This article seems nice:

http://rampantgames.com/blog/?p=3693

What do you think about this? Should Bethesda reconsider the direction chosen for the TES series?

He made some good points andsadly he is right ,my opinion i blame the averageattentionspan of todays and todays mania for instant satisfaction and'i mustwin always'attitude
Luckily for us older players there are still plenty of other gameswhere hard work and good planiing give you alot more satisfaction then theaverage FPS or powergaming MMO

Meaning we'd perhaps see there in the next TES? : one-handed axes skill, one-handed blade skill, dagger skill, one-handed blunt skill, two-handed blunt skill, claymore skill, battleaxe skill, spear skill, halberd skill, flail skill, daedric armor skill, iron armor skill, dragon armor skill, elven armor skill, orcish armor skill, what-ever-armor skill, unarmored skill, half armored skill, fire magic skill, frost magic skill, schock magic skill, drain magic skill, damaging poisons skill, beneficial potions skill, attribute-changing poisons, attribute-changing potions, jumping up skill, jumping forward skill, jumping over things skill, running skill, walking skill, swiming skill, lock-pick skill, smash locks open skill, talk to dudes skill, sell-items skill, buy-items skill, summon (10 different skills), (in addition to 30 different skills of different magic stuff), sneaking in heavy gear-skill, sneaking in light gear-skill, sneaking in very light gear-skill, sneaking in medium gear-skill, reading books skill, picking flowers skill, short bow skill, long bow skill, regular bow skill, special bow skill, throwing darts skill, throwing non-darts skill, throwing you main weapon skill, enchant blades-skill, enchant blunt-skill, enchant-axe skill, enchant cholthes-skill, enchant armor skill, sleep-well-skill etc etc etc etc..?

Then no, I think they should choose the approach they have currently, one-handed skill with perks that choose what type of things you want to specialize in. Thank you.

Reconsider? They have most of what he writes about I think. Well generally speaking they have the easy get into but is sorely lacking in building complexity.
The "tutorial" is nowhere near as locked down as in Oblivion. True there is moments where information about how the game works is too much in your face, thus a "turn off tutorial" is a great thing to have.

As I play Flight simulator games I can't really relate to the hardship of learning a RPG but there really should be a complexity curve in Skyrim gameplay. Like Smithing, easy to start out with; the "tutorial" is imersive and don't break the illusion. But after learning the basics it should branch and get more complicated in execution. Same thing for all little things; maybe mods can be a way out.

One thing he didn't mention is "levelling". That is something pen and paper RPG's have mastered better. In Rolemaster you are a God at lv30.... But in whitewolf games (Vampire, Mage etc) you are still vulnerable at high levels vs low levels. The curve is too steep, the gear gets too good.

I have some ideas to make some mods to address parts of this and I think this is why PC is the only way to go on most games since very little is moddable on consoles.

Cheers!

IMO RPG games need to change their UI paradigm, and put some genuine intelligent design into it.

RPG games should be easy to play. You should be able to simply load it up, and be able to play reasonably obstruction-free straight away. And then, there should be more detail on the things you decide to concentrate on, so although the magic system might initially seem like a scroll-read away from being useable, a more indepth look will reveal that in fact you can actually craft some spells, using either other spells plus ingredients, or some other ingame mechanism. As an example.

It's about hidden complexity, the game should play OK for casual gameplay, but yield great rewards for the effort of looking & learning. How can this be done? Well it's about design. We need better designers, simply put.

Actually I think that when he says "dumbed down", he is not referring at the gameplay mechanics but at the whole structure of the game, quests and dialogues included. And he is right, in my opinion, if we take a more in-depth look to the last Beth game. I'm fine with the new character system, but I think it should be refined more in order to allow fun gameplay without forcing you to create a jack of all trades PG. A way to do this is, in my opinion, the introduction of a more serious faction system wich stimulates the players to specialize their character. This would benefit also the narrative segment, allowing developers to focus more on a good chain of quests, maybe connected each other, for each faction rather than the "fast-food" generic quests. An example for what I think should be avoided by developers is the civil war questline in Skyrim. An important event wich can shape the future of the province has almost no real consequences for the world and the PG, specially in the NPCs reactions. And so it is for the main quest and the Dark Brotherhood quest. What I ask, in the end, is something that make the choice and the climbing of the faction meaningful and rewarding for roleplay and not a way to fill some of the 100 and more hours promised.

Sure. An all cars should be easy to drive, responsive, dynamic, safe, economical, pleasant to look at and, of course, cheap.

That's just a bunch of wishful thinking. Very odd considering it comes from someone who actually makes games.

I'm sorry - but what is the purpose of this post? You're suggesting that people cannot, what, comment on things and suggest solutions? What?

I agree with most of his points, except that RPGs need to provide gratifiaction after 15-30 minutes. I don't think certain media needs to be compressed for people with less time, there are already a pletora of choices for them to spend 15-30 minutes. If I can spend 15 minutes on reading, I'd rather not pick up a complicated textbook. With that paradigm, we'd only have shortfilms. It's fine if you provide certain mechanics that can be rewarding after a few minutes (like mining, fishing, etc), but to design the game around it is a big mistake in my opinion.

That said, I think the big problem is documentation, and providing easy access to the game's mechanics via good UIs and "tutorials". Plus, the player should have a natural learning curve with increasingly dificult enemies, that require him to make use of what he already learned. By simply cutting complexity from the get-go, you make the game easy to get into, but you lose long-term enjoyment and feeling of progression. The best way would be to let the game designers make the mechanics as complex and enjoyable as they can and should be, and then find ways to teach the player without overwhelming him, so he only has to use what he wants to.

I think Pokémon is a brilliant example of a complex system that is portrayed very simply for everyone to understand.

Agreed completely. Too much time was spent in PnP D&D sessions arguing numbers, results, rules, etc. They should be transparent. I'm no mathophobe. In fact, I work numbers and logic all day long. The last thing I want to do when I come home is fret over more numbers. IMO, Skyrim's got this right, as DA kind of did too (to an extent, they could have done away with attributes). The number crunching RPGers will certainly disagree. But, here's the thing... the ONLY reason to have number-valued, user modifiable attributes/skills is so that the player can, regardless of how they're playing the character, guide that character down a path to an ultimate goal that may be in direct contrast to how the character would develop as played. This is what I love about TES. The skills you use are the ones that increase. Attributes can easily go the same route and "levelling choices" can completely forego where to put attribute points and rely on perk systems instead. Definitely that would be a total step in the right direction, IMO. For instance, spend your time reading, intelligence and/or wisdom might benefit... perks available on level up for that attribute enhancement could be very cool... for instance, language skills, be able to read Dwemer. Then you could incorporate foreign language volumes into learning new enchantments or spells or skills from previously unreadable tomes. Dex increase? Perks could be increased value or power of contructed objects, less fall damage, etc. All transparent, all becoming available as the PLAYED attribute, as played, increases. Far from taking a step backward, this eliminates dwebe number exploiters (I've PnP played with more than a few). The game becomes more immersive, you're more in-character and less fiddling with the character as a set of numbers, an automaton of algebra.

thats a problem with... the entire world atm to be honest. RPGs are just hit harder by it because investments of time and mental effort are so integral to enjoying them. they were never something meant to a be a mainstream product, so naturally you lose something when you make it mainstream. i stand by my assertion that skyrim was the best RPG it could have been given the times and its popularity.... its just that being popular in these times leaves very little room for being an RPG.

you see all these posts about people who hate everything related to numbers and generally having to think about what youre doing before doing it, and you see that these people are expecting RPGs to not be RPGs. they dont enjoy the same things the niche crowd who RPGs were made for do. they dont enjoy these games for the same reasons we do, because they were never supposed to be for them. there is no marrying RPGs with a general demographic: its like trying to make a romantic comedy horror movie. at some point, your just going to have to make it a romcom with horror elements because it doesnt work any other way. such is the case with modern RPGs: they have to be action games with RPG elements because that is the only way the genres blend. if you just make an RPG, it wont be popular, and if you just make an action game, you cant get RPG players to [censored] about how crappy an RPG it is but still buy it .

its at times like these people should think relatively; RPGs may be watered down into other genres and completely indistinct and barely existent as their own genre, but look at how the other artistic mediums are doing. compared to stephanie myer, micheal bay, and justin beiber, call of duty is a damn masterpiece .

To find out the purpose of that article.

In that case you have the purpose explained to you in the text you snipped out of my quote

You don't have to see the skill, for it to work. That is the problem. They show us lots of useless info, yet they hide important info like actual health-value, when trying to heal without wasting potions. Hmm, I have 10% health left to heal.. will that be a 25+ potion, or do I need a 150+ potion... What was my health-level at... Let me go to this other screen that shows the number, which doesn't need to show the number, since that is on the skills page, and has nothing to do with skills.

Then they simplify actions, but give you a million specific buttons to do things that should be simple...

Hot-keys that are useless. Not remembering which hand to load things, though they demand specific hands. Often they un-equip another desired item, which demands going into the menu you were trying to avoid by using the keys... EG... Failure by just adding more useless buttons, with no actions to back-up the justification for them being used in the first-place...

Then, damning PC users to console-like limitations, which shouldn't be limitations, and should not even be present. (Multiple confirmation boxes, invisible clicking areas, mouse and key scrolling that doesn't work together, left/right menu systems that could fit all on one side, and scrolling menu's that clearly already fit entirely on the screen without any indicator for lists that extend beyond the screen.)

FWIW I think Skyrim is as robust an RPG as any other RPG out there. That's my experience, and I'm a pretty serious RPer. But there are ways that they could appeal to the statisticians as well.

Really, they should design RPGs the way they design other software: with 'Advanced' tabs for advanced users. That would solve many problems. The fact is that they're using some sort of algorithm to determine things like damage, carry weight, etc., so why not just expose some of those variables as 'attributes' so that people who like to watch their progress via statistics can do so. Other people can just leave those tabs closed. They could even give players an option to reallocate some of those points when they level up. Let the game allocate them automatically and give the player an option to customize them.

The big problem is really content. Obviously everybody wants more of it, but the fact is it takes time to create. Adding spears takes time: models, animations, balancing weapons based on length, AI for using long weapons in enclosed areas, skill trees. Maybe it doesn't seem like a lot, but those things add up. Adding quests and quest branches takes time (writers, actors, recording time). Adding mounted combat would have extended development time by months, and would have been impractical for Skyrim's topology. When you're making a sprite-based game, you can add things like thrown weapons, spears, etc., because the content that goes along with it is much easier to create. The harder it is to create the content, the less you can create in the time you are given. The only way they can increase the amount of content is by hiring larger teams, which means they need to sell more units, which means they need to appeal to a broader market. The way to get more of what players want is to do exactly what Beth is doing.

What I think they need to do is make Tamriel a static world that can be upgraded indefinitely, like an MMO (but not multiplayer). Create the entire landmass and then unlock it gradually and add new features and quests as they go. At some point, they can add spears, they can add mounted combat, they can add wall climbing, etc. Release them as content packs. I know a lot of people will hate the idea of paying for content like this, but since I live in the real world and don't think products are made by angry faeries, I think it's a workable solution. I'd be happy to pay for the equivalent of first-rate mods made by the devs with perpetual product support.

And if people want more strategy, I can recommend playing Master with 100 Health. Every battle requires me to come up with a new strategy just to survive.

RPGs are dead and the game developers are to blame.

I can't really fault developers for designing their games to appeal to the masses... I CAN, however, resent them for it.

I don't see much relevance with his fundamental problem. I mean, he starts the article mentioning Might and Magic 1. Skyrim is nothing like it. M and M had zero handholding at all. If you want to be confused, play that game.

Skyrim's "instant" feel is fairly intuitive, as far as combat goes.. it's inspired by action games. I bet most people have a handle on it fairly quickly. The world itself is open, so it doesn't need to guide people along too much there. That's not the point of game.

A post someone wrote on a different forum:
"clowning posted...
As a 42 year old guy who has been gaming all my life, I can say that I do not share that feeling at all. I understand it, but I do not share it.

I think the reason I don't share it is because I loath tedium, and most of those old CRPGs were basically just tedium incarnate. There is absolutely nothing more annoying to me in games than to sit and measure how many steps can my wizard take to be in range for x spell, and how many steps my fighter needs to be away from the epicenter....blah blah. Not intelligent, not deep, just simple math and major tedium. Any child can figure out those games.

No, it's not intelligence and thinking, it's patience and slower pace. That's the difference we're really talking about. Some of these old hardcoe gamers confuse speed/pace/patience with thinking, as if thought can only occur at a snail's pace and with a ruler, pencil and graph paper at hand.

The other issue is that those "hard" games were only hard because enemies were massively over powered relative to the PCs. Probably because AI was so amazingly inferior (which it still is, unfortunately, but it is better in some games). They were also very simple in design, being more like puzzles with one or two solutions, as opposed to a game that allows for many paths to success, which is necessary for sandbox games.

This is why there's so much general disdain for "old" so-called hardcoe gamers. Their arrogance and closed minds make it hard for them to understand game evolution and to see the difference between game pace, difficulty, intelligence, puzzle-like game design, and so on."

I think that the complain of the author of that article is not about Skyrim "intuitive" feel but concerns the "superficial" feel wich arises after 80 or more hours of repetitive gameplay. There is not much to discover in the game aside from landmarks and dungeons. I.e. the quests are too much similar each other, also if played with different types of characters, so the game's replayability is crippled.



In fact I opened this topic not because I want back the good old hardcoe games but because I think that semplification in modern games is done in the wrong way, cutting off the depth of the content for a more superficial enjoyment. It's not a matter of gameplay mechanics but of general game design.

As an avid player of Dwarf Fortress, I disagree with the article on all counts. The more knobs that I have to turn, the better.