i want some of the features that new vegas has,But i am not sure about Obsidian creating a new TES :/
If bethesda just takes some ideas from them would be cool,Why cant they work together?

I'd rather play TES by Bethesda. They change enough from one installment to the other (maybe too much lately) but the presentation, the world and the production value have a particular touch that I haven't found in other games by other developers. I prefer them to keep their franchise untouched, it's one of the oldest and most appreciated that is still alive in this market. For variations on the TES theme there's always the creation kit, everybody's free to use it if they want to play other core mechanics in the universe of TES.

Are you on a PC? I'm playing Skyrim on the Xbox and my game has been clean (other than the two issues I pointed out earlier).

The reused the same engine as the 2008 game and they didn't update the graphics. That's a lot of leverage.

That sums up everything...

Yep. So thankfully I've been able to fix my issues(LAA patch before it was integrated, 64hz patch, etc). PS3 users haven't been so lucky.



Less than 2 years to design a gameworld, write out a storyboard, create new models and game mechanics, Learn an entirely new scripting language and implement everything. Leaves almost no time for QA.

Beth was able to do the design/planning/storyboard alongside the engine dev changes so that when it was done, they were ready to go and they still had 3 years to implement things(FO's engine isn't much different from Oblivions, and they had started on FO3 during production of Obliv). They also had the plus side of having developed the scripting language and knew it's capabilities.

hahah ^this!!!

I think TES should just adopt a similar system to DnD... I really thought skyrims perk system was a step down from fallout 3... ( and that was three steps down from FO2 ) have a system more RPG like.. or just screw it... and do what diablo 3 did....

I can't argue with you there.

i love invisible walls. i love them mostly due to the fact that some people don't realize that you don't get to go anywhere you want in a video game.

i also like it because the ability to go anywhere in a video game is pointless: ie. skyrim.

unless the game has climbing and carabiners you don't deserve to be able to go wherever you want. being able to go wherever serves no purpose, except, your desire to go wherever.

your issue is with the developers and their lack of including climbing or acrobatics, not, so-called, yet, realistic, invisible walls.

more 'invisible walls' please.

No. Because if Obsidian made it then it actually would have game breaking bugs. Skyrim has plenty of depth. i don't understand everyone's problem.

the problem is that obsidian makes games with rpg mechanics.

obsidian takes risks. innovation. creativity.

the problem is that obsidian can improve any game developed by any company with less money, resources and time.

what i truly beleive obsidian did right imho with vegas was how factions treated other factions, factions outfits, and the infamy/fame in paticular cities.

Skyrim doesnt really have any opposing factions like vegas did other than legion/stormcloaks, and skyrim was designed so you were never locked out of anything, unless you roleplayed it that way.

some could argue that going to solitude just to get attacked cause your stormcloak could piss off the casual gamer

Regardless of your choices, that final outcome is always the same. Big battle at the dam and the game ends with a slideshow. "Consequences" that you don't actually experience through play but are simply told about in the closing credits are neither meaningful or consequential.

The thing that bothers me about these threads is that many of the posters seem to be operating under the assumption that the writing in Bethesda games is 'bad' because the writers lack talent and that if only those brilliant writers from Company X (who are sooo good at writing that they write for video game companies instead of publishing novels) did the writing instead Bethesda games would be better. I don't take that as a given.

Obsidian was creating a different kind of game, and their writers were operating under different incentives and constraints than were the Skyrim writers.

Obsidian writers were creating 'The Big Story', which was the focus of the entire game. The game would even end when the Story did. They defined the player's role in the game for him, so they had the luxury of writing for that specific role. Since they didn't have to portray the post game consequences of the player's choices, they had a lot more freedom with regards to where the story could go as they were creating the entire world around it.

Skyrim writers had to create stories to take place in a huge, open world that persists after the completion of any given story. The player was to have the freedom to be and do what he wanted, when he wanted to do it. The stories had to be isolated from each other, and couldn't produce results that would interfere with the game's other stories. The player was to be given the freedom to tell his own story, so the writers had to create a setting to facilitate it.

Two different products catering to two different audiences with two different set of criteria for the writers to operate under. Had Skyrim writers been operating under the very different constraints of New Vegas' design choices, their stories would have turned out differently. Likewise, it's not a given that if Obsidian writers had had to create stories for a huge open world game emphasizing player freedom that the results would be any better than those achieved by the Skyrim writers.

Sykrim doesn't even have proper PC to NPC disposition, let alone faction to faction disposition. I can't remember if this was present in Oblivion, but it was in Morrowind.. e.g being in the great house Telvanni lowered your disposition with the Mages guild. It didn't lower it enough for attack on sight, but they would refuse to trade with you or deal with you if your personality and speechcraft were low. Of course personality attribute has been streamlined out now. The other option would be to cast a charm spell, but thats also been streamlined out of the illusion school.

One of my biggest criticisms of Skyrim - nothing you do makes any difference to anything really, chat options are linear, no choice and consequence. It is something FNV got right.

Invisible walls serve to create artificial barriers to direct the player to a pre-destined goal. I don't like it because I enjoy the freedom of taking any path I want to the goal. This has nothing to do with player rights. Instead it has to do with the intent of the developers to provide an unparallelled degree of freedom to the player. This is something few games are capable of pulling off. Even Bethesda has issues getting it right but they've done better than most in this regard. And while you may enjoy the restrictive nature of invisible walls, I absolutely detest the use of them in a game like this.

absolutely false. they may serve to direct pc's towards predetermined goals, but, don't inherently do anything but not allow you to go that way.

absolute 'freedom' to go wherever you want is a worthless goal, imo. your argument leads towards nothing, except, that you don't agree with the game the developers made. complain about not being able to climb, not, so-called invisible barriers.

other than not being able to go to that outcrop of rock or climb that mountain of rubble, i am able to go anywhere in fallout 3 and new vegas.

like i said, being able to go anywhere for freedoms sake serves no purpose.

i care about forced cutscenes and forced gameplay. not, the lack of being able to scale that height or go that route.

even if you get your way, no purpose is served. other than you being able to say i can go wherever i want.

freedom with no purpose is worthless and definitely not something to harp about. those invisible walls people complain about in fallout3 and newvegas, if they were gone, would serve no purpose. it's worthless complaining to the highest degree. i'd rather have a hardcoe mode or a hud options menu that workded. or, attributes. or, underwater combat. or, more balanced difficulty. or, better a.i. or, better writing. or, less repetative npc's. or, bigger cities. or, a world that evolves around the pc. or, h2h and unarmored. or, more weapons and enemy types.

Dude, you are absolutely 100% correct. One of the major attractions of the TES series since Morrowind has been the ability to go anywhere, pick up anything, attack anyone, do anything you want to. If I ran into an invisible wall in Skyrim like they have in New Vegas that would have been a possible game breaker for me. Unless it's a linear game, invisible walls are completely unacceptable (within reason). No way, invisible walls belong in games like CoD.

I'm not so much upset when a game throws in an insurmountable cliff wall or a river you can't ford because it rushes to quickly and has undercurrents or a canyon that is so deep you'd die trying to climb into it. But, invisible walls, nuh uh. I'd rather have a pop-up that says, "you can't go there".

Too bad Beth didn't even manage the kill everyone possibility, unlike Obsidian who allowed us to kill almost everyone in New Vegas, and even included a backup plan to continue the main quest if you messed up all the other routes.

Yep... One of my first tests of open world is to see if I can slay anyone in my path. More and more games are moving away from this, however. And, of course, Skyrim has children in it... whom I would never slay, even in a video game (I can get pretty evil... but not even role-playing will toss me off that cliff). So, I don't even know if you can kill the kids in this game.

But, that limitation hasn't yet bothered me in Skyrim. I haven't run across an invincible person who I really want to kill yet.

As to New Vegas, it was delightful to take out my frustrations on that bugged quest by murdering everybody in the casino... yes, that was letting off steam nicely done.

But isn't that one of the core tenets of (at least the recent) Beth games? (MW, OB, FO3, SK)
If so, this suggests that perhaps the games won't be a good fit for you, if you disagree with some of their core principles.

(as I mentioned, I prefer Fallout 3's - and other Beth games' - approach, where you can literally just go in any direction once you've left the beginning. NV strongly funnels you along the Big Plot's Route from Goodsprings to Primm to Nipton, etc. They reinforce this by putting very strong monsters in any other direction, to rip off your face if you deviate from The One True Path. Those are part of the "walls" that make the first half of the game "linear" for me. Personally, I never really noticed the invisible walls that caused so many complaints. It was the much more visible walls that I noticed.)

That too. I didn't like the hand-holding at all. I ruined it for me because I had just put down Fallout 3 after hours and hours and hours of playing it. I was giddy when I unwrapped New Vegas... just to find that they CoD'ed it. No bother, I still liked the game, but there is no denying that they literally held your hand almost all the way to The Strip.

my point is that even if there were no invisible walls, you gain nothing.

there has to be an edge to the map anyways. there will always be.

freedom to roleplay and be multiple types of characters in a rpg world is what i think of for tes. not, freedom to roam a map wherever i want.

again, i think this invisible wall hate is absolutely ridiculous. if i concede the argument you gain nothing.

'walls' or cliffs or ravines or big ass rubble piles are part of the game and don't add to the gameplay, unless, climbing is part of the mechanics.

i find it amusing that so many people think these invisible barriers are meaningful. i'm sitting on my couch playing a game on a tv with a controller in my hand. no immersion is lost with a map edge.

imo, lol.

Im pretty sure personally, (if im recalling rightly) i dont think i was forced down any of this. I cant really say how far i am in the main quest, and now im a Steel Brotherhood, and NCR who i was indifferent/possibly ally towards started killing me , so i decided to be [censored]s to them. So when i was playing I personally didnt feel railroaded

also.. wouldn't skyrim's main quest or factions quest be railroading as well? if im understanding the argument right?