What is the point in having multiple races when your choice : V - Skyrim

» Mon Jun 18, 2012 1:52 pm

Like Morrowind and Fallout 2, yes I agree it should've been setup like that. Have the important people like Esbern, Jarls, Delphine, Dragons, etc be voiced, have NPC's that aren't really important not voiced. Some would argue, breaking of immersion, others would scream freedom. If we had that system in place I believe more options could be added in roleplay but I doubt Beth will ever do this and hell the way the video game media is they would criticize this instead of praising it.

I would be happy if the NPCs didn't voice everything if it meant more freedom for more diverse dialogue.

I really liked the Great Houses of Morrowind, it would be nice to have something faction based like that where the groups could not get along and you must choose one.

I would like more than four faction and I too agree on some you must pick one or the other.

Yeah, it would be interesting if, because you were in the Mage's Guild, the Companions wouldn't accept you, or let you go very far.

» Tue Jun 19, 2012 2:43 am

I also saw another idea on the board that I liked, but it was posted much earlier so I can't find it. Making it so that skills that the races are specialized in (i.e. magic skills for elves; melee combat for Orcs; etc) can go above 100 really helps in immersion. The poster also suggested having special perks for the race, which I also agreed with. Perhaps an Orc who reached 150 or 175 in one-handed would be able to do a kill animation where they bit off someone's neck, in true beast fashion. Or maybe a High Elf who reached 150 or 175 in destruction magic would gain access to a set of special "High Elf only" spell list which is lore-friendly. To make it even more special, skills would take 2x longer to level past 100. That way, an Orc with 200 in one-handed can have some really OP perks because he's just that good.

I think your scale goes too high. Other than that I think it's a very good idea.

I really liked the Great Houses of Morrowind, it would be nice to have something faction based like that where the groups could not get along and you must choose one.

I would like more than four faction and I too agree on some you must pick one or the other.

Yes. In Skyrim we have the civil war, so I think they tried to address the issue a bit, but it's nowhere near as good as Morrowind's Great Houses were.

On the topic of character individuality, being able to smash your way through the Thieves' and Mages' Guild questlines as a heavy armored two handed warrior is kind of lame. I would like to actually be forced to be a fighter, a mage, or a thief to be successful in their respective guilds. I think Beth had the right idea in Morrowind requiring proficiency in certain skill sets, as well as adequate contribution to the guild, to advance through the ranks.

» Mon Jun 18, 2012 11:36 pm

I definitely agree with you. I even feel that perhaps the player should be allowed to pick one of his major or minor skills upon creation and designate it as their true specialty which might give it an initial boost and perhaps an additional % to experience gained in it.

I agree with this also, however I would not be against TES taking a page from BioWare in terms of KotoR, Jade Empire, and Mass Effect, or even Pokemon, where you may need multiple playthroughs just to get everything.

I don't agree with the "true specialty" idea because that makes it more like Oblivion, which was a garbage system (had to pick your major skills as MINOR skills so that you wouldn't level up too fast and get [censored] by every scaling enemy in the game). If they implemented something like that, I'd want the skill to also count 9/10 towards leveling up, to balance out the bonus you get from leveling the skill itself (i.e. getting up to 70 in one-handed gives you less experience level-wise than getting up to 70 in smithing, assuming smithing is not a "true specialty", to counteract the scaling effect of the +1% experience for one-handed). That way, you can max out your skills and get all the related perks without having to get perks in other skills and thus damaging your overall character layout (if, for example, I max out one-handed with your "true specialty" bonus, then I'd have leftover perks from leveling to distribute in other disciplines, which is something you want to get away from when roleplaying).

As for taking ideas from Bioware, I want Bethesda to use the old mindset of Bioware (the pre-Dragon Age 2 mindset - the mindset that actually made good RPG games).

» Mon Jun 18, 2012 10:40 am

I don't agree with the "true specialty" idea because that makes it more like Oblivion, which was a garbage system (had to pick your major skills as MINOR skills so that you wouldn't level up too fast and get [censored] by every scaling enemy in the game). If they implemented something like that, I'd want the skill to also count 9/10 towards leveling up, to balance out the bonus you get from leveling the skill itself (i.e. getting up to 70 in one-handed gives you less experience level-wise than getting up to 70 in smithing, assuming smithing is not a "true specialty", to counteract the scaling effect of the +1% experience for one-handed). That way, you can max out your skills and get all the related perks without having to get perks in other skills and thus damaging your overall character layout (if, for example, I max out one-handed with your "true specialty" bonus, then I'd have leftover perks from leveling to distribute in other disciplines, which is something you want to get away from when roleplaying).

As for taking ideas from Bioware, I want Bethesda to use the old mindset of Bioware (the pre-Dragon Age 2 mindset - the mindset that actually made good RPG games).

Are you inside my head right now?

» Mon Jun 18, 2012 10:19 am

Being able to choose which race you play is just another superflous feature that needs to be axed from future games, am I right guys?

This point has probably already been made but I don't feel like reading through eight pages of text.

Anyways, was that sarcasm? Most people choose the race for appearance. It's for the RPing part of the experience.

» Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:39 pm

You don't want inherent restrictions, as you think the player should restrict themselves, but like the Great Houses, and like that the player must choose?

Self-imposed restrictions are a crutch. If the game cannot give you proper feedback to what you're doing (including what race you select), then it's failing. If you don't spec into magic skills, then you shouldn't be expected to get far in the College of Winterhold. If you play a Khajiit, city-goers should be extra-suspicious of you. Etc.

You should rstrict yourself based on class and race and how you want to play. The game should restrict you faction wise. If you join the College you cannot join the Companions. You should also be limited by your skills in advancement threw the guild and you should get some great reward at the end, and people should recognize you are the leader of that guild.

Yeah, it would be interesting if, because you were in the Mage's Guild, the Companions wouldn't accept you, or let you go very far.

I would like that, but I wish we had more factions for options sake ten would be a good number.

Yes. In Skyrim we have the civil war, so I think they tried to address the issue a bit, but it's nowhere near as good as Morrowind's Great Houses were.

On the topic of character individuality, being able to smash your way through the Thieves' and Mages' Guild questlines as a heavy armored two handed warrior is kind of lame. I would like to actually be forced to be a fighter, a mage, or a thief to be successful in their respective guilds. I think Beth had the right idea in Morrowind requiring proficiency in certain skill sets, as well as adequate contribution to the guild, to advance through the ranks.

Its a step up from Oblivion but its still behind Morrowind.

You should be able to go threw the College as a battlemage.

But I agree you should be at a certain skill level to advance, it makes no sense a thief can be arch mage. I would like a skill requirement before you advance your rank. See above.

» Mon Jun 18, 2012 11:12 pm

pointless spam removed

» Tue Jun 19, 2012 12:52 am

You should be able to go threw the College as a battlemage.

Of course. I didn't make my point well; to complete Mage Guild missions, and advance in the Guild, I should be forced to rely on the use of magic to a larger extent than I am in Skyrim. Ditto for all guilds.

» Mon Jun 18, 2012 5:22 pm

Are you inside my head right now? :biggrin:

xD You seem to be one of the more sensible posters on here. A lot of people's posts tend to be... *shudder*

But anyways,

@Otheral, having more factions means less depth for each faction. I think the current number is fine, but just have Bethesda make them deeper. If there were 10 factions and they had the same depth as the current factions, then I wouldn't have much cause to complain because then Bethesda's at least giving us options. As for restrictions, I do think the game should restrict the player as to what he or she can do. Some will say it takes away from the roleplay aspect, but for me it actually improves it. Fallout: NV is a good example of that: if I joined the NCR, I got locked out from a ton of side quests concerning the Legion, Mr. House, and the Powder Gangers, but the NCR's in-depth quest line more than made up for that loss. You should be forced to give-and-take in RPGs, because that makes the game more impactful and more fun for the gamer.

» Mon Jun 18, 2012 10:20 am

Of course. I didn't make my point well; to complete Mage Guild missions, and advance in the Guild, I should be forced to rely on the use of magic to a larger extent than I am in Skyrim. Ditto for all guilds.

Yes their specialty should be your focus that is the crux of the guild and you should be skilled in that if you wish to advance.

» Mon Jun 18, 2012 7:00 pm

@Otheral, having more factions means less depth for each faction. I think the current number is fine, but just have Bethesda make them deeper. If there were 10 factions and they had the same depth as the current factions, then I wouldn't have much cause to complain because then Bethesda's at least giving us options. As for restrictions, I do think the game should restrict the player as to what he or she can do. Some will say it takes away from the roleplay aspect, but for me it actually improves it. Fallout: NV is a good example of that: if I joined the NCR, I got locked out from a ton of side quests concerning the Legion, Mr. House, and the Powder Gangers, but the NCR's in-depth quest line more than made up for that loss. You should be forced to give-and-take in RPGs, because that makes the game more impactful and more fun for the gamer.

I can see your above point but in Skyrim the factions are quite shallow an do not offer much depth, if we had ten factions with the current depth of the factions I would be more impressed. In this game I just feel the factions have all been watered down.

You should be restricted on some factions but not all of them. There should also be a meaningful reason as to why you are restricted. I do wish we had more meaningful consequences in this game, also if the game had more time in development they could have better fleshed out the factions than they have. I also agree in the give and take statement you have made.

» Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:08 pm

xD You seem to be one of the more sensible posters on here. A lot of people's posts tend to be... *shudder*

But anyways,

@Otheral, having more factions means less depth for each faction. I think the current number is fine, but just have Bethesda make them deeper. If there were 10 factions and they had the same depth as the current factions, then I wouldn't have much cause to complain because then Bethesda's at least giving us options. As for restrictions, I do think the game should restrict the player as to what he or she can do. Some will say it takes away from the roleplay aspect, but for me it actually improves it. Fallout: NV is a good example of that: if I joined the NCR, I got locked out from a ton of side quests concerning the Legion, Mr. House, and the Powder Gangers, but the NCR's in-depth quest line more than made up for that loss. You should be forced to give-and-take in RPGs, because that makes the game more impactful and more fun for the gamer.

Lol thanks.

On topic:
I have stated that, if not restrictions for guilds (although I would like this), I think the game should be more... reactionary to what you do in guilds.

For instance, the Brotherhood and the Thieves' Guild have ties to one another. If you reach Listener status, and then Leader status of the Brotherhood then go join the Thieves' Guild, why on Earth should they have you play henchmen and shake people down for money by breaking their pot or stealing their statue? It makes no sense.

» Mon Jun 18, 2012 7:34 pm

That is where the player should control their compulsion to do everything in one play threw. You should limit yourself, and develop your character the way you want and you create your own restrictions. Thats does not mean hey I am going to be the best at everything, you set and follow your characters goals.

Why do you care how others play the game?If you are into multiple playthroughs you can.I like to have a main that does it all.

I made a point earlier about people confusing "known for" as "limited to".An Orc is quite capable of becoming as good a mage as a Breton.The Breton may start off with a greater understanding of magic than the orc but the ceiling for both should be the same.

» Mon Jun 18, 2012 2:05 pm

I can see your above point but in Skyrim the factions are quite shallow an do not offer much depth, if we had ten factions with the current depth of the factions I would be more impressed. In this game I just feel the factions have all been watered down.

You should be restricted on some factions but not all of them. There should also be a meaningful reason as to why you are restricted. I do wish we had more meaningful consequences in this game, also if the game had more time in development they could have better fleshed out the factions than they have. I also agree in the give and take statement you have made.

Well restricting the player from factions doesn't require that much coding change. Really, all you have to do is come up with a legitimate reason:

Companions vs. College: If you join the Companions, the College will shun you because they're afraid that you're out to kill. If you join the College, the Companions will call you a milk-drinker and say that you don't deserve to fight if you use magic.
Companions vs. Thieves/Brotherhood: Companions will shun you because you joined dishonorable guilds. Conversely, Thieves/Brotherhood will shun you because they view you as too idealistic and "good" for their levels.

Something like that would suffice. I also like Eric's idea of combining faction quests. Perhaps making an alternate Thieves Guild entrance quest for if you were known to be the Dark Brotherhood's Listener would suffice, and vise-versa. You shouldn't be forced to do every quest like you're an unknown person. You're a Dovakiin! People should respect that and give you quests worth undertaking. Conversely, people should be jealous about that and give you harder quests just to push you.

» Tue Jun 19, 2012 12:52 am

The Breton may start off with a greater understanding of magic than the orc but the ceiling for both should be the same.

No, it shouldn't. Or at least not as easily as it is.

If the ceiling is exactly the same then why pick one over the other if they can both get to the same end point in the same way with almost the same ease?

It's like that Light Armor vs Heavy Armor debate when perks are brought in. What's the point of picking Light Armor if you can negate all the negatives of Heavy Armor via perks? What's the point of picking Heavy Armor when you can bolster Light Armor to be equal to it?

» Mon Jun 18, 2012 10:41 pm

Why do you care how others play the game?If you are into multiple playthroughs you can.I like to have a main that does it all.

I made a point earlier about people confusing "known for" as "limited to".An Orc is quite capable of becoming as good a mage as a Breton.The Breton may start off with a greater understanding of magic than the orc but the ceiling for both should be the same.

You misunderstand, I never once said I care how others play the game, I was making a point that if its an issue for you or anybody on here about what you can and cannot do restrict yourself. Its a tip I am not demanding anybody play a certain way do not take it that way. I was just making the point to restrict yourself to make it more fun if that does not work for you my friend and you want to do everything do it. I too make somebody to do everything then I restrict myself on them.

You should be able to make any race whatever you want, advancement in magic for an Orc however should not be as easy as an Altmer but it could still very well be done.

» Mon Jun 18, 2012 10:14 pm

Well restricting the player from factions doesn't require that much coding change. Really, all you have to do is come up with a legitimate reason:

Companions vs. College: If you join the Companions, the College will shun you because they're afraid that you're out to kill. If you join the College, the Companions will call you a milk-drinker and say that you don't deserve to fight if you use magic.
Companions vs. Thieves/Brotherhood: Companions will shun you because you joined dishonorable guilds. Conversely, Thieves/Brotherhood will shun you because they view you as too idealistic and "good" for their levels.

Something like that would suffice. I also like Eric's idea of combining faction quests. Perhaps making an alternate Thieves Guild entrance quest for if you were known to be the Dark Brotherhood's Listener would suffice, and vise-versa. You shouldn't be forced to do every quest like you're an unknown person. You're a Dovakiin! People should respect that and give you quests worth undertaking. Conversely, people should be jealous about that and give you harder quests just to push you.

"I would like to be a Companion."

"Good to hear. Hey you're that guy who killed the Dragon over at the West Tower, right?"

"Yes, that's me."

"Okay good. Please now go rough up that old man for us so you can prove your worth."

"What...?"

"You're new blood, you have to prove yourself."

"But I killed a drag--"

"Prove yourself."

» Mon Jun 18, 2012 5:19 pm

No, it shouldn't. Or at least not as easily as it is.

If the ceiling is exactly the same then why pick one over the other if they can both get to the same end point in the same way with almost the same ease?

It's like that Light Armor vs Heavy Armor debate when perks are brought in. What's the point of picking Light Armor if you can negate all the negatives of Heavy Armor via perks? What's the point of picking Heavy Armor when you can bolster Light Armor to be equal to it?

Actually, if the ceiling is the same then the Breton is at a disadvantage compared to the Orc, because he caps earlier than the Orc character. That is why I said earlier that races should be able to go above 100 based on their lore traits. Bretons can max out at like 150 or 175 using magic-related skills, and Orcs can max out at 150 or 175 using melee combat skills. This way, having an initial advantage in skill points doesn't bite you in the ass later with an earlier skill cap, which then forces you to invest in other skills to reach the maximum level and therefore breaks the game's immersion factor.

As for the light vs. heavy armor debate, I always felt that light armor should never be able to reach the maximum armor cap (if anything, it should only reach up to half of the maximum armor cap, even with smithing bonuses) and heavy armor should never be able to negate the bonuses of light armor. Medium armor should've been kept with its own skill tree that allows it to develop into a jack-of-all trades armor (i.e. it can reach up to 3/4 the maximum armor cap and is more stealthy than heavy armor, but not as much as light armor). As it is, heavy armor is the way to go because you can reach the armor cap much sooner and negate all the positives of light armor with some perks (light armor can do the reverse, but it takes much longer).

» Mon Jun 18, 2012 1:47 pm

I just want more reaction from NPCs based on my race. Despite being a Dunmer, Ulfric Stormcloak talked to me like a was one of his Nordic warriors.

The Stormcloaks always made a point of calling my Argonian a lizard and other stuff. Theres some asides, but if you join the Stormcloaks and act as one of his warriors, he should eventually be treating you as such.

One thing I noticed with my Nord, is every person who does comment, insists I'm a foreigner, despite their being a 80% (higher?) shot that any Nord would be from Skyrim

» Tue Jun 19, 2012 2:22 am

Well restricting the player from factions doesn't require that much coding change. Really, all you have to do is come up with a legitimate reason:

Companions vs. College: If you join the Companions, the College will shun you because they're afraid that you're out to kill. If you join the College, the Companions will call you a milk-drinker and say that you don't deserve to fight if you use magic.
Companions vs. Thieves/Brotherhood: Companions will shun you because you joined dishonorable guilds. Conversely, Thieves/Brotherhood will shun you because they view you as too idealistic and "good" for their levels.

Something like that would suffice. I also like Eric's idea of combining faction quests. Perhaps making an alternate Thieves Guild entrance quest for if you were known to be the Dark Brotherhood's Listener would suffice, and vise-versa. You shouldn't be forced to do every quest like you're an unknown person. You're a Dovakiin! People should respect that and give you quests worth undertaking. Conversely, people should be jealous about that and give you harder quests just to push you.

I agree with that no idea why its been a problem for Bethesda.

I also like that and its something else I am curious why Bethesda has not addressed more in depth world interactions. But for some if you are a art of one guild in would be great to either undermine one guild to join another. It would also be interesting to prove you would not harm the guild is do something that would prove your loyalty to the guild and do whatever they ask of you so you can join them if your part of another. There is just so many unexplored options.

» Mon Jun 18, 2012 11:31 am

As for the light vs. heavy armor debate, I always felt that light armor should never be able to reach the maximum armor cap (if anything, it should only reach up to half of the maximum armor cap, even with smithing bonuses) and heavy armor should never be able to negate the bonuses of light armor. Medium armor should've been kept with its own skill tree that allows it to develop into a jack-of-all trades armor (i.e. it can reach up to 3/4 the maximum armor cap and is more stealthy than heavy armor, but not as much as light armor). As it is, heavy armor is the way to go because you can reach the armor cap much sooner and negate all the positives of light armor with some perks (light armor can do the reverse, but it takes much longer).

Agree with you on the armor and on the medium armor, it needs to be a balance of light and heavy.

» Tue Jun 19, 2012 12:15 am

I mean apart from starting stats and bonuses racial choice means nothing, I mean the racist Nord will still call your Dark Elf a brother in arms and the Thalmor will still recognise your High Elf as scum, the Dark Elf will hold no grudge against your Argonian while you Khajiit will be allowed free roam of the cities while the rest of your race wait outside in the cold, if racial choice means nothing then why offer a choice at all?

Being able to choose which race you play is just another superflous feature that needs to be axed from future games, am I right guys?

Even if you believe racial choice means nothing why should Bethesda limit racial choices and character creation for others? If you feel you don't get the best experience out of your game playing as an Argonian or whatever else then JUST create a human character. YOU can make the choice to do this and other people can make the choice to do otherwise. Why ruin a game for everyone over such a petty complaint?

» Mon Jun 18, 2012 4:40 pm

Actually, if the ceiling is the same then the Breton is at a disadvantage compared to the Orc, because he caps earlier than the Orc character. That is why I said earlier that races should be able to go above 100 based on their lore traits. Bretons can max out at like 150 or 175 using magic-related skills, and Orcs can max out at 150 or 175 using melee combat skills. This way, having an initial advantage in skill points doesn't bite you in the ass later with an earlier skill cap, which then forces you to invest in other skills to reach the maximum level and therefore breaks the game's immersion factor.

As for the light vs. heavy armor debate, I always felt that light armor should never be able to reach the maximum armor cap (if anything, it should only reach up to half of the maximum armor cap, even with smithing bonuses) and heavy armor should never be able to negate the bonuses of light armor. Medium armor should've been kept with its own skill tree that allows it to develop into a jack-of-all trades armor (i.e. it can reach up to 3/4 the maximum armor cap and is more stealthy than heavy armor, but not as much as light armor). As it is, heavy armor is the way to go because you can reach the armor cap much sooner and negate all the positives of light armor with some perks (light armor can do the reverse, but it takes much longer).

I think I mentioned earlier that I definitely agree with you about the higher cap for different skills based on race. I also agree that the Breton would be at a disadvantage, however I guess I was pushing a method more of like Breton can hit 100, Orc can hit 75-80 rather than your extended cap system.

Also agree on the armor, one perk I feel really negates the whole choice between Light/Heavy is Heavy Armor's perk that makes it completely weightless when wearing it. I think that completely shatters the weight (no pun intended) of the choice between the two.

For the Guilds... I just had an evil idea inspired by the Drow...

Why can't you kill your way to the top?

» Mon Jun 18, 2012 2:32 pm

No, it shouldn't. Or at least not as easily as it is.

If the ceiling is exactly the same then why pick one over the other if they can both get to the same end point in the same way with almost the same ease?

It's like that Light Armor vs Heavy Armor debate when perks are brought in. What's the point of picking Light Armor if you can negate all the negatives of Heavy Armor via perks? What's the point of picking Heavy Armor when you can bolster Light Armor to be equal to it?

Because in both cases it does not matter how you finish, it matters how you start.
Just because near end game both armors are virtually the same with perks early game they are not.

or in other words It's the journey not the destination

» Mon Jun 18, 2012 8:59 pm

Because in both cases it does not matter how you finish, it matters how you start.
Just because near end game both armors are virtually the same with perks early game they are not.

or in other words It's the journey not the destination

Your advancement should not be as fast for an Orsimer mage as it would say a Breton but they should both be viable completely viable.