Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim announced

[funcroc]

Official PR

Bethesda Softworks Announces The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim

Highly Anticipated Sequel to Launch 11.11.11

 

December 13, 2010 (Rockville, MD)

Edited December 13, 2010 by funcroc

[HoonDing]

If somebody wants to ask Todd Howard a question, now's your chance.

[Hurlshort]

Or is it a just another reworked version of gamebryo and they're trying to market it as new?

my thoughts exactly

 

I know skepticism is vogue and all, but really? I mean, when has Bethesda really tried to rip their customers off? Did I miss that? I could see this reaction with Ubisoft, Activision, EA, but Bethesda has been a pretty honest company. They may not make games you like, or you may be unhappy with their choices, but I don't think they deserve the stink-eye.

[Tigranes]

I mean, when has Bethesda really tried to rip their customers off? Did I miss that?

 

Horse armour, Lying about scripted Oblivion hype sequence that was blatantly fake....a lot of Beth's bad rep (where it has one) doesn't come from their games, it comes from their PR/Marketing. They do do a lot of nice things in that area (DRM, etc), of course, but they definitely did rip people off.

 

Anyway, RPS pretty much confirms it's a brand new engine, not a Gamebryo's Bastard Child.

[Kasoroth]

My biggest complaint about Oblivion is that all the monsters level up with you, and were pretty much uniform across the whole game world. There was no real excitement to exploring new areas because you would meet the same few types of monster populations. I like the fear of possibly stumbling into an area too difficult for my level, and the amusement of reaching high levels and demolishing the common bandits that I once feared. I like some unpredictability in my exploration of a sandbox type game world. Oblivion failed pretty miserably in this regard, but fortunately there were some mods that helped things.

 

The levelling system was also flawed, but I'm not opposed to a "learn-by-doing" system in principle. I think the biggest flaw in Oblivion's specific implementation of "learn-by-doing" was the vast disparity in stats that you could have by level 15-20 if you didn't deliberately plan and train your skills. I found that just playing naturally (as a learn-by-doing system is supposed to encourage) would usually get me a bunch of x2 stat increase options, and one or two x3 options. This would average half the total stat increase value as someone who deliberately chose what skills to practice to make sure they always had three x5 stats.

 

A simple fix would be to just give everyone 5 points to distribute each level, and use the exact same formula that was used for multipliers in Oblivion, but use it as a cap rather than a multiplier. If you want to raise one stat a lot in a single level, you need to focus on relevant skills, but playing naturally will not give you a net loss in total stat gains. Five points per level would probably be a bit less than most people averaged in Oblivion as well, so it would make it harder to make a master-of-everything character, and make character build choices a bit more meaningful.

 

I'd also like to see the Fallout style conversation system added to the Elder Scrolls series. It really is better.

 

-Kasoroth

[Slowtrain]

My biggest complaint about Oblivion is that all the monsters level up with you, and were pretty much uniform across the whole game world. There was no real excitement to exploring new areas because you would meet the same few types of monster populations. I like the fear of possibly stumbling into an area too difficult for my level, and the amusement of reaching high levels and demolishing the common bandits that I once feared. I like some unpredictability in my exploration of a sandbox type game world. Oblivion failed pretty miserably in this regard, but fortunately there were some mods that helped things.

 

The levelling system was also flawed, but I'm not opposed to a "learn-by-doing" system in principle. I think the biggest flaw in Oblivion's specific implementation of "learn-by-doing" was the vast disparity in stats that you could have by level 15-20 if you didn't deliberately plan and train your skills. I found that just playing naturally (as a learn-by-doing system is supposed to encourage) would usually get me a bunch of x2 stat increase options, and one or two x3 options. This would average half the total stat increase value as someone who deliberately chose what skills to practice to make sure they always had three x5 stats.

 

A simple fix would be to just give everyone 5 points to distribute each level, and use the exact same formula that was used for multipliers in Oblivion, but use it as a cap rather than a multiplier. If you want to raise one stat a lot in a single level, you need to focus on relevant skills, but playing naturally will not give you a net loss in total stat gains. Five points per level would probably be a bit less than most people averaged in Oblivion as well, so it would make it harder to make a master-of-everything character, and make character build choices a bit more meaningful.

 

I'd also like to see the Fallout style conversation system added to the Elder Scrolls series. It really is better.-Kasoroth

 

 

COuldn't agree more.

 

Level scaling is horrible in crpgs. It really crushes any sense of excitement in exploring: there is neither risk or reward. And it's extremely problematic in a game like Oblivion whose primary focus is free form exploring, but doesn't provide any reason to explore, other than to see the sights.

 

Learn-by-doing systems are great in theory, but in actual practice they seem very difficult to balance. For example is Oblivion balanced for gamers who mategame like crazy and get three x5 modifiers at each level? Or is its balanced for gamers who play without metagaming and end up getting mostly x2 modifiers at level ups? Because there's a huge difference in gameplay between a character with 20 levels up of 3 x5 modifiers/level vs a character with 20 level ups of 3 x2 modifiers/level.

Edited December 14, 2010 by Slowtrain

[Hell Kitty]

Lying about scripted Oblivion hype sequence that was blatantly fake

 

You're referring to the video where that woman set her dog on fire, right? You've made the claim it was fake before, when you also claimed that Bethesda has some sort of press "blockout". At the time you admited you could be wrong about the video being faked, and there is a huge difference between "they are lying about x" and "I think they are lying about x".

[Tigranes]

Huh, that's some awesome memory.

 

I think from what I remember it was definitely partially scripted at least, though they probably meant it to be a scripted representation of what Radiant AI might do unscripted... I don't remember if the scaling down of Radiant AI to prevent crazy world-break happened before or after that, which might go some way to explaining. The main thing that rankled with me, as I remember, was that even though they knew their game didn't feature that kind of reactivity across the board they were happy to put it up on the pedestal then reap the benefits of the press drooling over it - like a worse version of the whole "200 endings" business.

 

Wouldn't mind knowing what I got wrong, don't want to be unfair.

[Hell Kitty]

Wouldn't mind knowing what I got wrong, don't want to be unfair.

 

This is the exchange I was thinking of:

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/index.php?showt...mp;#entry876605

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/index.php?showt...mp;#entry876637

[HoonDing]

Learn-by-doing systems are great in theory, but in actual practice they seem very difficult to balance. For example is Oblivion balanced for gamers who mategame like crazy and get three x5 modifiers at each level? Or is its balanced for gamers who play without metagaming and end up getting mostly x2 modifiers at level ups? Because there's a huge difference in gameplay between a character with 20 levels up of 3 x5 modifiers/level vs a character with 20 level ups of 3 x2 modifiers/level.

They should already have ditched the modifier system after Morrowind. In Morrowind having high stats was critical, because it was possible to fail at casting a spell and miss during melee combat. Hence, the necessary scrounging for x5 modifiers.

 

In Oblivion, you cannot fail at anything. Combined with absolute level scaling, it means that it is best to just remain at level 1 and keep increasing all your skills instead.

Edited December 14, 2010 by virumor

[Tigranes]

Ah right. (Scary.) Well you could speculate that Radiant AI was indeed capable of doing the things shown in the video and then got toned down, as opposed to scripting. I guess your point is that we will never know for sure - and you're right about that. I am pretty sure that I read somewhere how the area was sealed off and prepared for the preview, but would be a mission to dig that up now.

 

As for 'blockout' really it was less 'evil conspiracies' of briberies, threats, corruption, etc (though since then we've seen a lot of smoke and some fire that this does indeed happen sometimes), but more of Bethesda doing what you'd call smart PR - they were one of the most canny in the industry about fudging things here and there to look good. Completely laudable, if you have a Volonian ideology, but I didn't like it so much.

[Orchomene]

I don't know what can be expected from this TESV. Morrowind was good, Daggerfall was their best game but I couldn't finish Oblivion. So, wait and see on this one.

I agree that the level sclaing and the mechanics for level up are broken, too.

[Hurlshort]

I have a hard time believing the level scaling will be anywhere near as bad as it was in Oblivion. Wasn't there level scaling on a smaller scale in Fallout? I didn't notice it there, which is good.

 

As for the Radiant AI being deceptive, I recognize that it is a very difficult thing to program. I don't think Bethesda was blatantly lying. AI is hard. They pulled a bit of a Peter Molyneaux with their expectations, but it hardly seemed intentional.

[Guest Slinky]

As for the Radiant AI being deceptive, I recognize that it is a very difficult thing to program. I don't think Bethesda was blatantly lying. AI is hard. They pulled a bit of a Peter Molyneaux with their expectations, but it hardly seemed intentional.

Didn't they demo their mighty radiant AI with some video which had a mage and a dog? Can't remember what happened in there, but the whole thing turned out to be scripted or something?

[Niten_Ryu]

I like the

, it's damn epic !!!

 

And let us never forget -

!

[TheHarlequin]

I meant it from a developer's perspective. you said that modifying gamebryo might have been a better choice, than writing a new engine. but I think dealing with a monster like gamebryo could've proven to be a major pain.

 

This is true. That's always a possibility. The code base at this point could be what the dev universe calls spaghetti code. So much additions and mods to it with so many hands in it its become a mess under the hood. As someone who worked as a programmer many moons ago I am well aware of that very possibility. So certainly that's a valid outcome. However there's no indication it wouldn't in the long term be a better solution either. Again its a balance of where to burn your zots. The more you put into a new engine the less overall content you are going to have then if you modded a existing engine. That is just the reality of the situation. Unless of course you are a EA or the like and have virtually unlimited zots to burn.

[TheHarlequin]

They really need to ditch their character system, to protect the munchkins from themselves who otherwise would spend hours and hours jumping through Skyrim tossing fireballs at summoned skeletons.

 

 

I totally agree. Although aside from the abuses, I think it would be easier to make a balanced and enjoyable game with a more standard XP/skill point char system.

 

Nehrim actually makes it work to some degree simply by making it much harder to increase skills.

 

errmm in a SP game does it matter? If someone wants to exploit the game how is that effecting you? If you want to play as intended then simply don't use the exploit.

[Slowtrain]

They really need to ditch their character system, to protect the munchkins from themselves who otherwise would spend hours and hours jumping through Skyrim tossing fireballs at summoned skeletons.

 

 

I totally agree. Although aside from the abuses, I think it would be easier to make a balanced and enjoyable game with a more standard XP/skill point char system.

 

Nehrim actually makes it work to some degree simply by making it much harder to increase skills.

 

errmm in a SP game does it matter? If someone wants to exploit the game how is that effecting you? If you want to play as intended then simply don't use the exploit.

 

 

As long as developers don't balance the game for the metagamers, Then yep, I agree not really a problem.

[Slowtrain]

I have a hard time believing the level scaling will be anywhere near as bad as it was in Oblivion. Wasn't there level scaling on a smaller scale in Fallout? I didn't notice it there, which is good.

 

 

I agree that the ls was much better in FO3 than Oblivion; it's one of the imporovements I hope makes the jump from Fo3 to Skyrim.

 

That being said, the ls in FO3 was still irritating: run around the wasteland at level 3 and you face molerats, at level 10 all the molerats have magically become yao guai, and by level 20 all the yao guai have magically become deathclaws. I think its a pretty boring, repetitive and uninteresting approach to populating an open world rpg. Plus it complete defeats any sense of your character growing.

[HoonDing]

That being said, the ls in FO3 was still irritating: run around the wasteland at level 3 and you face molerats, at level 10 all the molerats have magically become yao guai, and by level 20 all the yao guai have magically become deathclaws. I think its a pretty boring, repetitive and uninteresting approach to populating an open world rpg. Plus it complete defeats any sense of your character growing.

FO3 doesn't really use level scaling, but area scaling. You'll run into yao guai at level 3 if you head to the western part of the map; the higher your level, the higher the chance they'll also spawn in other places.

[Slowtrain]

That being said, the ls in FO3 was still irritating: run around the wasteland at level 3 and you face molerats, at level 10 all the molerats have magically become yao guai, and by level 20 all the yao guai have magically become deathclaws. I think its a pretty boring, repetitive and uninteresting approach to populating an open world rpg. Plus it complete defeats any sense of your character growing.

FO3 doesn't really use level scaling, but area scaling. You'll run into yao guai at level 3 if you head to the western part of the map; the higher your level, the higher the chance they'll also spawn in other places.

 

 

It uses area scaling in a few areas, which is much better, and KUdos to Beth for that choice. But it still uses level scaling for populating the majority of the world. If SKyrim works like FO3 that will be aok with me.

[mkreku]

I still don't understand how Gothic and Gothic 2 could have hand-populated worlds while almost no other free-roaming sandbox games have had anything similar. It just seems like it would be such a fun thing to design, hiding big, angry enemies where the player least expects it..

[Pidesco]

I still don't understand how Gothic and Gothic 2 could have hand-populated worlds while almost no other free-roaming sandbox games have had anything similar. It just seems like it would be such a fun thing to design, hiding big, angry enemies where the player least expects it..

 

 

For me that was always one of the weirdest (and worst) things about Morrowind and Oblivion. Bethesda radically reduced the game world size compared to Daggerfall in order to deal away with the blandness and randomness of locations. However, almost all the characters in both games are still a variation of random NPC n

[sorophx]

because they're cheap, that's why >_>

[HoonDing]

However, almost all the characters in both games are still a variation of random NPC n