Those "special abilities" do not change the mechanic whatsoever. Axes can do a small amount of extra damage over time, swords have a chance for a critical, and maces/hammers ignore armor. Does that change that you are still using the "swing wildly until target dies" approach? No.

With the current combat, all the melee weapons are are the same way to deal damage in a different wrapper.

An anology: One is white chocolate, one is milk chocolate, and the last is dark chocolate. Doesn't change that they are all still bars of chocolate. All you do is choose what flavor you like better.

So why in Talos' name can I no longer do the same for opening locks?

Exactly, how many of their perks actually diversify, or change play style dramatically? Inviting new build types even? Not very many.
And so do weapon choice, or defensive choice, they all do the same thing. RP choices FTW.

Well, graphics can get better, but I agree with you. But, there is a ton to explore in Skyrim, it's just that most things you stumble upon, namely quests, are not that intriguing or engaging. At least Oblivion's guild quest (as an example) were better from my experience. I also think that the easy skill leveling and ability to level all and any skills you see fit in Skyrim, took away making a choice of class near meaningless. Oblivion held you to being a mage if you chose that class and it's relevant major/minor skill sets. If you want variety, quest development and more avenues, then maybe you should try DA:O, if you haven't already. The graphics are nice, but the choices you make in that game have far reaching effects on the plot states and how your companions and other NPCs view you and react to you. The game in somewhat linear though, but the story telling and dialogue is among the best I have ever played. Too bad Bioware is no longer that game maker it once was for me.

Technical-wise, they are. They're hitting that point where increasing graphics (for this generation, at least) would mean cutting content to compensate for the extra graphical load. For PC gamers, graphics will never hit their peak, as PCs will keep increasing their graphical capabilities infinitely. For this console generation, graphics have already hit their peak. Skyrim is an example of how they have: the game crashes on PS3 due to "save-game bloating", caused by the build-up of rendered objects in the game world as a gamer's saved game expands. This bloating was also an issue in Oblivion, a less-graphically intensive game, demonstrating how graphics have reached their peak for the 360/PS3 generation. Unless content is cut, graphics cannot increase without causing these unfortunate issues.

Crysis and Crysis 2 got around this due to being shooters (i.e. smaller inventory system; more on-rails sequences, resulting in saves only saving specific parts of the world, rather than the entire world entity as in Skyrim, etc).

Ah Bethesda. Tis' a pity. Hopefuly they'll make a a turn around, but given the current record (Skyrim is, somehow, even more simple than Oblivion.), I do not have much hope. My prediction for TES VI:

• Takes place in one city
  
• Can only be human
  
• Only three skills (guess)
  
• One faction for everyone (yay)
  
• Pacing of a cod game (oh wait...)

Except they change when to use each weapon insted of Morrowind's and Oblivion's "all weapons are the same except damage".

Maces are best used agasint enemies with higher armor, Axes are best used on anamies with larger health, and Swords are best used agaisnt enemies during power attacks to get more critical damage.



Lockpick and unlock did not have a specific use benifit, if they did I would gladly welcome them back.

They need to put in magic locks only openable with unlock spells, while making unlock spells not work with normal locks, while also making bashable only locks.

Haha! My computer would never handle Dragon Age: Origins! So, no, I can't try it. I'll consider it in the future.

To be fair regarding the graphics issues with the PS3, it has much more to do with its CPU architecture than its overall power. The 360 barely has these issues, and in reality, the 360 isn't as powerful as the PS3. But the CPU in the 360 is symmetrical, making it very easy to develop the game for, similar to how a CPU in a typical PC is designed. The Cell processor is asymmetrical in design and is bear to this day still for many developers. Note, that the ease of developing games on the 360 is the primary reason why Beth used it as the lead for Skyrim and ported it over to PC and the PS3.

Though irrelevant to Skyrim, but relevant to issues between making games where the 360 is the lead to the PS3, read this http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/105/1056885p2.html in the "Closing Comments" section at the bottom of the page.

But the mechanic is the same: Bash someone until they die. The benefits are miniscule at best, and useless at worst. After getting the best weapons in the game (Ebony or Daedric weaponry), whichever weapon you use ceases to matter. You're literally a god, and can kill anything within a few hits - Dragons not included, although the main difficulty factor for them is health, rather than damage.

At least lock-pick and unlock had extreme benefits for the end-user builds: Mages could focus on honing magic skills, rather than dumping precious skill points into lock-pick, which is useless beyond picking locks. Honestly, if your main beef is the triviality of unlock/picking locks, why even have a lock-pick skill - a skill which only matters for containers and doors, nothing else. Hell, why even have a Speech skill, which is used even less and doesn't affect the core game beyond bartering?

Swords and Axes do the same thing. They even attack identically. The only difference in animation is the little lame mini cutscene kills.

Skyrim should have been named The Elder Scrolls V: Compromise.

If your PC can play Skyrim, it can play DA:O. You can adjust DA:O's graphics on a very wide range by the way.

Todd said they excluded spell making to make spells feel more unique and powerful.
I say we keep just ONE spell in the game "the bolt". It will feel powerful (since it will be the only one) and it will surely be unique. Mages will be even more fun than they are now....

I agree, there are probably other spells or effects that aren't particularly needed, like the paralyze spell. There is an effect for it in alchemy, so there is no need for a spell. Thats what they did with feather. Only made it available through Enchanting and Alchemy, but mages got the short end of the stick unfortunately. Just because something isn't necessarily needed, doesn't mean it should be taken out.

These effects and spells were what made mages so versatile. I could go into a dungeon and-being a weak mage- would become over encumbered quickly so I would cast a feather spell and head off. Never did I think I had an advantage or feel unbalanced since a thief could brew up a potion and a warrior was naturally stronger than me.

There are other effects that I miss, but these two were the ones that broke my heart the most to see leave. Maybe i'm wrong and they will come back into the series with future DLC or ES titles, but them being taken out only worries me more with not only future spells that may be considered redundant, but skills as well.

More like The Elder Scrolls VI: Streamlining

"But... there is one they fear... In their tongue he is Lot Mey - Todd Howard!"

If anyone's interested, Lot Mey translates literally into "Great Fool". I don't hate Todd Howard, but what kind of crack was he smoking when he made all the design decisions on Skyrim?

If Todd stated that, it isn't logical at all. Being "unique" is how the player makes the game for him/herself. By having Beth make all of the spells, I'd say that uniqueness is solely Beth's.

More like, How did Todd helm Morrowind and Skyrim? WTF happened, an evil clone cyborg?


"Must put magic back in magic. Must ABORT ABORT ABORT!"


"Too spreadsheety. Must, Too spreadsheety, must, too spreadsheety. ABORT ABORT ABORT!"

Actually, it began with Morrowind. Many Daggerfall fans were quite unhappy with the simplifications made to the game. And the pattern continues to this day.

At least it would be great if he didn't bs us in his interviews. Like his views about spell making or radiant environment etc..
Say you have no time to implement them or something credible, don't bs us with things my 10yo niece would not belie..eh wait.. many in these forums believed him actually.

"I shall name him... Mini-me!" - Todd Howard (the one who made Morrowind)

And thus, Skyrim Todd Howard was born.

More on-topic, anyone feel cheated when they transitioned from New Vegas to Skyrim. When I first played Skyrim, it felt so wonderfully deep (hadn't played New Vegas for 3 months). Then, I went back and replayed New Vegas due to the curiosity factor, played Skyrim again, and the lack of depth sank in. I'm not saying Bethesda's not fit to make their own series, but considering the similarities between the TES and Fallout series, it makes you wonder...

BGS just understands that people want things simpler. Pick up and play, less "barriers to entry" a way to "get right into the action" , less stats, less manipulating separate sets of data that can be merged. People want a streamlined experience, and by people I mean the majority. The same kind of majority that helps Britney spears go platinum and sells out New Kids on the Block venues.

I was fine, all we lost were a few variables and a huge map. Specifically relation variables, some title variable, and certain depth, fast travel, repairing, economy of Daggerfall. Daggerfall to Morrowind was acceptable, in fact Todd worked on Daggerfall as well. But past Morrowind, the [censored] hit the fan. Most any old guard, will accept Dagger to Morrow over Morrow to OB, or Sky.

So does this mean you approve or disapprove of Bethesda's so-called "streamlining of the game" (in your terms, are you part of the majority on this issue)?

Hmm...

It's true. DA:O is a bit bloated for an RPG (optimization was a big issue for PC gamers with lower specs), but Skyrim is about on the same level, although your DA graphics will suffer a bit.