Beth certainly solded out the PS3 version.

I think most people support less shiny icons on their screen while playing.

I think most people support as many icons on their screen as necessary to know what's affecting their character at any given moment.

Funny, since I've never heard anyone ask for a more cluttered UI.

Yes.

http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk59/bubbiesdad/Oh_look_its_THIS_thread_again.jpg

This. +1

I think that Skyrim was a great game but a few things could really use work like

Civil War Quests: They were way too repetitive and shallow and should've been more about attacking the hold capitols than random forts.

Guild Questlines: Were way to short and they should have made it so you slowly rank up as you do small jobs for the guild like in the companions you might have to take out creature nests or bandit lairs but in the theives guild you would go on a heist with a group of thieves.

Magic: Mage is harder to play than other classes because you use magicka for everything and it regenerates so slow in combat. Also they should add some spells to the different schools of magic.

Certian Perk trees: Trees like lockpicking should be made more useful and better structured.

True, but I'm not sure that's "selling out" or "catering to casuals". It's just bad UI design.


Meh. Honestly, as someone who's played various flavors of "RPG" for a long time? I'd prefer an interface that gave me useful information in useful ways. I miss the buff icons on the screen that Oblivion had. (Of course, I did use a UI mod to make the elements smaller and off to the edges, so it's not like Oblivion's UI was some paragon either. )

But, then, I'm not into this "to be 'immersed' in my game, I must have nothing in my view" thing. I really would rather have a bunch of informative and useful readouts around the edges. Just like I'd rather have a 2D map instead of the flashy 3D thing we're stuck with - I want my map to provide information in a clear and concise way (the purpose of a map), not "look cool".

I'm going to skip most of this discussion and just throw in 2 cents:

I think it's far stupider to limit an entire race (such as high elves) to a single play style, like mages. Why can't high elves be warriors? I bet you there is as much variety in the high elf race as there are in any other. The "orcs are warriors and elves are mages" class preferences are nonsensical to me.

No. What makes a character should be skills and abilities. These are things that the perk + skill system can handle just fine. Do I think they could greatly expand that system? Yes. Add more perk trees and skills? Yes.

However, I disagree that entire races should have specialties. I disagree that there should be classes that you pre-select and then stick with. I disagree that we need any attributes. Skills and Perks can handle everything that attributes would.

I'm not saying they did, in this game, but they certainly could have.

Why can't we have skills, perks, and attributes? I'm using an attributes mod right now and it's awesome.

There's an attributes mod?

Yes.
http://skyrim.nexusmods.com/downloads/file.php?id=13968
Knock yourself out.

damn all of you, lol

that looks sweet

1) The hardcoes will never be happy. Never.
2) Most of the complaints that cause them to change systems come from these forums, not in some attempt to "dumb it down for the casuals". Fast travel, quest markers, combat, the leveling system..

Really? Because I was perfectly happy with Morrowind

Nice! Thanks Broseph!

At the time, most were complaining how much it removed compared to Daggerfall. It still gets those complaints some, but the general nostalgia and the games sense have given people rose-tinted goggles. It happened.

I disagree that there is any such thing as an attribute that you can't also describe as a skill.

Strength? What would it do? Increase carry capacity, and melee damage for any melee weapon right?
You can have skills do that. You can even introduce another skill set for fitness or athleticism. Let the perks in it increase your carry capacity, arm strength for bows and weapons, running speed, etc.


Likewise for intelligence. What does it do? Increase magicka? Increase magicka damage? Resistance to poisons? What?
All of these things could be in a skill tree similar to "athleticism." Something like "Spirituality" that increases magic damage, or spell effectiveness, magic recharge rate, etc. There's nothing an attribute can do that an appropriate skill tree can't also do.

Having both just makes things complicated, because now you have to figure out how the interact. Which one modifies which? Should I increase strength, or should I increase my sword skill? Generally speaking there's a right answer in situations like that, and there shouldn't be.

There's no such thing as attributes. Humans in the real world don't have attributes. We have skills and abilities. If you want to get stronger, you go to the gym and work out. It's as much a skill as anything else.

Strength doesn't necessarily correlate to how well my character can wield a sword. I disagree that skills describe attributes. A character with an inherently high Intelligence attribute may have a low skill level in magic, because they've never used those skills before. Attributes dictate how good you can be at certain skills, just like in real life IQ can dictate an individual's propensity for attaining knowledge. There's nothing 'complicated' or unnecessary' about attributes. They merely add an extra layer of depth to character development, which is never a bad thing.

I'm asking about manifestation in game. This character with unusually high intelligence that doesn't use any magic, what does his intelligence do?

I dont know which is worse, Bethesda thinking a majodity of tbe people out there are idiots and need to be held by the hand and that they have the attention span of a child or that their isnt a competitor for them to improve. I guarentee that if ,ompanys started pumping out more da o games and keep expanding the world and the decisions and consequences we actually get a better picture of what the majority wants.
its so sad that they are gonna base value on its sales, whereas if most of the public knew about the shallow quests and lose of even more little things that defined the previous titles. I for one if I knew what I know now, I woulda keep my money, but even though I dont like the game bethesdas gonna think I did because I bought it.
But selling out? Yes becauze its all about maiking the all mighty dollar and I cant blame them for that. I dont hate Bethesda, I just dont like the direction the series is going.

For the most part, it's not nostalgia. I played Morrowind (basically) for the first time last year. I still play it and enjoy it. People complained how much it removed compared to Daggerfall, yes. But now, Morrowind is praised because with each successive installment, more features are removed, making the past games that people complained about look better and better. It's the old "you don't know how much you have until it's gone." I'm sure the same thing will happen with Skyrim if the next Elder Scrolls game continues to "streamline."

Whatever he wants it to, being an RPG an all. Maybe if the Elder Scrolls game's had conversation trees' and branching quests such attributes would have played more of a focus.

since skyrim was better then all its predecessors i will say no. they are not selling out

however, some things from morrowind should be put in the next TES game. such as spears. but most the things people complain about are stupid.
personally i would like a remake of morrowind with decent graphics and voice acting.