I think the only game that actually gave your character some real backstory was Morrowind. "Born to uncertain parents on an uncertain day." That's about it, and that's pretty vague. It still gives the player a lot of wiggle room. The only thing that really makes it difficult is everyone calling you "Outlander." It doesn't really allow for a native-born Dunmer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WS7wWJyKagE
This pretty much explains it.

What you're saying is that you would prefer a different start. You preferring something different does not equal Beth being unimaginative. It should be apparent that the games starting the player off as a prisoner is a very deliberate, conscious decision on the part of Beth for the purpose of the tradition and cohesion of their series.

hahaha, at which have I said I would prefer a different start? That is an assumption on your part.

If I was to complain about anything, it would be the fact that your adventure starts off before the main problem has even begun. In Oblivion, the gates didn't start opening until a certain point (I forgot what point, though) and in Skyrim, dragons don't start appearing until you've returned the Dragonstone. Why not start the game when the problem is at it's worst?

I don't mind starting out as a prisoner. It's kind of a "tradition" now, as mentioned above.


But in Oblivion you could just save at the end of the tutorial. Then load that save and completely change your character to start a new game. You can't do that in Skyrim. In other words, without mods Oblivion allows you to skip the entire tutorial, and Skyrim forces it on you.

You can skip the cart ride, though. Just save before character creation and already you can get control of your character within minutes of creating them

You are criticizing the start of game where the player is generated as a prisoner. Are you saying you disapprove of it, but don't want it to be different?

Skyrim is an RPG, so there has to be an option for players who don't want to be the Dovahkiin to side step starting the main quest. Starting the game in the middle of the MQ would rule out the option for those players.

Edit: There's a permanent auto-save after the intro so you can always go back and start a new character without the intro cinematic.

It's tradition I assume, and I kind of like it. It lets you think on your backstory and why you're in prison etc.

I wasn't criticising the way we start. I mean, yeah it would be nice to start off as something other than a prisoner, but I have never said it was a big problem. Have you actually been reading my comments at all?

I have no problem with the way Skyrim starts, it's just a little too much like Oblivion as far as story progression goes. And I know you're going to take that the wrong way, just like you have with everything else I have said so I'll try and explain.

- You start the game as a prisoner in both. Other than that, the world is pretty calm (excluding Alduin's attack at Helgen because it's a one off dragon encounter)
- You ignore the MQ, you see no gates or dragons.
- You play the main quest and not far into the MQ gates/dragons start appearing
- You progress further into the MQ and gates/dragons become more frequent.

I can't speak for Arena, Daggerfall or Morrowind because I haven't played them.

I fail to see the relevence of your comment about the auto-save before character creation... and it's not permanent, I don't have an Autosave at the bottom of my saved game lists, I had to create the save myself.

I understand what you're saying about wanting more diversity at the beginning of the games, but I think they're purposely set up like that to give a wider range of players more freedom. It's pretty much just The Elder Scrolls Formula. You have a set-up that establishes the problem, the Main Quest progresses and more wacky things begin to happen to the point where you know Tamriel's in deep doo-doo, then you resolve the problem and everybody goes on with their lives.

At the beginning of Oblivion, That right there is the problem that sets off the crisis that throws you into adventure. A dragon attacking Helgen is still a dragon loose in the world, just because everything seems calm and you don't start encountering random dragons until after the first couple of MQ quests. It's not like you're just randomly released from prison for no apparent reason, then coincidentally funky things start happening shortly after you're released.

Morrowind was pretty much like that, too, though there was really no major crisis that set everything off as soon as you get off the boat. Arena gave you a crisis with Daggerfall, I don't really remember. I think you're actually sent by the Emperor to check out a problem with the nobles or something. Even Redguard starts out with the problem of Cyrus' sister.

The "main problem" is always established right from the intro, but I think some of the reasons that you're not thrown right into dragons and Gates from the start is: To build up the story. To let the player get acclimated to the game before tossing things like dragons at him. And to also allow the player to completely ignore the Main Quest if they choose to RP in a relatively calm world. That's the thing that makes TES playable in so many different ways. They're not linear games, and I think the current formula is a good way to give the player more freedom to do what he wants. You have the option to ignore the Main Quests completely without really feeling like you're just screwing around while Daedra swarm, dragons terrorize, and the world falls apart around you. And if you want the crisis at its height, it usually only takes three or four fairly simple quests to get things rolling.

I prefer it that way. Lets me start my character with a clean slate.

Let me just clarify, I don't actually have a problem with the current formula. I mean, yeah it would be nice to have some diversity, but it's not a big deal. I can just see where others are coming from aand adding to their "arguments".

When I mentioned the crisis being at it's worse, I meant that there would be nothing wrong with having your character dumped right into the middle of it. Well, not for those that wouldn't mind it, but then I guess that would leave it open for people to complain about it.

In Morrowind, you were imprisoned by the Emperor to fulfill the Nerevarine prophecy and defeat the Tribunal so that the Empire could control Morrowind easier. It sort of just became tradition after that.

I would absolutely hate that. One of the defining features of the Elder Scrolls series is that we can ignore their main quests. Shoving the problem in our faces right from the beginning goes contrary to the spirit of the Elder Scrolls series.

One of the things I most disliked about Oblivion's main quest was the attempt to manufacture a sense of urgency and shove it in our faces. The longer we dawdle the more Oblivion gates disfigure the land. That was a horrible, lazy way to introduce urgency, in my opinion. Skyrim does it better and, for my money, Morrowind did it best. Morrowind's main quest was a mystery. It revealed itself gradually. That was interesting to me. That sense of mystery intrigued me, made me want to move through the quest to find out what this was all about.

What I do not want is a main quest that feels like a Steven Segal action movie, throwing me immediately into cataclysmic events whether I want them in my game or not.

Ok, fair enough. I would amend the idea of having the main crisis in full swing to say something like a taster of what's to come in the main quest, but then that just takes us back to the start of Skyrim and the Helgen attack being a taster of what's to come in the MQ. I guess the start of Skyrim is actually pretty close to what I was thinking anyway, so I withdraw the idea.

The Overseer? I remember the first time I played fallout when I finally got the chance to shoot that guy it felt good. I ended up killing everyone in the vault except his daughter and the leader of the tunnel rats and his drunken mother. They did a good job with that opening.

in skyrim, u got caught crossing the border into skyrim.
If im not mistaken wasnt it also the same in oblivion. Coulda sworn I remember them saying something to that effect in the game on my nord. I dunno, I could be wrong.

Accusing the Devs of having a lack of imagination is criticism. And it is completely irrelevant criticism because imagination has nothing to do with the reason the game starts the player off as a prisoner.



Not sure why you don't have the perma auto save, but you do need to have auto saves enabled for the game to generate it.
To answer your question, yes I have read all of the posts in this thread, and it seems to me that those who don't like the idea of starting out as a prisoner would prefer to start out as something else, which is fine, but since starting out as a prisoner has become something of a staple in TES it's unlikely that they will break the tradition.

Since it's an RPG the player can decide just about everything else for themselves, and they can place as much emphasis on the prisoner thing as they wish. They can RP that they were a hardened criminal, or that someone slipped their lawful good character a mickey in a tavern and the next thing they knew was waking up as a prisoner. It relies on player imagination, and I am a player that appreciates that the game doesn't determine any of my background for me. If I want to be an orphan, or have been exiled, or have been in a brawl, I can add those elements myself and don't have to rely on Bethesda to tell me which of those things happened.

I believe that the player's input will determine how much they will get out of a role playing game like Skyrim. You can just climb on for the ride and get your 50 hours, or you can invest something of yourself and get more. Even if being a prisoner wasn't traditional I'd still prefer this sketchy, anonymous, underdog start to the game so I can fill in the blanks myself, and feel the contrast between the start of the game and end game.

Look at this way:

being a prisoner doesn't involve too many explanations on the player's past,so its easy make any new character and choose the race you want

Personally,i don't care if i start as a prisoner or not; but i want more depth and real freedom in the choices i made,and plausible consequences.

Firstly, you took it out of context. The moment you did that, your argument became void. Though I suppose there was no need for me to involve Bethesda in that.

Secondly, I have three auto-saves but none of them are at the start. And quit assuming I don't like the idea of starting as a prisoner. Yeah, it would be nice to start off as something else, but it's not something that is going to stop me from getting the next TES.

I've been playing RPGs since before I can remember, it's my favourite genre. I have also been RPing for about 15 years. I am fully capable of working a prisoner into my characters story. If I don't think it will fit my character, like my current play through, I ignore the intro and start the game on my own terms. Obviously I went through the intro, but after that I completely ignored the fact that I started off as a prisoner.

So what I came up with a few ideas of how they could've started it? That doesn't mean I detest the way it starts or am incapable of coming up with a story myself. Quit getting on at me just because I am capable of seeing things from boths sides where you are not.

Ok,but there's no need to get angry so fast or to altercate for a simple thing like this

Only the first 3 lines of my post were directed at you.

My apologies, none of that post was directed at you.


With that in mind, I reread your post and it still read the same to me. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and withdraw hostility that may have come came across.

No need for apologies,i had understand that but still try to don't "fight" among you for such a little argument/incomprehension

lol, it wasn't intended to be a fight. I actually saw it as a disagreement that went too far due to misunderstandings on both sides; Abrinth for misunderstanding my opinion of the prisoner starts and me for misunderstanding his last post, though I probably misunderstood before then.

But back on topic. If the next game starts us off as a prisoner I'm not buying it (I will buy it, because that would actually be a pathetic reason to not buy it). I actually think it will be interesting to see how they pull it off next time.