I realize Todd Howard has been advancing through Bethesda since his arrival- but isn't Skyrim the first Elder Scrolls game since he became the chief executive- the Boss? Am I wrong about that- Rolston was still around when Oblivion was made- and it shows.

Now- this is NOT a personal attack thread on Todd Howard. But I would like to know exactly what is going on with Bethesda. When people talk about Skyrim pro and con, are they not speaking of the first Elder Scrolls game that really Todd Howard had complete control over? I know he was also promoted during or before Oblivion but his responsibilities may not have been the same or encompassed the same areas.

Instead of "Bethesda", should this be the "Todd Howard" era of Elder Scrolls? If someone could clarity Mr. Howard's role then and now I would appreciate it.

His game won GOTY. Maybe it's a moot point to many since Bethesda now may be the same as Todd Howard- he is Bethesda. But I see striking changes and I'd like to know if these are Todd Howard's.

Thank you,

Old Grog

He became in charge of the company since the Bloodmoon Expansion in Morrowind.

http://www.uesp.net/wiki/General:Todd_Howard

In any case, Rolston *I think* shares many ideas with Howard. Both of them, for lack of a better word, support some of the "streamlining" that some people complain about. Skyrim might've been different with Rolston working side by side, but he says himself that he was already pushing for some of the directions Skyrim went into before it came out. And Kingdoms of Amalur proves it. It's an even more console centric type of action rpg experience than Skyrim is.


http://www.gamefront.com/ken-rolston-talks-kingdoms-of-amalur-how-it-will-change-rpgs-interview/2/

Good to know. As for Reckoning 'proving it', I'll reserve judgement. Most companies dont' want the headache of an open world, and there's talk of an incoming multiplayer Amalur- so a deep character build and an open world were never part of that deal. First I heard of the 'console centric' version thing- I'm on console for Skyrim, and I don't want the 'streamlining'; ie, loss of choices, NPC interaction, spell making, racial distinctions, and attributes.

I started the series on Daggerfall, and guess what? When Morrowind came out, there was a lot of comparison and many people saying Daggerfall was the better game. Then Oblivion came out, and guess what? There was a lot of comparison between it and Morrowind with many people saying Morrowind was the better game. Then Skyrim came out, and guess what? ...

Morrowind is still the better game?

I prefer consoles too. I don't like it either.

I do like what it demands from interface design, but other than that, I don't need anything dumbed down.

I like Amalur's combat, but I can't really get into it (yet at least. I'll just keep it around for a rainy day).

Lets guess whats going to happen when the next TES comes out! Ah, human nature

Todd Howard is the man!

When I watch or read the interviews from Todd or the dev team, I only get the feeling that Todd leads the project and a great team whose own ideas and input are encouraged. They speak highly of him and he never fails to mention the team. This sounds to me like a win/win/win for Todd, the team and us. Multiple GOTY for TES and FO and so many accolades for what they do. I'm thrilled and so glad I found these games. I'm a fan for life and enjoying all the time I spend playing. I honestly wish the unhappy people felt this way.

Todd Howard will be the death of the elder scolls. Maybe not this game, or the next. But Todd Howard has only one goal in mind - streamlining. Eventually TES will be little more than a corridor shooter. (Much of Skyrim is if you look at how absurdely linear the dungeons are)

If the Bethesda team left and Todd Howard Stayed, There would be no Skyrim!

I enjoy the "streamlining" as it makes the game more approachable. I know it seems crazy but there are many people who buy a TES game and end up quitting whether that is due to boredom, lack of direction, or frustration. There are many people like me who've never even completed the story in any Bethesda game. I know many hate linearity or this idea of a clear direction but the TES franchise is stuck between wanting to be a vast open world and a story/lore driven game.

What gamesas needs to do is provide a vast open world with the option for a story/lore driven game

Which it does. You can allow the story to be the driving force behind your character, or you can treat it as a small act in a grander story.

He was the man who saved TES (and bethesda softworks as a whole). Check your history.

Whatever Skyrim's faults, Bethesda is still focusing on single-player RPG games with player freedom and encouraging creative passion in both their development team and, with their mod support, in the player base, and they're not trying to squeeze every chintzy penny they can out of a franchise.

So they're alright by me. There's at least something to work with there.

You want to see an RPG company in decline, look at Bioware, not Bethesda.

Yeah, i remember how 'open' Morrowind and Oblivion's 2 level generic dungeons were... Why did they go and make them so linear in Skyrim? Anyway, nostalgia is not serving your memory too well. Once again, the level of detail in Skyrim is unprecedented for rp aspects. You can name quite a few things that Skyrim doesnt have that previous installments did, but theres double the amount that Skyrim has that previous games didnt. Don't let a bunch of numbers and slower paced gameplay trick you into thinking thats what makes a better rpg

+1

-7

I agree completely! Personally I am very happy there is a Todd/Bethesda team out there supplying games that not only suit my play style but make me a very happy camper indeed

only if your a fan of [censored] brown graphics and you think hitting an enemy 100 times and doing 0 damage it fun.

As an opinion you can believe that if it's nostalgia that's telling you it is, but you're missing the point on his post.

He's essentially saying with every new TES that comes out people are going to compare it to the previous ones and people who started with that game or enjoyed that game will be biased saying that one is better.

There's no winning or concrete fact this game is better because it's all down to nostalgia, fan boyism and bias. I loved Oblivion was my first game on the TES series I played but i'd be a idiot to suggest it's better than skyrim.

This.

Todd Howard was the one who convinced their financiers to finance a much "grander" Morrowind and he (helped?) built the construction set used by Morrowind.

Without Todd Howard's intervention, we would have seen a TES III with far less funding and dev time. And as for all the streamlining, they work themselves to the bone on every game. Skyrim was no exception. What we got was the culmination of their efforts.

People who whine about streamlining features obviously don't remember how broken and empty half of those features were.

The only major complaint I have is that Morrowind was a far denser political narrative, with the intrigues between the great houses. But there is no argument on one point at least, Skyrim is far more alive than any of their previous games. In morrowind, the NPCs stood in place, and had canned text boxes about their "class". 75% of the NPCs were useless. In Morrowind they re-used the same objects for half of the houses and buildings.

In Skyrim there are far more uniquely designed structures and styles. There is simply no arguing that point.

I think you're wrong. Ken Rolston only worked on MW and Oblivion whereas Todd Howard has been involved with TES since DF.

edit: Todd Howard was project leader for MW and Oblivion, in both cases Ken Rolston was lead designer