1. Morrowind 2.0 is a comment about the philosophy underlying the game. There would obviously be improvements to mechanics, graphics, etc.
2. I made a blanket statement about a market. You can either get really upset about it, or you can address whether or not it is relevant to the discussion. I think the latter is more productive. Do you think the video game audience 15 years ago is similar to the audience now? I argue that it is not, and that the average gamer now is of a different psychology. Perhaps you would grace me with your opinion as to why the public would prefer complex gameplay sy
3. On the topic of review scores: The Elder Scrolls gets good review scores because it is a series that fills a niche very well. Beth creates huge game worlds that keep gamers addicted for hundreds of hours. Beth doesn't get high marks because they buy off reporters.
In regards to how complexity would affect review scores: Any time you make the game mechanics more difficult to understand, you demand more from your audience. If a reviewer gets frustrated with a system because they don't yet understand it, their confusion will colour their judgment of the game. Is this an unfair statement? Look at what was applauded in Skyrim reviews. The simplified leveling system, the UI, etc. Reviewers eat it up because it doesn't demand much from them.

4. In depth not sacrificing anything: Do you think it is easier to create a complex, interweaving storyline, and game mechanics that have the complexity to satisfy 600 hour players? If Bethesda could do that, while keeping the gameplay just as enjoyable for the casual player, and without spending any more money, they would. Graphics and dragons were priorities, meaning they spent more resources and people on them than some other things. Depth of story is a prioritization that they could have made, should they have wanted to make it a focal point. Complex storylines take more time and people. It sounds like you are suggesting that they could do it at no cost. I will concede that they could make more interesting storylines, but if you want something more complex, that involves effort and people that has to come from somehwere.
5. It seems like you are objecting to my categorization of you, or other people here as falling under that category, presumably because you feel that complexity can be achieved at no cost to Bethesda's audience. I disagree. I think the sales of Skyrim speaks for itself in this regard. Sales aren't just growing in proportion to the number of people gaming. Skyrim is selling disproportionately well to a massive audience.
Note: I am using descriptions people often attribute to Morrowind. The feeling of not knowing where you are, feeling like an outsider, and not being guided by the developers. You attack my description of deeper elder scrolls games, yet I don't think it is out of line when compared to how Morrowind is described.
6. So you want to have your cake and eat it. Any product is made with specific goals. Bethesda has a set pool of effort. They can dedicate their effort to things YOU want, or they can dedicate it to things OTHERS want. You want complexity. I argue that complexity is the result of developer effort, effort that isn't being spent elsewhere. I would say the inclusion and role of dragons in this game is the result of their prioritization. Could they make the game more complex? Of course. I wish they had spent less time on dragons and more time on the civil war quests. But I don't think complexity is just something you "add" into the game without cost. If complexity is introduced that doesn't hurt the casual gamer, it requires effort. But you disagree with their choice of priorities. I think their choice of priorities reflects their market.

So maybe people astound you. In that case, don't assume you have a good working knowledge of people. I know a bunch of people that are into Skyrim and wouldn't be into previous iterations. You don't share their judgment, but don't turn around and claim that you know them better than me.

In regards to Beth's advertising, you are suggesting that they make a game that functions equally well as a casual game and as a hardcoe game. I would like such a perfect game too. Thing is, you don't seem to be willing to make consessions, or even to admit that concessions would have to be made. I think that is intellectually dishonest.

I am with you, but there are some little things Bethesda could do to appeal to the hard core RPG fans that would not take away from mass appeal. Things like adding options in the Options menu such as:

1. a slider to adjust sneak difficulty
2. a slider to add more monster spawns (larger groups)
3. the option to turn off the compass and sneak crosshair, without turning off the magicka/health/stamina bar.

Or, Bethesda could add just a few more in game references to what you are supposed to do and where you are supposed to go, so players who play with quest markers off can have a chance of figuring out what they are supposed to do from info in the game world.

There are a lot of things like that Bethesda could do to make Skyrim more appealing to its hardcoe fan base without alienating the mass audience. I hope they make at least some of these improvements with future patches.

I wont, and never will. I had to buy a PC just for mods because of all of Beth's cutting.

Its still worthless.


I've been around enough gamers from around the world to know that complexity is not a turn off for the majority of modern gamers. (those that are turned off are those that are better off playing Hello Kitty Island Adventure) What is a turn off is a game that isn't fun, and complexity and depth do not (have to) take away from the fun of a game. If they do, then something is fundamentally wrong with the game. Returning to the depth seen in past Elder Scrolls game and improving on it will not take away the fun.


Who said anything about Beth buying people off? Elder Scrolls games will always get good reviews because of what they are. Its a popular game series thats been around since forever, and has always had a track record for being great.


Most reviewers are fairly worthless. And besides, reviews hardly matter because most people who buy games aren't going to be looking at them. People just don't do that, because believe it or not, people do still find gaming a rather nerdy thing so going that deep with it is going to be a turn off for most people.


Difficulty is no excuse not to do something. If that was the case, games would have went casual a LONG time ago.


And? A game itself takes effort and people. The point is not to deny certain parts the focus they deserve so that other parts can be done half-assed. If Beth did the parts they did focus on to the most possible point of near perfection then I could at least concede to them not focusing on other parts. But no, the parts they do focus on aren't as good as they could be. Does that mean those parts are bad? No, but Beth can do better.

Is it really such a bad thing to demand better from a company that we all know can in fact do better?


Its not the number of people gaming affecting Skyrim's sales (at least not mostly). Its the number of people that spend time on the internet. The internet is used FAR more than it was back in the days of Morrowind or hell even Oblivion. Thats why Skyrim is selling so well to a massive audience. Everyone who spends time on the internet (IE, damned near EVERYONE nowadays) will know about Skyrim, or at least have heard of it at one point or another. Arrow to the Knee jokes are all over the internet.

If Oblivion or Morrowind were released in this kind of internet climate they'd do just as good too presuming the marketing was just as well done.


I came up with this system within an hour. With Beth's tools (and the presumption that I had the skill to use them) I could develop the vast majority of this system within a month by my self.

http://www.gamesas.com/topic/1341740-my-idea-for-a-completely-overhauled-character-development-system

With several months more time and the help of others, we could see the development of several of the skills and other systems that would complement that system. The Dev's have already proven that when the individuals among them are left to their own devices that they can create quite massive features in a fairly presentable state for the game within a week. With proper and legitimate focus on the right things, such a system that will keep the casual happy just as much as the hardcoe can be developed. And whats more, with PLENTY of time left over to focus on everything else.

As I said in another topic, I hold myself to these kinds of standards all of the time. And I readily hold others to them as well.


Except it doesn't because the vast majority of the market will eat up anything thats fun. Depth and Complexity do not and don't have to take away from fun.



Are those people turned off by previous Elder Scrolls games because of their mechanics, or their looks?

[quote] Thing is, you don't seem to be willing to make consessions, or even to admit that concessions would have to be made. I think that is intellectually dishonest. [/quote]

I don't believe in conceding things unless its impossible not to.

[quote]And no, I don't want an unfair advantage to an already stupidly easy game. Moving at Sonic speeds and jumping like you're on the moon is STUPID. SO STUPID. You run circles around your opponent and if you're an archer: You win immediately. [/quote]

Then don't run, and don't jump. Don't raise your speed at all. You won't reach the over-exaggeration you're complaining about.

Also, unfair advantage? Lol, so tell me. What multiplayer mod are you playing? I need to get in on that.

[quote]Bethesda has an agenda to release the game at the time and while I agree Attributes could've been infinitely better (Oblivion's attributes were dreadfully terrible), just getting rid of them works as well. [/quote]

That logic is terrible. Removal is not an acceptable way to approach mechanics unless X mechanic is totally broken to the point where it'd have to be rewritten. And that was never the case with attributes. They only needed to be expanded on.

[quote]Go get 100 Athletics, be an archer or mage, and come back to me. [/quote]

Okay. So what's your point? I sit still and take down my enemies before they get anywhere near me. I don't play a ranged class and dike around running close to my enemies. That ruins the point of ranged attacks entirely.

[quote]Even if you're a warrior, you can run away from enemies easily, bypassing any modicum of challenge that exists. [/quote]

Yeah, and as a mage I can turn invisible and summon endless hordes of minions to fight my enemies for me. So what's your point?

[quote]Jumping on the moon totally doesn't break immersion. Running faster than any living thing on Nirn (except M'aiq)is totally not immersion breaking.[/quote]

Doesn't for me. If I'm playing such a character then its perfectly fine for me. If I'm not playing such a character, I don't let my stats get to such a point. Plus you know, its not like we're forced to jump anywhere or run everywhere. Its totally not like you couldn't do something about it if you really found having high athletics such a big problem. Totally not like we can't control exactly what our athletics skill is regardless of its natural progression.

[quote]And by the way: Not everybody knows not to raise speed.[/quote]

Ignorance of game mechanics is no excuse. That's like saying Battlefield 3 should cater to the person that runs around with a bolt-action rifle with a 12x scope because he doesn't know any better and let him get easy kills at close range anyway.

[quote]I don't consider walking around everywhere to be fun. You stated that "Oh, don't level the skills then." SON, YOU HAVE NO CHOICE TO LEVEL THEM! [/quote]

Then deal with athletics. Having 100 athletics and whatever your base speed is isn't going to make you run a mile a minute. I know so because I just booted up Morrowind and gave my level 1 Orc 100 athletics. I still move fairly slow.

[quote][quote]If you want to run fast...Sprint button. No further issues there. [/quote][/quote]

Not fast enough.

I agree. I do hope they implement the changes that require little effort and would yield dividends for this crowd. My comments were all in response to people saying that Bethesda would sell more copies making a "more complex" game as a whole. These are comments about design philosophy, not easily alterable features. There is this crowd that believes that the current direction will harm Bethesda's sales. I really don't think that is true. Most of the things you suggested are all outside the scope of design philosophy.

Skyrim makes me smh.

1. You still insist on making your judgments from on high without addressing the point contained therein. I made a point regarding design philosophy, and you haven't commented at all. Not exactly discussion, is it?
2. This is a claim about gamers. I don't think you accurately describe the majority of gamers. I would argue that game sales support my position. Does complexity necessitate less fun for some players? No, but it often does. The games industry isn't just making decisions arbitrarily. They are responding to their customers. I don't think you are Beth's typical customer by this point.
3. By difficulty I am referring to the amount of effort Beth puts in towards one goal versus another. Of course Beth could make a better game if they were more talented and/or worked harder. That goes without saying. This is a question of design philosophy though (where they put their effort). The OP is commenting on the focus of Beth's effort, you are changing the topic by talking about the absolute amount of effort. If all you mean to say is that Bethesda's design philosophy is fine, they just aren't talented, smart, or hard-working enough, then we have no reason to be talking. If, however, you think that Bethesda has chosen the wrong design philosophy (they aren't making games in the way that gets them the most sales), then we have an argument.
4. If you think good reviews aren't relevant to sales, I don't think you understand the business side of things. Not all gamers have already made up their mind, or are choosing between a couple games. I know several who purchased Skyrim as their first ES game. Do you assume they just made up their mind out of thin air? They looked at reviews, previews, and whatnot. These things matter; maybe not to you, but to some people.
5. "Is it really such a bad thing to demand better from a company that we all know can in fact do better?"- If your point is just that Bethesda could do a better job at what they already do, then by all means complain, I just don't see the point. Bethesda as a company is extremely successful. Any company "could" be more successful by being better at what they do. Once again, if your complaint is that they have the wrong idea about how to make money, then I think you are wrong.
6. Really? Are you trying to say that the absolute number of gamers hasn't increased? If so, that is patently false. The number of gamers is increasing a lot. That will always translate into new sales. My argument is that the new gamers didn't just appear out of thin air. They are people who wouldn't have played older games, or those who grew up with the new ones. You claim that the number of gamers is a secondary factor to the people on the internet in general in respect to sales. I don't think that makes very much sense at all. The internet was common 10 years ago, but the video game industry was not nearly as big. What has changed sales is the number of people gaming, and who those people were. I think the market contains more casuals now than before. The number of people who know about Skyrim is a symptom, not the cause of sales. The reason it is being talked about so much after the fact is because it appeals to a larger section of the population. The internet could be talking about a lot of things, and there are tons of things on the internet that people don't know about. They know about Skyrim BECAUSE its popular.

6. I skimmed through your system, and I like it. Kudos for coming up with it. I found it interesting to read, especially since it isn't just "replace the attributes". In a way, I think it Illustrates my point. I think a lot of forumers would like your system. I also think it would be unfairly maligned by reviewers. If you put both your proposal and Beth's proposal in front of them, I think they would choose Beth's, regardless of whether I like it or not. So I like your system in theory. Secondly, I think that implementing your system would require Beth to change its design priorities. Things you implement:
1. offensive/defensive shielding
2. weaving
3. fishing
4. athletic and acrobatics (was there in the past, but to include it means they have to put effort in that could be spent elsewhere)
5. climbing (this is big, assuming you want it to be relevant in world design)
6. horse fighting
7. dodge + parry
8. horse riding (horse mechanics would be introduced, this is work)
9. tactics (whatever this would imply?)
10. leadership (this would take a lot of work)

I think all of these things would be great if they could all just happen. However, each of them implies work, and some of them imply a massive amount of work. This is what I mean by distinguishing between design priorities. Sure, if Bethesda just does more work, the game will be better. You are suggesting a different focus for their work. I would argue that if Beth was to do all of this in Skyrim (holding their productivity constant), you would have horrible dragons, and other things that appeal to casual gamers. I think that game would sell worse. This is what I mean when I say that Bethesda's prioritization of the casual gamer is successful in a business sense. They put most of their work into things that make them money.

7. "xcept it doesn't because the vast majority of the market will eat up anything thats fun. Depth and Complexity do not and don't have to take away from fun." - I think the fun for the average gamer isn't guaranteed, or else a lot more games would be doing it better. Beth actually has a pretty good handle on making their games fun on the surface relative to competition. I think you are underplaying the difficulty of making "fun" games for the masses. Fun isn't an on-off switch, or some easy requirement to be met. It is a continuum.
8. And lastly, I know a bunch of people who wouldn't be into the games even at the time. Some people just aren't committed to games and want something simple. Skyrim has an incredibly broad audience, more so than I would ever have guessed.

I believe when the Witcher 2 comes out on XBox it will be an interesting gauge of some of the ideas in this post.

That may be true, but that has already been shown between two games in the same series; Dragon Age. Origins sold huge on the 360 and did very well on the PS3. Many complaints from console gamers were that the UI design didn't fit well, still it sold big time. The game had extensive role playing and deep player agency, like TW1 and 2. Choices made during the game affected plot states and how NPCs and companions interacted with the player character.

Then Dragon Age II comes out and even the console gamers are sorely disappointed with what was stripped out of the game for role playing. Most complaints were about the unrealistic over the top combat system, and the near total lack of player agency, where nothing they did and choices they made had an impact on the story or plot states. The game sold not even 1/3 of what Origins did.

Still though, TES games are a different beast, so it is hard to compare.

Only thing I hate about PC gaming is this terrible sense of elitism that tends to perpetrate the community. Anyways the biggest complaint I heard was the terribly restricted world. I didn't play Dragon Age 2 as the first was, good but not great. But from the few friends that I have who actually play games, and the podcasts I listen to that isolation in one city was what killed most people.

For me I don't hold Dragon Age in high regard because I honestly don't like "restricted" choice. I'm still waiting for that game that mimics real choice. What I mean is that with Bioware games you generally have 2-3 paths to follow, and the biggest sense of change is what happens to your companions and how that affects the progression of the story. I miss the days of Fire Emblem, and Final Fantasy Tactics. The days when you could loss a character because he simply died, rather than you picking or choosing who you like better.

BERTHERZDA ARE DURMIN DUWN TEH GAEM FER CAZUALS!!! Seriously, why do some people [censored] and complain at Bethesda all the time, like they're entitled to something? Because they're not. This is Bethesda's game, and they will make it however they damn please. They put all this time and effort into making a product, and all those people do is spit on it. They probably have no idea all the hard work Bethesda put into this game. Skyrim was an EXCELLENT game. But it has it's flaws. Just like Oblivion, just like Morrowind, just like Daggerfall, and just. Like. Arena. And, by the way, Morrowind wasn't a perfect game; the one RPG to rule them all! It had flaws. Many of them. I fail to see how Skyrim is anymore "shallow" than Morrowind. I don't think it is. It's like this: the complainers are carrying two bags. One big bag, filled with Skyrim's good parts, they're carrying behind them. Another bag, small by comparison, they're carrying in front of them. All they focus on is the small bag. And they fail to notice the big bag. When they look at Morrowind, it's the other way around. You need to notice both, or your opinion doesn't mean diddly [censored]. I swear, people just seem to want Morrowind over and over, just with a different name. That's not what Bethesda does. Bethesda reforms and redesigns almost everything. And they do a damn good job.

/end rant

To answer you truthfully its because it appeals to more people. The easier the game the more likely different types of people will pick it up instead of just he usual RPG crowd.

Call of Duty Franchise is a great example of this. The games are easy to play and understand and that is why the franchise has a ton of success, of course there are other things involved but thats a main one. I've met so many people that aren't "true gamers" that picked up COD and loved it, why? Because it was easy and simple.

Skyrim is simplified but I don't think the game is ruined yet. I do feel however if it is further simplified then it might end up like the COD franchise.

Like many have said before "mods will fix it" and I agree, but I'm growing tired of the community finishing games for people, just my take on things.

No there wasn't.

Perks offer way more variety and customization than Morrowind and Oblivion ever had.

No, they didn't only level up as majors, they also leveled up if they were minors. They might not contribute towards my overall character level, but the fact that you are missing is that -no-, I -don't- want my characters to run faster, or jump higher. That's not the type of character I want to play, however the game forces that upon me by making my running and jumping increase just by playing the game. They are unavoidable skills, unlike, say, Blade, where if you don't want to increase your Blade skill, you can just use an Axe.

Because -for me- it ruins fun to zip around from one end of the map to the other with the speed of The Flash, thus making the world feel incredibly smaller, thus taking away from the scope and granduer of the game.

I don't want fast characters, but the design of Morrowind and Oblivion forces me to have a fast character simply by playing.

And yes, that the game hasn't been simplified is -exactly- what I'm saying.

-A world that is much more alive than ever before, filled with detail all throughout.
-Skills that are much deeper than ever before and allow for more specialization, options, and overall customization that couldn't be found in Morrowind or Oblivion.
-More interesting quests, that while many questlines are short, each individual quest is much more interesting than before.
-Characters that feel alive that the player can feel connected to.
-Despite what anyone says, there is plenty of recognition of player accomplishments. Yes, there are glitches and times when NPC's don't acknowledge what you've done, but there is plenty of recognition as well. NPC's constantly recognized my guild status, being the Dragonborn, my civil war alignment, my skills, my gear, etc...
-Yes there is NPC disposition - it's not in the form of a bar or a stat, but certain NPC's like you better, others dislike you.

The only area where Skyrim lacks in comparison to past games is the number of spell effects. However, even the magic system itself has been greatly improved. Skyrim is far from "simplified". Tedious, needless repetition removed, yes, but simple? No. -YOU- get a clue.

Couple of things.
As games develop mechanics will change and become more intuitive. Features will be streamlined because developers will have progressed at developing their games.
CoD is easy to pick up and play but hard to actually be good at. This is something Starcraft 2 attempted to do. Create an easier game to get into while maintaining that level of competitive metagame. Also your CoD comparison kind of fails because there is a huge difference between CoD4 and MW3 in terms of features.

Thank you for this.

The horse, she is beaten.