This thread is for ideas and suggestions for future Elder Scrolls games, and to keep all the discussion in one series of threads.

We have a long way to go before we get another ES game. In the meantime, similar topics will be closed and referred to this one.

Note there is a separate thread specifically for http://www.gamesas.com/topic/1601186-tes-vi-location-and-setting-speculation-31/ suggestions for future games. Please keep discussion of Skyrim in the correct forums.

http://www.gamesas.com/topic/1601828-official-beyond-skyrim-tes-vi-79/

A bit similar to my post in the other topic, but (long post on factions below):


The thing that I would like to see the most in TES VI would be much better, deeper factions, as well as a larger quantity as well. I really could do without factions primarily being based on some 4 hour cinematic experience.


Factions should represent different perspectives on political, cultural, and philosophical issues, and fit in with roleplay avenues pertaining to the regional experience. Furthermore, not all factions should be some shade of gray. I think it's perfectly fine to have some highly benevolent factions, many grayer factions, and some malevolent factions. Variety is key here. Furthermore, joining a particular faction should change the way certain groups of people perceive and behave around you in meaningful ways, to the point of some groups being hostile, others not wanting to associate with you, and others pledging their support to you or complimenting you everytime they see you, or maybe radiant quests popping up from these things.


Going into the field of consequences, many actions in a particular faction should have a host of effects on the world or area that faction pertains to. If I join the Crowns, I shouls have the option to achieve power through diplomacy, through espionage, or through more overtly destructive endeavors. Each of these choices should result in a different political landscape and different effects on the environment.


Furthermore, if the player-backed Crowns aspired to power, there could be numerous decisions to be made. Things like deciding whether or not Orsinium should be allowed to exist or should be eradicated, whether Hammerfell should remain independent, or whether maybe cutting some deal with the Thalmor might be in the region's best interest. Each choice should have consequences, and often times choices should snowball into bigger consequences. If you happen to incite war with the Forebears and Lhotunics, while declaring Orsinium to have no right to exist, perhaps then Orsinium, Lhotunics, and Forebears would join in alliance, or any number of mixed consequences based on some radiant algorithm.


I'd also love for espionage quests to exist, and for us at crtain stages to have the option to betray certain factions, or maybe even catch espionage in the act if we happen to look hard enough. Perhaps even an Awareness attribute could give some unique ability to notice these things. Political factions should be full of radiant unpredictability, with a lot of different decisions and methods for enacting these decisions. Disguises should also be a thing, where one can infiltrate a faction location if they're careful enough.


Not every faction would need to be so clearly political, but in a Hammerfell game, I would love to have most factions be some degree of Yokudan traditionalist, non-Yokudan modernist, or neutral/middle of the road.


Additionally, for ideal factions, I'd like to see the main quest line held back until one gets fairly high in rank. Until then, one would primarily be involved in jobs, favors, and quests (non-story) for the factions. Additionally, I'd like for skill and attribute levels in archetypal factions to play a role in progression. Not every faction should have requirements but I think it makes sense for archetypal ones to have them.


Lastly, I'd like more emphasis on roleplay in the factions, which should also contribute to progression in the hierarchy of the guild and also provide ways for enhancing gameplay.


A magic guild should have numerous roleplay devices, like topical lectures/classes on lore related to magic, exploration or excavation of magical ruins, or a practice hall where one can train specific spells and provide a spell morphing system which could function like spell creation.


In this system, one could gain experience from using a particular spell, such as unrelenting force, which they could use to edit spell details. The spell details/attributes could be things like spell duration, impact, magicka cost, damage, area of effect, etc. Additionally, spells could level up, providing an additional effect morph, where you can do things like making a spell more silent and weaker or louder, much more chaotic and hard to control, but more powerful, or even add an entirely new effect to it, such as disintegrating enemies who are below a certain health amount.


This same principle could apply to stealth/acrobatc abilities in a stealth faction, sailing stuff in a pirate faction, weapon-specific techniques in a warrior faction, etc.


One should also have the option to not be the guild leader if they wish to. And being a guild leader should have some sort of new stage of gameplay or management.


But yeah, this is the kind of thing I'd enjoy, to whatever extent it can be done. We also need Morrowind or greater quantity of factions, imo. I think these kinds of things should have greater precedence than cinematic storylines.

The only thing I'd really disagree with outright is decision making and consequence. I've said it before, but I don't like having control over big, historically pertinent decisions, especially with mutually exclusive outcomes. It creates a difficult writing block for continuing franchises, which becomes more and mire problematic the more options there are, and the more decisions you are given control of. Mass Effect and Dragon Age are prime examples of how giving players too much influence on the world can snowball, and unless you have a very clearly laid out story arc, complete with considerations for these decisions, it turns into a mess very quickly.


Even worse, when you then turn around and impose a 'Canon' side to a decision. Giving people a choice, and then telling then their pick doesn't matter, is worse than not giving them one in the first place.


Rather, I think situations like The Dark Brotherhood in Skyrim are vastly superior ways to handle choice and consequences. Whether you join or destroy the brotherhood, there is enough left of a vague outcome to allow both events to coexist. Similarly, this sort of approach allows you to play through two (or more) sides of the same event, potentially with very different experiences, maintaining both the mutual exclusivity of those experiences and the historical continuity of the setting. Being able to either xefend Orsinium, or attack it, offers two very different approaches, with distinct characters and experiences, but can still lead to the same ultimate resolution.


Beyond that, one of my growing beefs with factions has been the increasing emphasis on paradigms rather than their in-universe character. Only Mages in the Mages Guild, only sneaky thieves in the Theives guild, only burly warriors in the Fighters Guild. Skyrim tweaked this a bit by doing away with the traditional factions, but still overly simplified the factions into one dimensional stereotypes. They dont have to be equal opportunity employers, but they should be more than just a single minded trope machine.


This can be somewhat managed by increasing the number of factions, but the issue there is world population. If you've got offer than 25% of the population being in one faction or another, you're pushing the boundries of oversaturation. Having a mechanism for generating more filler NPCs could help with that ratio, but you always have to be careful of the balance, lest the game become more about Factions than anything else.

I agree that there shouldn't be any cannon outcome that is forced onto anyone. I disagree that it's worse than not giving a choice at all, but that's not congruent with my argument, since we largely agree that TES should avoid cannonocity or outcomes that aren't ambiguous. I just personally feel that, while some decisions may be harder to address ambiguously than others, there's probably always some sort of trick that could be done to obfuscate the details. Hell, even having an unreliable narrator address something in a future game is plausible, where someone who has shown themselves to be heavily biased reports one thing, and maybe another person who seems equally unreliable reports another. Are there any specific things I mentioned that you think would be impossible or extremely difficult to have addressed ambiguously? I feel like with the examples I mentioned, at worst, they could be covered up in a way like what they'll probably do with the Stormcloaks vs. Imperials or like what you mentioned with the Dark Brotherhood.


But not liking to have an active role in decisions or consequences might just come down to a difference in preference, beyond any visible instances where it would be impossible to obfuscate a situation, which I can't off-hand think of.


In regards to monotyping factions, I don't think they should be inclusive as to offer less in things that they should provide. I do agree that warriors should be able to do jobs for a magic guild or some other situation. Where I think we disagree, is that i don't think a warrior in a magic guild should be equally able to progress through it. I think that's inclusive to the point of silliness, and I feel like it waters down what could be provided by the guild.


Like I said, I don't think all guilds, and maybe not even most guilds, should have strict requirements for traveling up the hierarchy. But the archetypal guilds should have some degree of preference and there should be a sort of glass ceiling for those who do not conform to those preferences. These preferences should only exist where they make sense, though. One could very well be a warrior bodygard relatively high up in the guild, and thus, tasked with different kinds of jobs than a mage. Still, there should be a point, where the warrior cannot go any higher due to a lack of magical ability and knowledge, which should be what is most valued amongst the higher eschalons of a magic guild.


Regarding the last point, I of course wouldn't be a fan of everyone or even most being part of a faction. Although I think it would make sense to have a large proportion of individuals who are part of some given faction, at least, in my opinion. I think a number such as 10 or 15% of total NPCs in a faction wouldn't be a bad number. Most could just have some minor position or be part of something like a "merchant guild," "bard guild," or hunter guild." Even then, at least for politics and cultural views, I imagine most NPCs should express preferences in some direction.


I do think factions are one of the main elements to the game and thus valued as such, but you're right that they're not the main point of the game, although depending on the setting, such as Hammerfell, factional alliances could be one of the top 2 or 3.


I'm fine with a fair amount of NPCs that are filler, but like I've mentioned quite a bit, I really think that TES needs to improve the abundance of dialogue options that they offer, especially with the average NPC. I don't think having a large number of factions would be too taxing on the total population, especially if many were just small 1 - 2 hour excursions, like maybe a coup de etat involving a nordic sympathizing faction in Dragonstar or something. A Dragonstar nord faction could have a few NPCs in the city, randomly generated troops, and maybe 10 liutenants at some enclave near the city.


They could also further take advantage of voice acting generic lines in different ways and with different actors/actresses, which could add some helpful variation for the generic NPCs that there are in the game.

This type of stuff could be difficult. The cleanest i would expect from it is something like the Stormcloak Rebellion... which, frankly, i think was handled like crap.

Oh, i agree. My main problem is with the idea of factions being designed around a singular identity, rather than being fleshed out. Typically, this monotyping comes with a call for stricter requirements, skill levels, or particular perks, and while appropriate for a few select groups, that isn't a good mentality across the board. That doesn't mean a heavily armoured, club wielding thug is going to find it as easy to rise through the ranks of the Synod.

I was unable to get emotionally attached to either side of the Stormcloak rebellion.Whereas it should have been a perfect conflict that we could politically/emotionally get involved with. I think this is partly due to the characters being shallow and not really caring about them and a minimal in game impact. In Fallout 4, i actually felt emotional attachment to the two sides i have played so far (Brotherhood + Railroad). They have their flaws, but i could see their point of view and could easily see myself having a heated debate about the morals/goals etc of each faction with people. Conversations about the stormcloak rebellion only reached the "i chose the empire." " i chose stormcloaks". it never got deeper politically/philosophically/emotionally.

I think any conflict between two groups, has to have a very visible in game effect. Even if the end result is similar for all conflicting faction quest lines, we can still get emotionally attached, heck i still get attached to Hector and Troy in the Troy film, despite knowing that he will die and Troy will get sacked.

I didn't find the Brotherhood or Railroad any more engaging than any factions in Skyrim, frankly. There was a certain weary charm to Ulfric, and at least back when Skyrim came out the politics felt a bit more deeply ingrained in the setting; for instance I quite enjoyed going between the holds and getting the opinions of various Jarls. Granted it might feel a bit dated now, but it is almost half a decade old.

In Fallout, I think it's one of those areas where you can feel the tension between BGS' writing inclinations, and that of the source material. BGS tries to write its characters and factions in a way that sounds virtuous to the player, but many of them should only be trying to appeal to their own (often misguided and fanatical) beliefs and ideologies. In other words, BGS should be more willing to make its NPCs and factions genuinely unsettling and abrasive, rather than sugar-coating their behavior to make it more relatable to the audience.

One of the weakest aspects of Skyrim was opposing factions. The civil war was my least favorite quest line. Regardless of which side is chosen, it plays out basically the same (take over fort x, defend for y). The only noticeable effect of a town falling under "enemy" hands is a new Jarl. It was a missed opportunity. The civil war could have been one of the defining factors of Skyrim. For example, there could have been espionage quests (find the imperial supporters in Windhelm, find the stormcloaks in Solitude), more defined borders that opened the door for smuggling and more dramatic changes to Skyrim based on the winner (if the stormcloaks win maybe some lovable non-Nords are forcibly moved to less desirable homes/parts of town). Players were given a choice between two distinct sides but in reality it had almost no impact.

Unfortunately, the civil war wasn't even the worst example of the player choosing sides. The "Destroy the Dark Brotherhood" alternative to the DB quest line was a joke. If join the DB, you get multiple quests and plenty of unique rewards. If you destroy them? Just kill Astrid and then wipe out everyone in their headquarters. The sad thing is that taking out the DB could have been an amazing experience. Hunting down assassins? Awesome. Imagine going from city to city looking for clues to find out the identity of an assassin. That didn't happen because with very little exception, NPCs didn't leave their faction headquarters unless they were appointed to be the player's follower.

Although Skyrim handled these instances of choosing poorly, I am not against giving the player choices in TES VI (although nothing canonical). There is a lot of potential for quests that put two political factions against each other; however, for the choice to be rewarding it needs to change the game world. Honestly, I'd rather be forced into playing one side of a conflict that shaped the world with each quest than given a choice that has no impact beyond the specific quest line. Ideally, good characters should have alternative options to the DB and Thieves Guild, but if those alternatives are to go to their headquarters and kill everyone, there's little point. (Last point: anyone who has seen Heat knows that a lot goes into trying to stop a heist. A law enforcement faction aimed at the stopping the Thieves Guild could be a lot of fun if done right.)

I'd like to see more guilds that don't have a story arc. not every guild needs to be a novel. some should just provide some steady work.