandits to necromancers, to daedra all in the same dungeon. That at least made Oblivion's painfully repetitive dungeons bearable, because you never knew what to expect to fight until you were well into the dungeon. Wrong Oblivion had (in terms of enemies, not just creatures): AnimalsSeveral kinds of Undead (Liches, zombies, ghosts, skeletons, etc) Several kinds of Daedra (Spiders, Dremora, Daedroths, atronachs, xivilai, etc)Mages (And all the variants that did different things)Banditsmarauders All of which were often mixed together in dungeons. Skyrim has: animals (With only 5 of the types being consistently aggressive, 1 aggressive but may as well not be there (slaughter fish), 2 being complete pushovers, and the rest passive)giants (who for the most part aren't enemies unless you specifically try to attack them. Most giants I run into leave me alone)draugr (whose palletes may as well be identical)mages (whose playstyles are virtually identical)banditsDragons. (which technically shouldn't even count, because one can go through the game and never actually fight any dragons) All of which are almost never mixed (and when they are its almost certainly a special case) in dungeons. And I didn't bother to count daedra because they're such a rarity in Skyrim. -Repetition. When nearly every dungeon has a quest or some story to it, the ones that are really special end up being underwhelming when they shouldn't be. Black Reach didn't nearly wow me as much as it should have when I'd already been through a dozen quest dungeons and found their secrets. -Morrowind at least maintained the RPG aspects. And weren't you the one denouncing the whole "being able to do everything and be a MOAT" shtick? First you say that being able to be a MOAT as bad, but now you say restrictive classes (which counter the possibility of MOAT greatly, if not entirely) are also bad. Which is it? -ITT: Non-linear stories are hard and shouldn't be done just because they're hard. That something is hard is not an excuse, but a challenge. -Again, you miss the point entirely. A quest started is for all intents and purposes the players way of saying, yes, I want to help this person or join this guild or investigate that cave. When these quests are forced to start regardless of what the player wants to do, this becomes problematic not only for the story a roleplayer is trying to write, but also for the regular player who just simply doesn't want to do a quest atm but still has to deal with that log entry that has his character saying yes. If simply ignoring it solved the problem, no one would be complaining, and that is what you don't get. Fact of the matter is, there is no reason whatsoever to force a quest on the player, no matter the kind of player it may be. This problem can piss off the hardcore roleplayer just as much as it'll piss off the casual gamer just wanting to explore the world, who has to go through his quest log turning off the quests whenever he walks anywhere near someone who has a force-start quest. -You can't dictate what my character will or will not do. If I"m playing a character whose a total :devil:, why in the hell would he make note of some peasant woman asking him to go fetch some sweetrolls? Why would my character, as a Vampire, make a note of going to a group of Vampire hunters and asking to join up? Fact of the matter is, you can't have a roleplaying game where the game dictates who your character is without your consent. Its not enough for the player to ignore it. The character has to ignore it as well, and a forced journal entry makes that impossible. -I don't think you understand how true, hardcore roleplaying works. It isn't something so mind-numbingly simple as putting on some steel plate, a restoration spell and a mace and calling yourself a crusader. You roleplay a crusader by interacting with the world as a crusader would, not by merely wearing the part, but by acting the part. And it goes deeper than that, for people who like to create actual lives for their character. The story you write as a roleplayer is the story of your character's life. You make his decisions, all of them, and the decisions define your characters story. And if the game doesn't provide for that, then it is hindering the act of roleplaying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sajuukkhar9000 Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 (edited) snip-And how do you know they aren't? Furthermore, it has little to do with important NPCs, but all the more normal quest giver NPCs, who stand out in the markets, and can be attacked during things like Vampire raids, or dragon attacks. -False, the point of RPGs is not total freedom, is to build a character, and play within a world that the developers designed, and within the rules the developer designed. This has been true since D&Dfirst came out, and their dungeon masters tell you what your D&D character can and cannot do in the fictional world that the DM rules over. -But again, the total number of possible direction combinations would so vast, just for one voice type, let alone all 70 voice types, that it simply isn't cost effective to record all that dialog. Also, most quests in Skyrim DO actually mention the location, either via NPC dialog, or in the quest journal itself. All of those radiant favor quests that send you out to ap lace tell you the places name in the quest journal. The only quests that DON'T tell you the places specific names are quests like the book retrieval quests, which are supposed to be thing you just find as the NPC giving you the quest doesn't know where it is either. -Skill progression already gets harder as you level up, and that doesn't stop anything. "If you don't want to be a master of all trades don't act like one." This is EXACTLY what I was going to say to you, why on earth do you need some for of liming when the system as it is now already allows you to choose NOT do everything. What is the point of making to where leveling attributes slows down when you can just choose not to level them at all? Your entire system is pointless, and serves no purpose beyond preventing those people who do want to become master in everything from doing so. If you dont want to level up magic skills then DON'T, and DON'T put points into your magicka stat. -Perks being "negated" by other perks is part of the point, Bethesda offers multiple paths, for all character types, to achieve similar things. Furthermore, most perks AREN'T worthless, and is a disingenuous hyperbole. People DON'T go around bossing their skill level, they go around boosting "fortify restoration" and "fortify enchanting" which is reliant on the restoration/enchanting perks. the skill nube itself remain unchanged through the entire process. -It is a good thing, because that way all races are fair and equal. Also, their differences come from a RPG perspective, not a stat perspective. Imperials play vastly different then argonnians because of their cultural background. -Getting 100 INT and willpower isn't hard, neither birth-sign is needed for a "perfect" mage, that's a 100% artificial condition you made up, and all of those skills, such as enchanting, can be easily maxed with a warrior in Morrowind. -I am sorry, but it makes zero sense that a warrior learning a magic skill should prevent him from leveling. Levels are based on the total accumulated knowledge your character has obtained, and knowledge unrelated to your "class" which were nothing more then labels and not some physical attribute, doesn't change the act that you learned something. -How is the Jarls, and their guards, and guard taking over forts that were previous occupied by bandits not a change? How does it make any sense to get anything but that by helping the legion takes over? Also, you can ignore alduin for the same reason you can ignore Dagoth-Ur in Morrowind, its a open world game, and putting a timer on a open world game is contradictory to the point of it being open world. The NPCs aren't saying that How can you say there isn't real life in Skyrim?-NPCs in towns go shopping, and discuss with one another the war, or where they get their food.-Animals hunt smaller animals for food-Hunters frequently patrol the countryside hunting game for themselves and to sell to the cities-The Khajiit caravans play their trade across the province, And you do have plenty of choice, most daedirc quests, the forsworn conspiracy quest, helping cicero repair his wagon to turn him into the guards, and countless other things end up helping or ruining the lives of countless people across the game world. I really am trying to understand what you are saying, but your simply not making a lick of sense. -Skyrim has sewers as well, and parts of dungeons that are underwater, and Falmer made dweller dungeons types as well I am sorry, but what Skyrim did you play? I have frequently run into caves that turn into Dwemer ruins, Dwmer ruins that turn into caves, Caves that lead into old nordic tombs, caves that lead into underground forts, and all combinations in between. Oblivion's mixing of creature types in dungeons also makes little sense, furthermore, many places in Skyrim have Dwemer machies/Falmer, Bandits/Dwemer, Bandits/monster, and other such types of combinations, but in far more realistic settings. -Lets See Skyrim has(undead)Ghosts, Draugr, Skeletons, Zombies, and shades(mages)of all various elemental types, and necromancers, no different then Oblivion(Bandits)a subclass of which are marauders, not to mention the forsworn Also, Oblivion only had 4 types of animals constantly aggressive, wolves, boars, bears, and mountain lions. -Out of Skyrim's 340+ locations, there are only like 20 dungeon quests. L:ess then 1/10 of the game's dungeons had dungeon specific quests. -Its both, being a moat is bad, but restrictive classes are also bad. Skyrim's system squashes both, but letting you choose to be whatever, but at the same time not be able to become a master at everything. -No, its not that non-linear stories are hard to do, its that they are IMPOSSIBLE to do in a open-world game like Skyrim. You can say "just because its hard doesn't mean you shouldn't do it" but that ignores the ENTIRE basis of the problem. -No, it isn't. A started quest is, literally, IN NO WAY, SHAPE OR FORM, an acceptance. That is, literally, 100% false, and a something you made up for yourself. That is a wholly fictional, and self-made, quality of a started quest you made up for yourself, and NOT something that is naturally part of a started quest's existence. Fact of the matter is, quests are NOT forced on you, because no one is making you do them. -Again, what you said is false. Even the most basic of RPG, the D&D boardgame, consist of there being a DM, a dungeon master, who tells you what your character can, and cannot do, in the fictional world he rules over. RPGs have never, NEVER been about giving the player total freedom, and letting them play a character any ways they want, EVER. What you are thinking of is a simulation, with is NOT a RPG. -Well, as I pointed out before, that is false, furthermore, having quests shoved in your face, which they aren't, does NOTHING to prevent RP, because your character can choose to ignore it, and it should not affect your RP because realistically, if you chat someone up, they will probably ask you to do something for them, thats natural people behavior, and them not doing it, only makes the NPCs fake, and hurts roleplay becuase the world is fake. Edited February 1, 2013 by sajuukkhar9000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackninja50 Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 imperistan I think your wasting your time, sajuukkhar9000 can only say the same bad argument again and again or change the argument to something unrelated or worse yet he will just change the rules. I would like to clear up some of sajuukkhar9000's errors tho. Vanilla Oblivion has 13, Animals 8 Monsters, 14 Undead, Goblins, 10 Daedra, Mehrunes Dagon and a Daedric Siege Crawler in all that's 48 Creatures. Vanilla Skyrim has 16 Animals, 11 Monsters, 5 Undead, Falmer, 3 Daedra, 3Dwarven Automatons and Dragons (that are not listed as Creatures) in only that's only 40 Creatures. So vanilla Oblivion has more Creatures then vanilla Skyrim, if you add in the DLCs Oblivion would have 60 and Skyrim would have 56 so yes Oblivion has more Creatures then Skyrim DlCs or not. As far as human opponents go Oblivion and Skyrim are about the same. - Being able to be a moat or having set classes is nether bad nor good, everyone likes things different. - Non-linear stories are NOT IMPOSSIBLE to do in a open-world game like Skyrim, seeing as moders did it for Oblivion and I believe have done it for Skyrim to. - imperistan is right if a quest is started it's accepted (how the hell do start a quest without accepting to do it?), if you reject a quest it should NOT be started simple as that. This is not something imperistan made up it's a recognized fact no matter how much sajuukkhar9000 screams. - Quests ARE forced on you, even if you don't HAVE to do them they're still started and listed as being accepted. - The rules in an RPG only tell you what you can and can't do, not what can and can't be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sajuukkhar9000 Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 (edited) snipIf you aren't going to count the different monster variations in Skyrim, then you can't do so in Oblivion. If we treat the games fairly, instead of including Oblivion's monster variations, while not including Skyrim's, we get a VERY different picture. UndeadOblivion: 14 creatures across 3 typesSkyrim: 16 creatures across 4 types Out of Oblivion's "14" undead, there were-3 types of zombies: normal, headless, and dread.-5 types of skeletons: normal, skeleton guardian, skeleton hero, skeleton champion, liches.-6 types of ghosts: ghost, ancient ghost, faded wraith, wraith, nether lich, gloom wraith.If you dont count variations, Oblivion only has 3 types, If you do, then it has 14, but you have to count Skyrim's as well Skyrim has -12 draugr-1 zombie-2 skeletons-1 ghostWhich means Skyrim has 16 different undead, across 4 types. AnimalsOblivion: 13 animals across 11 typesSkyrim 22 animals across 16 types Oblivion had-Wolfs: normal, timber-Bears: black, brown-mountain lions-Boars-And for smaller animals it had: dear, dogs, sheep, horses, mudcrabs, rats, slaughterfish13 animals spread across 11 types Skyrim has-Bears: normal, cave, snow-Wolves: normal, ice-Sabre cats: normal, snowey-smaller: chickens, cows, deer(2 types), dogs, fox(2 types), goats, horkers, horses, mammoths, mudcrabs, rabbits, skeevers, slaghterfish22 animals spread across 16 types. MonstersOblivion: 8 creatures across 7 typesSkyrim: 20 creatures across 9 types. Oblivion has-imps: 1-trolls: 1-will-o-the-wisps: 1-spriggians: 1-minotaurs: 2-Land dreugh: 1-Ogres: 18 animals spread across 7 types Skyrim has-Chaurus: 2-Dragons: 6-Frostbite spiders: 2-Giants: 1 -Hagravens: 1-Ice wraiths:1-spriggians: 2-Trolls: 2-wisps: 320 animals across 9 types DaedraOblivion: 10 daeda across 6 typesSkyrim: 3 daedra across 1 type Oblivion-Scamps: 2-Clanfears: 2-Atronachs: 3-daedroths: 1-spider deadra: 1- Xivilai: 110 daedra across 6 types Skyrimatronachs: 33 daedra across 1 type -Oblivion and Skyrim both share the same number of Goblin/Falmer variants, which is 5-Skyrim also has 10 variations across the three types of Dwemer robots bringing the totals toOblivion: 50 creatures across 28 typesSkyrim: 76 creatures across 34 types Out of just pure generic enemies, Skyrim has Oblivion's number of monsters +50% more. This isn't even counting -The unique variants of monsters only found in one dungeon/quest. -The like 20 different types of birds, butterflies, and fish that only exist in Skyrim. -DLC/X packs - Being able to be a moat or having set classes is nether bad nor good, everyone likes things different. - Non-linear stories are NOT IMPOSSIBLE to do in a open-world game like Skyrim, seeing as moders did it for Oblivion and I believe have done it for Skyrim to. - imperistan is right if a quest is started it's accepted (how the hell do start a quest without accepting to do it?), if you reject a quest it should NOT be started simple as that. This is not something imperistan made up it's a recognized fact no matter how much sajuukkhar9000 screams. - Quests ARE forced on you, even if you don't HAVE to do them they're still started and listed as being accepted. - The rules in an RPG only tell you what you can and can't do, not what can and can't be.-I can agree with you on that actually -No Oblivion mod did that -A quest can start without accepting by something as simple as someone saying 'hey you look like the adventuring type, if you see any X out in the wilds, bring it to me", at which point the quests starts, doesn't mean you have to do it though. -But quests are not accepted until you choose to act on them. -That's actually false, DMs in D&D boardgames can set limits on total maximum and minimums of what the player's character can and cannot be, been that way since D&D came out. Edited February 2, 2013 by sajuukkhar9000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lachdonin Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 First, i would like to reinforce that the whole "Oblivion had more creatures" argument is an absolute, quantifyably disproven falacy. Skyrim, as Sajuukkhar pointed out, has not only more variants, but more base types that Oblivion. Whats more, Skyrim's creatures all have a unique quality to them which Oblivion lacked. Their Minotaurs had absolutely nothing done to them to make them seem the slightest bit... well, THEIRS. Consider the Minotaurs of Warhammer Fantasy to understand what i mean. GW has taken the concept of a minotaur and entrenched it in their world, taking a rather tired concept and making it something interesting. Oblivion failed to do so with any of its creatures, save for the Daedra and the Dreugh. Most of the same enemy 'categories' are still fulfiled in Skyrim, but they actually took a characterful approach to them to ingrain them in the world of Tamriel, rather than using tired concepts. Falmer fulfiling the role of the Goblin, for instance. And again, regardless of what they call it, what you are given in Skyrim is a Quest Log. A journal is an in-universe concept, recording infromation pertaining to a specific quest, such as people and locations. The role of a journal has been replaced in Skyrim by the Quest Log system, which records all the random conversations and events which happen around you (thus letting you pickup on whatever you want and ignore what you don't) and the compass, which admitedly makes tracking down objectives as easy as freezing to death naked on a glacier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imperistan Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 le snip -Too bad, the questgiver of that epic Sweetroll Caper quest died because a dragon or a vampire showed up. Boo hoo. Stuff like that happens, and not only that, these games were never, ever games that were meant to be experienced through the eyes of one character. If you're locked out of a quest on one character, make a new one and go at it from another perspective. Or reload. Only 100% completionists have any legitimate reason to be upset about quest givers dying for more than the time it takes to start new or reload a save game. -Strawman. I didn't say the point of RPG's was freedom, I said the point of the game, was freedom, and thats a fact. - Left, right, front, back, up a floor, down a floor. All of which would only be given by themselves. Its not so much a direct, GPS result so much as a triangulation based on the input of several NPC's. Its not really a vast amount of combinations because there aren't any combinations (you don't need 3d directions in a 3D world. Only in an interior would you need it, and thats more because of cells than it is the Z axis) And as for voices, not everyone can give directions, even if the person passed them by. Realistically the system would be limited to guards (There's like, what, 2 or 3 different guard voices?) and basic NPC's (IE, the ones that don't have a unique voice and barely speak as is, and considering the amount of these kinds of NPC's, the dialogue required would be largely minimal), who being near the target would be able to give the generic directions. -If someone told you to go to San Francisco, and you're from a Siberian peasant village that's never even seen a car, very much less a map of anywhere, would you automatically know where exactly to go? Its not enough to just mention a place's name. You need to know how to get there. -Gee, I wonder why it doesn't stop anything. Perhaps, because it doesn't slow down enough? -Erm, what? :psyduck: You said this: "Furthermore, your system doesn't fix the overall problem, making attributes raise by skill use would, if anything, only make the problems worse because, while we RPers only focus on one or two things, the average player is a meta gamer who tries everything. All your system does is change everyone getting high/maxed attributes from putting points into them into "everyone gets max/high attributes because they use everything. Your system does not solve the problem, only changes it from one form into another." And this: "The problem with this statement is that it's impossible to become a MOAT in Skyrim. There are 250 perks, and only, at max, 80 possible perk points, with most players not even getting up 50, and when combined with the fact that, due to the way the skill system is structured, skill level is totally meaningless to the skill's overall effectiveness, it is, quite literally, impossible to become a MOAT in Skyrim. One can have all of their skills at 100, but that doesn't mean anything because the skill level is just a number, all powers come from perks, and it's impossible to get every perk, thus it's impossible to become a master of everything. In fact, Skyrim is the ONLY TES game, out of Morrowind, Oblivion, and Skyrim, that you CAN'T become a moat." This says not only that you don't like the idea of the MOAT, but that supposedly in Skyrim you can't become one (which is BS, because I've done it myself and there's no concrete, non-superficial difference between the power levels of my MOAT compared to my dedicated mage, and so on for the other points of the triangle). But, now you say this: "This is EXACTLY what I was going to say to you, why on earth do you need some for of liming when the system as it is now already allows you to choose NOT do everything. What is the point of making to where leveling attributes slows down when you can just choose not to level them at all? Your entire system is pointless, and serves no purpose beyond preventing those people who do want to become master in everything from doing so. If you dont want to level up magic skills then DON'T, and DON'T put points into your magicka stat." Which says that you not only think that there is no problem with the possibility of being a MOAT, but also that one merely needs to just choose not to do something if they don't want to be a MOAT. You see, what I think, is that in reality, you don't actually want the amount of freedom in this game I do, nor the actual difficulty or thought required. In my system, being a MOAT is still possible (which it should be, if you so wish), but you have to work for it (which is a good thing), and further, it doesn't force you to meta game. You can simply play and the game will not leave you behind. But then again, you can also meta-game if you so wish, and do so efficiently without having to work around the game's systems to get the most out of it. According to you, however, the idea should be that no one can become a MOAT, and that even despite that, somehow leveling in general shouldn't be any harder or complex than it already is (which isn't saying much), ruining the point of meta-gaming (or, you know, putting any amount of thought at all into leveling) to the point that there may as well be no real leveling system at all for all it mattered. Long story short, I think you want the game handed to you, but not really. You want the easy dedicated character, but you don't want to be able to pick up something out of your character's point on the triangle and train your character to use it, no matter if you actually have to work for it and integrate it into your character's skilset or if you can just spend an hour on it and be perfectly adequate. -Except they are. What we get in Skyrim is a handful of perks that actually have tangible gameplay use, and the rest whose use never amounts to much more than novelty, if not outright pointlessness (particularly in the case of perks that a really are pointless/useless but yet are still required to reach the others). -I wasn't aware you personally knew everyone who plays Skyrim. I'm also surprised no one has apparently clued you in on the whole crafting boosting abuse that everyone else and their mother knows about. IT doesn't matter if you're directly boosting a skill's actual level if what you are doing may as well be doing just that. You don't need to boost your one-handed skill level if you abuse crafting to make some 200% one-handed damage enchants, which completely negates the point of even leveling one-handed at all. And its the same for every other enchantment like that. And that's the problem with Skyrim's perks, and obviously, its crafting system as well. When perks are structured like Skyrim's are, skill levels in general become just a clunky XP system. AS I've said before elsewhere, Skyrim would have been better off in the leveling department if it would have just done away with the old system altogether and just outright did the Diablo 2-esque (which isn't really accurate. It really is just Diablo 2's skill system copied over with some clunky middle men shoved in) leveling system its trying to hide, rather than trying to make a bridge between the two. -This isn't a multiplayer game. Fair and equal means nothing. And even for those who like a balanced game, fair and equal still means nothing. Inequality can still be balanced, and fairness means nothing period. You aren't being cheated out of anything by choosing a race that does something different from another. -Clearly you made piss-poor mages then. Or perhaps yous imply don't understand that the perfect mage would be, by definition, that mage that can squeeze the maximum amount of power out of magic using all that is available to him. To skip a mage oriented birthsign is completely antithetical to this idea. You are not going to be pulling of the feats a completely dedicated mage could with your warrior unless you start abusing certain systems, and abuse by definition doesn't count towards the idea of a perfect mage. -Read over my system again, you can in fact level with non-class skills. Just at a slower rate, and that's a matter of realism. People simply can't switch the major area of study on a whim and end up being just as proficient as they were in their former study in any short amount of time. Doing that would take just as long it took to gain the level of competency on the first study, if not much longer. And this is translated into my system, where you are perfectly free to change your class, but to do so would mean that you couldn't simply just level all of your old skills alongside your new ones at the same rate. And as for classes, no, they are not labels. That you say that shows you understand absolutely nothing about roleplaying. A character's class is that character's chosen profession, and just as in real life, you can't just simply up and change that without going through a long and arduous process. And this is especially so for a medieval setting. And as both of these things translate into the game itself, it all goes back to choice and consequence. You should have the freedom and the choice to take back a choice you made, but it should have consequences in doing so. To not have any consequences is the very definition of hand holding. -Because for all it matters, the bandits just stopped attacking me. Big whoop. What you don't get is that its not a matter of a mere change, its a matter of substantial change. Change that will change how you react to the world and how the game plays out. No more hostiles in a particular dungeon (That in virtually every instance in Skyrim it happens, isn't exactly some crucial point in the game) doesn't change how the game plays out, it just changes whether or not your character has things to be attacked by in some random location that doesn't even matter. Towns being forced to relocate or even to be abandoned is a substantial change. Regions completely cut off because of constant warring or irreparable damage is substantial change. Actual NPC's reacting to whats happening around them in a meaningful way (Hint hint: Not a single NPC in Skyrim does this) and acting in different ways is substantial change. Swapping some palletes or ticking off the hostile flag (or both) is not substantial change. -Its not the point to put a timer on things. Thats a horridly simple way of looking at it. The point is to show the consequences of your inaction or apathy or whatever reason it is you have for not tackling the main quest. Dawnguard at least does this ]with somewhat of the right idea, with NPC's dying in Vampire attacks regardless of whether you actually start Dawnguard. It shouldn't get to the point where the main quest becomes unplayable or the game ends abruptly (Whether literally or otherwise), but the world shouldn't simply remain static simply because you are content to chase the butterflies. -It's akin to a bad painting. Sure it looks like there's life to it, but in reality all it is is paint on a canvas. There is no soul to what little amount of life is portrayed. And this gets even worse once you throw actual, tangible interaction into the mix. Few NPC's have anything to say, and a lot of them don't even have the option of bringing up the dialogue screen. Sure, Morrowind had massively generic responses, but at least those responses had more to them than simple one liners or what amounts to a grunt. And spare me the whole difference in the dialogue systems argument. Generic voice acting is just as easy to produce as text, and especially so when most of these NPC's that have nothing to say at all all use common voices anyway. -That's because you don't understand what substantial change is. If I'm ruining Cicero's life by turning him into the guards, I want to see his life being ruined. I want to see him being carted off to jail, escaping and then plotting his revenge against the people who had him arrested, and then carrying that revenge out. I want a reason for those people to matter, and for their deaths to matter. It's hard to see anything as really different when being dead isn't much different from being alive. -I already pointed all these things out. -Except you can be a master of everything, and the lack of any real restriction is the problem. -Its simple. Its only a matter of time and actions. Actions within a story line are largely self-contained to that storyline (Unless we're talking connecting story lines, but that's a different matter altogether), and as such are largely irrelevant to the rest of the game world. But to tie the two together (and make non-linear storylines possible in an open-world) is to use the factor of time. How quickly you progress in a storyline will determine how that storyline plays out. If you swiftly progress from quest to quest, never deviating, you end up with the prime story. But if you go through it again, and this time you go off the beaten track, go through some other questlines, or even just mess around for a while, depending on where you are in the quest, different things will happen. For the matter of simplicity (and because multiple endings generally tend to be stupid) they'd all eventually lead to the same ends (or if we want to be really unique, can lead to several branching ends that aren't necessarily multiple endings, but more akin to failures or even unsuspected successes) but how the middle would play out would be different each time depending on how much time you actually spend on it. And again, it doesn't have to be this perfectly laid out thing that takes up gigabytes upon gigabytes of storage to pull off. -Yes, it is. Otherwise, the English language makes absolutely no sense. IF you start a quest that is saying that you are intending to do it. This is why accepting a quest and starting a quest are and always have been synonymous, and this is because to accept something is to respond to it, and to start something is a response that says you intend to finish it (Yes you can do the opposite and not finish it, but that is a very, very different thing). So, if a quest has been accepted, then it has been started. As such, when the game force-starts quests, it is forcing you to accept the quest. There is no arguing with this unless you intend to contradict how English works, in which case, I bid you adieu and good day. -Again, you completely miss that I'm referring to the game specifically (and less specifically, the ES series), not RPG's in general. -I don't know what kind of people you talk to on a daily basis, but I see all kinds of people every day, and I can quite accurately say that 99% of these people don't ask someone to do something for them with every conversation unless they either A, are a bum trying to bum stuff off of people, or B, have listened to the other person actually show interest in their issues to the point where they either may as well be offering to help, or have in fact offered to help. Quests should not start just because some NPC told you about their problems (or just start on their own, or just start because you heard someone else talking about it). Quests should start because you specifically offer to help them. I mean, honestly, its almost as if you're saying me hearing about someone's problems way over on the other side of the room is going to start a nagging interest in the back of my head that wont' be resolved until I seek out this person and help them resolve their problem. And not only that, but that this is going to happen every time I hear someone talk about their problems. -That's actually false, DMs in D&D boardgames can set limits on total maximum and minimums of what the player's character can and cannot be, been that way since D&D came out. 1. There's a big difference between what a character's role is, and WHO that character is. And a DM has no say on that except in very specific circumstances, such as in the case of the Lawful Good and having to maintain that alignment to maintain holy powers, and even then, the DM still can't say who the character is. A DM can dictate whether or not I get to keep certain powers, but he can't say how my character speaks. How my character views the world. The DM can't say that my character is on a personal quest to purify the world when I just want my character to have a strong sense of duty and honour that leads to his alignment. A DM can't change my character's birthdate so much as he can change what my character looks like. 2. Again, this is not about RPG's in general, but Elder Scrolls games. nd again, regardless of what they call it, what you are given in Skyrim is a Quest Log. Except it isn't. http://i280.photobucket.com/albums/kk173/huMAnity_dues/2013-02-02_00002_zps76762ab1.jpg http://i280.photobucket.com/albums/kk173/huMAnity_dues/2013-02-02_00001_zps3f336fdf.jpg Note where my cursor points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sajuukkhar9000 Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 snip-Likewise, only people who have some desire to kill people for no real reason beyond "because I want to no matter if it means other lose out content because of it" have a legitimate reason to hate that many NPCs are unkillable. Which is frankly pretty selfish. -The point of the game is freedom, I never denied that, the point of the game is however, NOT, about absolute freedom. The lack of absolute freedom does not mean it is going against the point of the game, as the game has only been about large amounts of freedom, not 100% freedom, and the game still has lots of freedom. -Out of Skyrim's 70 voice actors, 33 of them are non generic NPCs. That's nearly half of the voice actors, the most expensive ones, giving directions. -NPCs are implied to know where the location is, and mark it on your map for you, that's why the icons are added to the world map if you haven't been there before. -Slowing it down more wont top it either. the only way to stop it is to slow it down completely, into a full stop. -I suggest you actually re-read what I said. I am all for letting people become whatever they want, but at the same time being a moat is bad, whats great about Skyrim's system is that you cannot become a moat, and to say otherwise is disingenuous, while at the same time you can do whatsoever you want, dabble in a thing, and if you find out you dont like it, with to something else, but not become so crippled that you can;t function. Also, despite claiming that I dont want any thought put into the system, or having to think about anything, your system doesn't make you think any more then the game does now, all it does is make you grind more because you slowed down the leveling speed. Making the leveling slower, and harder to do, doesn't make you have to think more, it just means you have to grind more, and grinding it is as brainless of an activity as one can do. -I have found a use for practically every perk in the game, despite you claim that many perks are worthless, I have found great benefit in the majority of them, some trees, like pickpocket, need to be reword, but that's the minority. -Considering that I knew about, and knew how i actually works, how could I not be clued in? your statement is contrary to past evidence. Furthermore, the fact that you can abuse enchanting doesn't make leveling one handed pointless, you act like there is nothing more to RPG then playing some cold, logical, character whose playstyle is based of "efficiency" rather then a specific role. How does enchanting effect a warrior character, or a thief character, who dont take it? The answer, it doesn't. Sure you CAN do it, but why would you? -And the races do thing different from each other, in their special skills. Bethesda didn't just make them OMGWTFBBQ OP like in past games. -I find that funny considering you said INT wasn't needed for a "perfect" mage, because you went willpower mage, but now apparently the mage birthsign is? I am sorry but this is wholly contradictory, if INT, the mage number most important attribute isn't needed for a perfect mage, then neither is a mage birthsign, so lon as you use things like enchanting to its fullest, the birthsign isn't important. -I have read over your system, and really, there is no point in making leveling slower, its not a real punishment, nor does it make the game more deep or complex, it just means you put in more grind in some vain attempt to make it to where people who cant to be good at everything can't be, or get so frustrated that they stop. Its selfish, and petty. Furthermore, classes are labels, they always have been. However, people are not labels, they are people, they are defined by what they chose to do in their life, not by some magic thing at the start of their life. Your characerts class is not defined by something you choose at the beginning of the game, it is chosen by what you chose to do throughout the game. The class system from past ES games was pointless, and Skyrim's system offers any and all classes one could ever think of, but instead of shoehorning you one at the beginning of the game, your class comes to through how you play. Being defined by what you do is better then doing something because you picked a defining part of your character before you knew what it was like. -None of those changes would logically happen in the game though, nor does it make sense for any of them too happen. Furthermore, people do react to whats going on around them to say otherwise is false. Completing the civil war causes many Dunmer and Argonians in Windhelm to be far happier, and comment on how their lives are already starting to get better, breaking out of jail, with out or without the forsworn, causes either everyone to be afraid of you every time you talk to them, or constantly say how they are glad you got pardoned. Many of the more zealous citizens involved in the civil war mention their happiness/anger that their side won or lost. -But said consequence is entirely contradictory to the open world nature of the game that is designed to let you play when you want, your arguing against one of the key features of the TES series, and doing that only makes feel people rushed, not like they did something great/wrong by going/not going, and beating the MQ at that time. Dead Rising's 1 and 2's greatest complaints were the timer, it doesn't make the game more strategic, or make people feel like they did somethign great b getting to the mission areas on time, it just made them feel rushed, also, people HATED the vampire attacks in Dawnguard. so not only do you want something that is almost universally despised, but you also want something entirely contradictory to the entire point the ES games. -I find more soul in Skyrim's NPCs who walk around, shop for food, talk to their neighbors, and whose only comments to a RANDOM STRANGER coming p to them on the street and trying to talk to them is "hey whats up". Then Morrowind's NPcs who did almost nothing but walk back and forth in lines and all have the exact same 50 dialog options in with no voice to make it feel like it was thier line. -You actually can see Cicero be taken off by the guards. Also, how would the quest be diesigned to let you see him escape jail? or murder them? and how do thier deaths not matter? you caused it? do you feel no grief for that? -Except you CANNOT be master of everything, and the only restrictions one should need is your own. the developers shouldn't have to babysit you, and hold your hand, so to prevent you from making your character wrong. How you make your character is largely up to you, and what restrictions you put on yourself. -The questlines aren't tied together because they logically shouldn't. What one guild doesn't should affect the other, the Civil war has no real bearing on the guilds logically. etc. etc. What you are asking or I'm connected storyline is unrealistic. -No, starting a quest means someone told you to do something, and you made a note of it. Your choice to act on it or not is what defines accepting a quest. the linking between accepting and starting is not intrinsic, it only exists because that's how much older RPGs worked, but just because older RPGs worked that way, and used the words in that way, does NOT mean that's the only way the words can be used. A quest is accepted only at the moment that you choose to do it.-http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/accept-http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/startI suggest you actually look at the definitions of accepting, and starting, because they are not the same, and never have been. The use of them as the same in past RPGs =/= they actually are, it just means they were commonly used that way. -No, I do get that you are referring to this game specifically, but that's the thing, the same applies to this game as well. the ES games are about freedom, but not absolute freedom, the developers have always, and will always, impose some form of limits on your character's stats, and what he can, and cannot do, it has never, and will never, be fully in your hands. Top say otherwise is to ignore facts. -No, I am saying that, as a hero, your character would naturally remember things he heard that people needed help with, and would make notes of them, just in the event that he decided to help them. The quest log is that notebook, that the quest" starts" is only because he made a note in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts