UESP Forums

http://www.gamerevolution.com/blog/De-T ... ever-93437

Here is an incomplete list of features that I believe would make the next Elder Scrolls one of the greatest games ever made. Please provide your input on the items on that list.

You may notice some inspiration taken from other popular games and features from previous Elder Scrolls titles. I've taken careful measures to present these ideas in a way that they would fit perfectly into the Elder Scrolls' universe. Feel free to disagree and tell me why you oppose any of them.

TES V was very different. Simplified a lot too. And now they're going to redo the system again. Just how un-oldstyle can it get?

However, the feature list makes it look kinda ol' good Ultima Online.

No multiplayer. That's what ESO is for.

legoless wrote:No multiplayer. That's what ESO is for.

ESO is an MMO. What I'm presenting here is an actual, single-player-focused, traditional TES with multiplayer on the side.

I get that, but I think it would be a flop. Multiplayer everything is so 2010. It's clear that BGS are focusing on what they're good at and targeting the lowest common denominator of consumers, so I wouldn't expect anything from TES6 other than a simplified sandbox RPG. They're not going to take a risk with a game in the main series by devoting development to an unwanted multiplayer element.

...although they did devote a lot of development to FO4's unwanted Minecraft simulator...

Oh, 2010 is a year I miss so much. Like all the other years before the current year. Oh, the good old times.

Okay...how do you feel about the game components? I'm especially fond of the armor crafting.

Feels like they want to do something more like Ultima Online, but closer to the situation on the freeshards, with less people on the servers and also a possibility of the offline play.

I probably missed something along the way, but these are a few that jumped out at me:

MetaCthulhu wrote:I probably missed something along the way, but these are a few that jumped out at me:

Hidden:

Bosses- Encounters with bosses are different than fighting normal enemies. Common combat tactics may not work against them, and some bosses can only be defeated by keen observations and sharp wits. Humanoid bosses may initiate duels which will change the way combat works, making careful use of parries, blocks, dodging, and well-placed strikes vital to success.

First off, say I'm playing a Nord with an I.Q. that tested between chair and candy-bracelet, his sole purpose is to run up and hit things with an ax. Now, if I roleplay my character correctly I'm doomed. Isn't the point of an open-ended RPGs to be able to beat the game with any class (barring pacifist)?

Second, why should the combat system change for boss fights? I mean, you have this one system that you've been using the entire time, getting good at, mastering the intricacies, and now, for some of the most powerful enemies in the game, you have to do what is in reality a glorified minigame.

Fatigue- Applying to health, magicka, and stamina, fatigue offsets the total amount of these attributes by 1% for every 25%(?) lost. While all 3 of these attributes recover over time, the fatigued amount can only be regained by using recovery items, such as potions, or by sleeping. Health and stamina fatigue can also be recovered by using restoration magic. Magic and enchantments may alter the effects of fatigue.

Why fatigue and stamina? For example, if I ran a mile right now I would say, "I'm out of stamina, and I feel fatigued"; they're just two sides of the same coin. And besides that, shouldn't fatigue start at 0 and climb from there? If I lost fatigue, I would say I've gained energy, not the other way round.

Skills and Perks- Skill increases in each category, combat, stealth, and magic, now accumulate to provide bonuses to all other skills in the same category, such as increased experience gained, reduced magicka costs, increased damage, etc. Perk trees now include special perks that can only be unlocked by discovering them. Certain quests, NPC interactions, skill books, or even perk combinations will be required to unlock the use of these perks.

I don't like this for a few reasons: One, it doesn't allow a person to plan their character which I like to do; Two, it leads to counter-intuitive situations where you go, "Oh, I was supposed to complete the late-game side-quest, then go back and talk to the kid outside the first level, and complete his mission without grabbing the potion that restores all attributes and cures all diseases. To bad I did grab that potion and now I can't get that one perk that lets me summon flaming hogs" (If you think I'm kidding, I'm not. Some games have actually done pretty close to this.)

And I agree with legoless:

legoless wrote:No multiplayer. That's what ESO is for.

Thanks for the feedback.

1. Have you ever played a game like The Legend of Zelda, Demon's Souls, Dragon's Dogma, etc.? The boss fights in games like these still use the same controls and such, but fighting becomes more challenging as you have to figure out where, when, and how to attack. That's the general idea here. Powerful enemies require different tactics than the norm. As far as your choice of character build goes, it's up to you to figure out how to effectively use your specializations, whatever they may be.

2. Let me try to clear that up for you. Fatigue isn't a statistic like stamina. It's the name for the amount that becomes irrecoverable through regeneration over time. Plenty of other games do something similar to this. If you have 100 base HP, and you take 25 damage, 1 HP becomes blocked out. When you wait for your health to recover, you will only have 99 usable HP. The point that is blocked can only be recovered if you use something to get it back. That's the best I can explain it without using a visual aid.

3. Your concern here seems to be not having access to every possible perk tree setup. That's not the way I'm saying it would be. Have you ever played Fallout 3 or New Vegas? Well, there are certain perks that can only be obtained through special means. Buying implants, someone teaching you their secret hand-to-hand technique, getting experimented on, and such. These special perks are not necessary to building a strong character, but they are rewarding to players who put in the effort to get them. I hope that puts you at ease.

4. If you're still intimidated by the idea of multiplayer, please re-read the sections regarding the difference between offline-only and online-only characters. The inclusion of multiplayer would not, in any way, affect your experience if you choose not to participate in it, and is in no way, shape, or form comparable to MMOs such as ESO.

Rather than copy-pasting 25+ times, I just put my replies in bold.
P.S. Thanks for the rational response. When I write a post like that I feel like I'm one worn-out sneaker away from being shanked.

TES with MP tacked on is a very bad idea. Unless it is small scale co-op that works a bit like the Souls Series(Demon,Dark) as a small summon, it would feel out of place. Dragon Age made that mistake with it's MP. VI, probably will be dumbed down, sadly and could be Borderscrolls 6. That said, Bethesda and Fallout have a mixed reception. Skyrim, whilst parts were dumbed down still felt like a TES game.

However, they do need to take feedback and go back to making games they want to do not games that appeal to everyone. Demon Souls, Dark Souls, The Last of Us, Witcher series all proved that catering to what they want to do not to the mainstream COD/Battlefield/ Generic action crowd works. But Zenimax owns Bethesda and it is most likely pressure from the stockholders along with the higher ups that force any dumbing down.

"Tacked on" multiplayer is not at all what I'm going for. It should be a fun and rewarding diversion from the core game, made with no less attention to detail and playability. It might be difficult to pull off, sure, but it would only add to the game both in terms of longevity and the amount of content on offer.

I don't know how Ultimate online plays, but I would be happy with the Guild Wars 1 model of co-op instances. I would be most happy with true co-op/ SP on own server, where your own world is saved.

On the subject of more complex boss fights - the Alduin boss fight in Skyrim was a big let down, but the Harkon and Miraak fights made up for it. These battles were tactical. They employed the aesthetic and lore of the enemies and incorporated them into the actual battle. Reminded me of classic video game boss battles. I was disappointed when Fallout 4 took a step back from that. I hope TES 6 takes a cue from the Skyrim DLCs more so than vanilla Skyrim, since the DLCs really hit a stride there that Skyrim missed in its vanilla launch.

Ultima Online was one of the most complex and ever-changing MMORPGs that set many standards for most MMORPGs. Oh, and it still alive.

Though I'm not sure TES VI would follow such concept. Right now I feel that they'll implement something like Borderlands coop system. Come to think of it, many a player would like to try something out with the help of their friends. Exploits and other fun stuff.

M'aiq the Liar on multiplayer wrote:"M'Aiq does not know this word. You wish others to help you in your quest? Coward! If you must, search for the Argonian Im-Leet, or perhaps the big Nord, Rolf the Uber. They will certainly wish to join you."

Yeah, well, so much for that. A lot of the other ideas you mention, all the contest stuff, seems to make the game more, well, more gamey and less roleplaying, which is the opposite of what I play Elder Scrolls for. What I'm looking for in a TES game is to forget I'm playing a game and get immersed in a story; that may not be what you're looking for, which is fine, but I'm egoistic enough to hope they won't do it your way. No offense.

Finn Wolfshorn wrote:

M'aiq the Liar on multiplayer wrote:"M'Aiq does not know this word. You wish others to help you in your quest? Coward! If you must, search for the Argonian Im-Leet, or perhaps the big Nord, Rolf the Uber. They will certainly wish to join you."

Yeah, well, so much for that. A lot of the other ideas you mention, all the contest stuff, seems to make the game more, well, more gamey and less roleplaying, which is the opposite of what I play Elder Scrolls for. What I'm looking for in a TES game is to forget I'm playing a game and get immersed in a story; that may not be what you're looking for, which is fine, but I'm egoistic enough to hope they won't do it your way. No offense.

Offline-Only. There's your answer.

Offline only shouldn't be a choice to make for an RPG if you don't want immersion to be ruined. MP and TES are two things that don't go together. ESO is there for MP stuff and well, i rather have TES remain a single player open world franchise then shove in MP for the sake of it.

Are you saying that the inclusion of something in a game that you can choose to take part in or ignore completely somehow impacts your ability to enjoy that game? If that's what you're saying, Jim Sterling has some words for you:
https://youtu.be/TanzVLIA8sQ?t=1m6s

Please take them into consideration.

Tingz0r wrote:Are you saying that the inclusion of something in a game that you can choose to take part in or ignore completely somehow impacts your ability to enjoy that game? If that's what you're saying, Jim Sterling has some words for you:
https://youtu.be/TanzVLIA8sQ?t=1m6s

Please take them into consideration.

I just watched that Jimquisition last night. But what you're talking about and what Jim's talking about is entirely different. Entirely.

Invincibility is something so easy to implement that I could do it in a TES game with 1 or 2 console commands. Multiplayer on the other hand is a resource intensive, difficult process that will take developers off the singleplayer mode making it worse/take longer. Now you could say, "Just get more Devs!" but the thing is after X many devs they just stop being effective (That's why several Valve devs weren't working on Half-Life), and even if you get more devs, the less experienced ones will have to work on one of the projects, making it worse than if the experienced devs worked on it.

And to think Bethesda could create a game with all the problems of a major online game and a major RPG and pull it off, that's building a castle in the clouds. Bethesda can't even fix the bugs in a singleplayer game (reference patch 1.2 and USLEEP), and now you expect them to fix multiplayer bugs, singleplayer bugs, and, oh you can't break either mode when you patch them? Right...

And since we're both fans of the escapist,

Ben 'Yahtzee' Croshaw wrote: I understand why multiplayer exists and why people like it, I only raise objections when its presence interferes with my beloved single player experiences without me asking for it, like when games like Spec Ops: The Line are forced to waste effort on a [&@%!] multiplayer mode, effort that they could have spent on making the single player campaign even more amazing.

MetaCthulhu wrote: I just watched that Jimquisition last night. But what you're talking about and what Jim's talking about is entirely different. Entirely.

...obviously.

MetaCthulhu wrote: Now you could say, "Just get more Devs!" but the thing is after X many devs they just stop being effective (That's why several Valve devs weren't working on Half-Life), and even if you get more devs, the less experienced ones will have to work on one of the projects, making it worse than if the experienced devs worked on it.

I see what you're getting at there, but what you're forgetting is that the multiplayer aspect of the game, in this case, absolutely would require additional developers. As you put it yourself...

MetaCthulhu wrote: And to think Bethesda could create a game with all the problems of a major online game and a major RPG and pull it off, that's building a castle in the clouds. Bethesda can't even fix the bugs in a singleplayer game (reference patch 1.2 and USLEEP), and now you expect them to fix multiplayer bugs, singleplayer bugs, and, oh you can't break either mode when you patch them? Right...

There's no way I would trust the current team at Bethesda with multiplayer either. Certainly, they would be necessary to its development and making sure it still retains its Elder Scrolls feel, but they aren't experienced in these things. Bringing in people who actually know what they're doing, not just "more devs," is exactly what I had in mind.

Ben 'Yahtzee' Croshaw wrote: I understand why multiplayer exists and why people like it, I only raise objections when its presence interferes with my beloved single player experiences without me asking for it, like when games like Spec Ops: The Line are forced to waste effort on a [&@%!] multiplayer mode, effort that they could have spent on making the single player campaign even more amazing.

While I do agree in almost all cases, points like this are perhaps moot when no expense or human resource is spared to make sure the single-player aspect of the game is fully realized and multiplayer is developed with the same care as a supplement to the core game. If you want a somewhat relevant example of this, look at Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, or perhaps more on the nose, Monster Hunter 4.

I can respect skepticism, but what I'm seeing here is an overabundance of concern regarding something new, or simply, fear of change. Not a baseless fear in the least, given that many games are guilty of all the things you've expressed concern of, but if you shrink at the mere mention of the word "multiplayer" without even considering the possible implications of it, well, that's not a productive way of thinking.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the criticism, but I think we've dwelt on the cynicism of multiplayer long enough. Let's talk about something else, if you'd like. There's more on that list, and I just added some new sections.

Considering that Skyrim kept crapping itself at launch on the PS3 and 360, i seriously doubt they have the capability to do a MP game. At least, one that uses the 10 year old Gamebyro engine. They've used parts of it for Creation, which was disappointing and Fallout 4 is said to be where the engine or at least, the Gamebyro parts are really showing their age.

I watched that but that's diffculty and not the same as MP. Every RPG that i've seen with MP tends to suffer. Dragon Age:Inquistion's MP is generally regarded as average at best, crap at worst. Mass Effect 3, ok, that had solid MP. Actually, come to think of it, i don't own many RPGs with a tacked on MP side.

Anyway, the problem with TES having MP is that Bethesda seems to be catering to the biggest demographic and i can see TES VI having a crap story with barely any decent side quests whilst every resource has been directed to MP. It's also the franchise's idenity. A massive open world single player experience for us to explore and do stuff in. They could outsource it, true but outsourcing parts of a game during development can backfire. Look at Deus Ex:Human Revolution. Boss fights were outsourced and it bit them in the arse.

I'm kinda warming up to the Borderlands style of multiplayer idea, too. Or maybe something like Demon's Souls where you can recruit other players just to help you with a dungeon. This would require much more expansive level design than what the series is known for, though.

Mookie wrote:I would be most happy with true co-op/ SP on own server, where your own world is saved.

This is also a possibility, but I think there would have to be certain limitations in place to make it work. Items would have to have level requirements and any players that join that are a higher level than the host would need to have their stats lowered somehow. Also, I think it would be a good idea to make it so only the host can do certain things, like initiate area transitions, commit crimes, advance quests, and so forth.

Marisa Kirisame wrote:TES V was very different. Simplified a lot too. And now they're going to redo the system again. Just how un-oldstyle can it get?

It's interesting that while in many respects Fallout 4's levelling/character progression system was simplified, there were certain aspects, like the apparel system, which seemed to take a step back from ore recent titles (i.e. Skyrim/Fallout 3).

To me it felt like both a fun and engaging system, and a better balance of the draws of both 'old' and 'new' systems. If the next Elder Scrolls game is similar, I'll be happy. I'd love to see the Class system return, along with Attributes, but at the same time I'd be happy if it were more focused on perks and less on skill levels. Ultimately, I think I trust Bethesda to produce something enjoyable.