Because, to date, it appears to be their modus operandi? So Skyrim is the most popular Elder Scrolls game to date. So what? So was Oblivion. So was Morrowind. If anything, Skyrim's success only reinforces this behavior, making it even more likely to be seen in TES VI, in hopes of capturing an even larger audience.

I am very happy that Armor and weapon degradation were taken out. that was just a time sink. As far as finding a reason to improve your smithing skills, getting better equipment seems like a good one to me.

I Prefer Skyrim over Fallout. Primarily due to the setting. Both games were excellently made.


I accept each Elder Scrolls game as it's own unique entry, and don't mind that they alter the playing experience. I've enjoyed all of them (Oblivion the least, however), and look forward to what lies next for the franchise.

My thoughts were to have upgraded weapons and armor eventually lose their edge and degrade back to their base. This would do a few things:

1. Keep the grindstones and workbenches busy and provide a replendishing pool of smithing experience.

2. The player would be unable to bypass the Arcane Blacksmith perk by improving his equipment before enchanting it (another crafting exploit).

3. If the player was unwilling to mine his ore, it would provide a money sink from purchasing the ore or ingots from the smiths.

Weapons would not degrade past base, so the player would never really have to worry about his weapon going kaput in the middle of a big battle with a dragon. But the weapon can only maintain its keener edge if it is maintained by the player.

I really still do not agree with the fabricated accusation that they "water it down" or whatever, especially when the in my opinion nonsensical "casual gamer" card is played. Certainly it's not perfect but design decisions are design decisions. They did drop the ball very badly with magic though in my opinion. It's just shameful how many effects they cut without magic having the flexibility they were advertising.

Yeah, I would also like to buy upgrading fine->superior->epic etc etc...



I like this idea too.

Skyrim added so much in a way many didn't feel was important. In the end, it's the gameplay that matters, not only the combat and graphics. In a future TES, that gameplay needs to take on a bigger role while at the same time not cutting down in terms of graphics, AI and graphics.

Perhaps I should have said mainstream, not size of audience. Nobody talked about how horrible mudcrabs were on the BBC website, but that damned arrow joke is everywhere. I think they have reached the point of saturation. I don't think there are that more new markets the game can move into. Unless they managed to turn ES: VI into a facebook plug in.

That's actually a really good idea!

online pvp and mmorpg is yet to be introduced..

coming soon to a handheld near you, TES:VI. Now available in the android market and on download via itunes.

Don't tempt Todd because he will eat that with a spoon.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, pokemon has deeper rpg elements than Skyrim.

I'm also going to add "singleplayer game" to my previous post. One thing they have always been clear on is they want to create the best single player game they can. If they do (And I can't imagine why they wouldn't at some point) create an Elder Scrolls MMO, it would be a seperate game from the single player. As anyone playing the latest Star Wars MMO can tell you, you can't have both in the same game without taking away from both experiences..

Also there are already Elder Scolls games for phones (http://www.gamesas.com/eng/games/games_wireless.html). They have always been seperate games from the single player RPG.

I really like your ideas.
I hope they can be modded in in the future.

But in their most recent statement, they would not deny that it is a future possibility.

The only thing I've heard Todd say is they would never rule multiplayer out, not that they had any plans for it. Also, as I said, I don't think they would be fool enough to combine it with their flagship single player game.

That's right, they can't rule it out. Which means that if, one day, they decide they can get a bigger share of the market by further mainstreaming the series (adding mutliplayer), they very well might.

I would like to think that they won't, but I don't hold any illusions about it. It is, after all, in keeping with the way the've been treating the series.

Nothing spectacular. At its core the game plays out very much like FO3 and offers very similiar overall experience (themes and setting aside).

You can't rule out them turning it into a space game either, but it's very unlikely they will change the fundamental core design of their flagship single player game. I hope you realise the importance of that word.

I've heard that same line in the DA2 forums Never played it myself, so i don't know if it's true

Yes, but look at how they've already treated their Flagship game. In the beginning it was a single player RPG. They've been gutting the RPG aspects and replacing them with more action elements. If they treat the RPG aspect of it like that, I have doubts about the sanctity of the single player aspect.

Honestly, yes, it's true... so much more variety and options with capturing and training Pokemon... take the fun of leveling one PC in any RPG, multiply the PCs to be leveled by at least 100, and add uniqueness to the traits of those PCs and voila, Pokemon... awesome. The connection you feel to your personally customized, great team is fantastic and since they, in the early 2000s, added personalities and friendliness gauges to the Pokemon, it's just gotten better. You choose your PCs out of well over a hundred, you raise them, you choose what attacks to train them in, you choose how to evolve them, they have personalities affecting their traits, the conditions in which you obtain them can, to some degree, affect their trust and obedience of you, and for the RPG player that just loves character progression in terms of capabilities, Pokemon is great. I haven't played a Pokemon game since FireRed or Emerald, but yeah, I can't think of why Skyrim would outdo Pokemon strictly as an RPG. It's not like Skyrim has more choices, any consequence for those nonexistent choices, better characterization, or branching storylines.

I was never a fan of the ridiculously fast weapon and armor degradation that has been in previous games. Instead of reworking it so it's less noticible, they just cut it out entirely, IMO that's just as bad as leaving it as it was. There have been mods that reduced the rate at which weapons/armor degraded in previous games (which IMO is a better method than removing degradation totally), but instead, Bethesda chose to ignore this.

The problem don't stop there. Obsidian had introduced some pretty good ideas in New Vegas that could work quite well in Skyrm, but again, chose to ignore those ideas...for example, why should I be able to, as a Stormcloak waltz into an Imperial camp and slaughter every last one of them (except for the Legate), walk out, then walk to the next Imperial camp, only to be greeted with a simple,"you don't belong here," but all is well, we don't mind that you just slaughtered a half dozen of our brethren.

Companions are another thing that was horribly done in Skyrim. Really, what kind of dialog do we have with our companions, what kind of backstory do they have? What are their positions on the world at large, how do they feel about our actions in the world? I seem to remember in New Vegas, Cass would have words with you if your karma got too low and give you a warning that she would leave you if you continued on your path. Skyrims companions? Why would I give a [censored] what happens to them, Bethesda never gave us any reason to, which is why Lydia became my sacrifice to Boethia...and who wouldv'e thought, I don't miss her at all. I would've been more than pleased with far few potential companions if the tradeoff were for much deeper ones...ones that you actually cared whetehr they lived or died

I was almost an apologist for them and actually defended them against claims that they can't write a compelling story if it came up and bit them on the nose, but after playing the game for the last 100+ hours and not really having a reason to care what happens to the world; I'm done trying to rationalize why they continue to ignore the obvious.

Bethesda: It's all about money and how much more they can make, not about wanting to make great RPG's anymore.

What, by cutting out all the bloat that was a hangover from the paper and pen days (Morrowinds to hit die calculation as an example) and turning it into the most successful game in their history and one of the biggest selling single player RPG's of all time?

Wither you like what they have done with the game or not, the core of it remains the same as it always has. In the past they have experimented with new game types (Most notably Redguard) outwith their core game. Were they to turn the TES series into an online experience, they would do it in a similar fashion. You've only got to look at the experience Bioware had with Dragon Age 2. They very nearly killed off that franchise with that game by changing it's very core, everyone knows it. The chances that Bethesda who have openly stated many times that they are concerned with creating the greatest single player experience they can, would risk all of that on an experiment that has a known track record of failure is... Well I think you get the picture.

Will we ever see an online or co-op TES game? Probably. Will they combine it with the single player game? Not without changing the core of the game.

I feel the same about the NPC in this game, they just dont matter: http://www.gamesas.com/topic/1332215-i-dont-love-anyone/page__view__findpost__p__20042656

I don't really think that's a fair argument. New Vegas and Skyrim were in development at the same time by different developers. Only on release of NV would Bethesda have had time to digest wither these kinds of changes were popular or not and with the fixed in stone deadline of 11.11.11, they would have been hard pressed adding them to the game on top of all the things they were already doing. Given the amount of bugs and problems with balance of the existing content, how big a mess of a game would Skyrim have been with all the things NV introduced to the mix?

Fallout 3 is what this thread is about. By all means pick faults between these games, but to include ideas from NV isn't a fair comparison.