I really hope that you get more choices in Skyrim, I mean in Oblivion you could do EVERYTHING. You were the king of thieves, Cyrodill's most infamous murderer and at the same time you were its most noble fighter and its most powerful wizard. I mean damn, that's cool, but it's also a bit ridiculous. I would much prefer that you actually choose your path of good and evil and along the quests you have choices, it's not just do what the quest says or don't advance. Like when Lucien orders you to kill the brotherhood I would've loved to have sided with them over Lucien any day of the week and take the consequences. Personally I'm not a fable fan, but it does base a lot more on your choices than almost any other game, and I wish the Elder scrolls would adopt that. If nothing else it would create a bit more replay value.
Oblivion's Quality on Roles really was messed up. Like Ush said in his Review, you get to be the Master of Thieves, Mages, Fighters, Murderers, and it's just a bit ridiculous. What were you before that? A prisoner. I mean honestly, I'm not saying that you shouldn't be able to achieve great things but you can be the absolute best of everything. I would have settled for like Commander of the Fighters Guild or to be on the High Council of the Mages Guild. I wouldn't mind being 2nd in Command of the Thieves Guild, but being able to be the best of everything is just kind of lame.
My guess is that Skyrim will be worse but I'll still give it a shot. My estimate for it right now. 7/10.
I have no problem with becoming the best at something, that's what happens in most games, the problem I have is that your character has no personality. In an actual roleplay environment your character should have some personality. You're good, or evil, or somewhere inbetween, you need some decision to define your character. That's nonexistent in oblivion. No good and decent knight who was fighting to protect the people of Cyrodill would turn around and murder those same people. 😬
Originally posted by General_IrohWell, you know, it may have something to do with if Mehrunes Dagon was not stopped, all of Mundus would be fiery ash, and he would be dead.
Why would he unless it benefited him? An assassin who kills only for money obviously puts no stake on human life. So why would he work to protect it?
Originally posted by General_Iroh
I have no problem with becoming the best at something, that's what happens in most games, the problem I have is that your character has no personality. In an actual roleplay environment your character should have some personality. You're good, or evil, or somewhere inbetween, you need some decision to define your character. That's nonexistent in oblivion. No good and decent knight who was fighting to protect the people of Cyrodill would turn around and murder those same people. 😬
A frequent criticism of truly sandbox-style games. It's not for everyone.
Hell, for example, not only was Daggerfall's main character personality-less, but the main plot was lacking as well (Oblivion at least has a coherent and reasonably epic main storyline). Yet it was an amazing game. It's more about what you make of it than expecting to play a fully polished game. The appeal is becoming head of everything, having a gigantic posh room at the top of a guild tower (a favorite of mine from the Mages Guild quest chain), becoming an unstoppable thief that amasses wealth and property (essentially what I did in Daggerfall, plotlines be damned), etc. etc. That stuff was cool. Figuring out how to cure my accidentally-gotten lycanthropy was awesome, by researching lore and following an insane quest chain (also Daggerfall). Mixing and matching potions and spells for my specific needs in the game was stimulating and fun. The game itself was lacking, sure, but it was MY game. That's the inherent appeal of the ES series.
Balancing could be better though. Casters were trash in Oblivion. I don't mind swinging a sword until the cows come home, but it was a definite area in need of improvement.
I don't think they should restrict those choices. I liked that I had the freedom to be all those things in Oblivion. I don't think there's a rule in any guild that prevents that.
I could see a problem if both guilds had the same interest, but that is why the guilds exist (to monopolize their respective fields so that no non-imperially chattered organization competes with them on their specialities).
Now if you could join the BlackWood company (not just while undercover) and the splinter Necromancers there would definitely be conflicts of interest.
While I personally only became fighters guild and mages guild in my primary playthrough (role played a sorceror knight), it was nice to play around with becoming tops in every guild with my 2nd playthrough.
As far as personality goes, that should be up to the player, you have the options in dialogue, factions etc to determine what your PC's personality will be. I think restricting things would be a step back in terms of the simulation aspect of these games.
Originally posted by Digi
A frequent criticism of truly sandbox-style games. It's not for everyone. Hell, for example, not only was Daggerfall's main character personality-less, but the main plot was lacking as well (Oblivion at least has a coherent and reasonably epic main storyline). Yet it was an amazing game. It's more about what you make of it than expecting to play a fully polished game.
Oblivion's story was quite epic and the leaders of the Mythic Dawn were interesting. It was more epic than Morrowind (epic as in a conflict was enormous, affecting the whole world). Morrowind certainly had a more tight neat story, it just wasn't as epic with respect to Tamriel and beyond.
Originally posted by AllanklesIt is true that stakes were not as high, Dagoth Ur was not as great a threat as Mehrunes Dagon.
Oblivion's story was quite epic and the leaders of the Mythic Dawn were interesting. It was more epic than Morrowind (epic as in a conflict was enormous, affecting the whole world). Morrowind certainly had a more tight neat story, it just wasn't as epic with respect to Tamriel and beyond.
That said, I generally preferred the plot and overall moral ambiguity of Morrowind.
Originally posted by Allankles
I don't think they should restrict those choices. I liked that I had the freedom to be all those things in Oblivion. I don't think there's a rule in any guild that prevents that.I could see a problem if both guilds had the same interest, but that is why the guilds exist (to monopolize their respective fields so that no non-imperially chattered organization competes with them on their specialities).
Now if you could join the BlackWood company (not just while undercover) and the splinter Necromancers there would definitely be conflicts of interest.
While I personally only became fighters guild and mages guild in my primary playthrough (role played a sorceror knight), it was nice to play around with becoming tops in every guild with my 2nd playthrough.
As far as personality goes, that should be up to the player, you have the options in dialogue, factions etc to determine what your PC's personality will be. I think restricting things would be a step back in terms of the simulation aspect of these games.
I understand the point of some people just wanting to be the head of all the guilds at the end of the day, but I don't think there's any real argument that you could make for your character having an actual personality. The options in dialogue are complete crap, not even close to anything like Dragon age or KOTOR. And I'm not sure what factions you're referring to, unless you're talking about guilds? But even then it's pretty much a matter of do this quest or don't advance. In most other RP's you can do one of two things at the very least. i.e. in fable you can help the church eliminate all of the evil from the area or you can help destroy the church. In Elder Scrolls it's kill all of your fellow members in the brotherhood or...nothing. Just nothing. Slaughtering all of these people that you've worked with and who trust you is a HUGE decision. And you have absolutely no say in the matter. I would simply like to be able to have some choice, I would like to care about this character that I'm going to be playing for 100+ hours. But I suppose Digi puts forth a very valid point, that Elder Scrolls is designed as a purely sandbox-style game and as such I can only hope for a subtle change in the impact of choices, if anything.
I hope they throw in some decent Acrobatics this time. It'd be neat to climb up the side of a building like Assassin's Creed, whip out a bow and take someone out without even having anyone see you do it. Or parkour around the place to escape from guards.
And throw in the wanted system from Red Dead Redemption too, have to escape from guards by getting out of their field of vision.
Here's my problem with it.
-Leveling System: I agree with Ush on that matter. First off, you had to sleep after you got to a certain skill to level which makes no sense to me personally. After that, even if you level the only thing that changes is that the enemies get bigger and badder but noting with your character really changes. "Yay I can do a spinney swing kick thing!"
-Combat System: All games have their own base of combat yes but I really was just a bit disappointed with how the combat worked. You block then swing swing swing, block. I can compare this to fable and say that at least they had some special type attacks that you could do. I was just kind of disappointed when it came to this. I hope they make it better Skyrim.
-Voice: This is just me I guess but I hate the fact that every character is really just a mimic of every other character. Imperials sound the same, Nords sound the same. I guess this wouldn't bother me so much if it wasn't for the fact that Martin and what not have a unique voice. I wanted a personal voice actor for the Champion myself 😄
-Casting: All attack spells are the same. Lean forward and push hand further. Whether it's Touch or Distance. This makes me sad :'(
-Guilds: I suppose this only bothers me but I see this is kind of lame. I mean, you can be the Best Mage, the Best Warrior, the Best Thief, it's just stupid. An RPG is about Role Playing, but this game really doesn't give much of a choice. Character development with it is just stupid to me.
Originally posted by General_Iroh
I understand the point of some people just wanting to be the head of all the guilds at the end of the day, but I don't think there's any real argument that you could make for your character having an actual personality. The options in dialogue are complete crap, not even close to anything like Dragon age or KOTOR. And I'm not sure what factions you're referring to, unless you're talking about guilds? But even then it's pretty much a matter of do this quest or don't advance. In most other RP's you can do one of two things at the very least. i.e. in fable you can help the church eliminate all of the evil from the area or you can help destroy the church. In Elder Scrolls it's kill all of your fellow members in the brotherhood or...nothing. Just nothing. Slaughtering all of these people that you've worked with and who trust you is a HUGE decision. And you have absolutely no say in the matter. I would simply like to be able to have some choice, I would like to care about this character that I'm going to be playing for 100+ hours. But I suppose Digi puts forth a very valid point, that Elder Scrolls is designed as a purely sandbox-style game and as such I can only hope for a subtle change in the impact of choices, if anything.
Oh yes I see. They did manage to give us some of those type of choices in fall out 3. As an example in New Vegas (I know Obsidian) you had option to either turn against the Van Graff's by saving Rose or betray Rose to them.
Based on that I'm hopeful they'll expand the options. I can remember many missions in Fallout 3 and New Vegas where with a little more investigation you could uncover lies or truths instead of taking the easy and direct road.
Although again the ES universe has a more structured lore than Fallout, probably why the major events have a singular conclusion.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Indeed, my views were expressed in my review. Restriction actually leads to better, more meaningful games.Though number one thing that ha to go is the enemy level scaling. That was a disaster.
Indeed. There are those of us who modded around that problem though. PC > Console. The balancing of classes needs addressed though...I'm pretty sure Bethesda won't mess up scaling again due to the massive backlash they received.
My earlier post describes why I feel the ES games are excellent, even in light of your criticisms (most of which I don't object to).