Elder Scrolls 6 wishlist

[chanchan05]

 

 

Well, I'd love to see Elsweyr or Black Marsh :smile: I'm probably going to cry if they'll give us Vallenwood, though. I'm not sure why, but Bosmer people never got my heart (they're even more annoying than Thalmor for me, which is kinda terrifying).

 

Frankly, though, I'm less worried for a setting than for a plotline and mechanics. We already saw in Skyrim how much Bethesda can cut out for a "new content". I swear, for each little pixel on their textures they take away something good from the previous game. Darts, spell creating, telekinesis and skills themselves have been changed for a better graphics and annoying bugs.

 

This is just my little dream, but I'd hug Bethesda if they will make a game with mechanics taken almost entirely from Morrowind - I'd love to see dialogue text box :tongue:

 

No, but seriously. I really hope they will stop taking things away and start giving. And that their guilds will be more than a single, 5-hour plotline...

I think your complaints are more because of limitations of console playing. I mean if just compare Oblivion and Skyrim controls. IIRC Oblivion uses more buttons than what's present on an XBox controller.

 

 

Excuse me? Sorry, I don't understand what are you talking about - I'm playing on PC and using keyboard, so there are hardly any limits here.

 

I don't want to be a... well, I don't know even what to call it, but I never played any of TES games on a console and never going to, so I hardly follow what happens outside of PC world.

 

Doesn't matter if you play on a PC. The point is Skyrim was built to be playable on a console. Which means it is still restricted to what a console can do. Skyrim was built for the XBox 360 and just ported to a PC. Practically speaking, you're just playing a console game. Doesn't matter how many buttons the PC has, the base game is limited to console capabilties.

 

Basically, playing Skyrim on PC is like putting an ounce of water in a 1L bottle. Sure it works, it's able to carry water. But it's not using full capacity.

Edited September 15, 2018 by chanchan05

[stebbinsd]

 

Doesn't matter if you play on a PC. The point is Skyrim was built to be playable on a console. Which means it is still restricted to what a console can do. Skyrim was built for the XBox 360 and just ported to a PC. Practically speaking, you're just playing a console game. Doesn't matter how many buttons the PC has, the base game is limited to console capabilties.

 

Basically, playing Skyrim on PC is like putting an ounce of water in a 1L bottle. Sure it works, it's able to carry water. But it's not using full capacity.

 

Honestly, I prefer it that way. PC gaming used to its quote-unquote "full potential" is expensive out the ass. The graphics card alone can easily be as expensive as a newly-released console.

 

I honestly wish more developers would tone the graphics down just a notch so people with tighter pockets can have access to all the juicy stuff PC has to offer (e.g. user-created content that doesn't necessarily come straight from first-party servers, console commands, or the ability to back up your saves in a separate folder in the event of a crash or corruption) without having to pay for the equivalent of three consoles just for the hardware alone.

 

At the very least, developers should offer reduced graphics settings that are actually compatible with lower end PCs. Not the current system of "low specs" which still require $150 graphics cards.

 

And more importantly, the definition of a "lower-end PC" or a "mid-tier PC" should stay consistent for at least the lifespan of an average console. Upgrading my low-end PC to keep up with the times should only be about as expensive, on average, as buying a new console. For example, when a new console comes out, it usually runs about $300-450, but it lasts for an average of five years. This means that new hardware for consoles (not counting replacements for broken hardware) is about $60-$90 per year. Upgrading a gaming PC should be about that expensive, not the $150-$200 per year that it actually is. Then I could have more money to spend on buying ... ya know ... games and stuff!

 

So I wish Bethesda's attitude about PC gaming was actually the norm.

Edited September 15, 2018 by stebbinsd

[chanchan05]

 

 

Doesn't matter if you play on a PC. The point is Skyrim was built to be playable on a console. Which means it is still restricted to what a console can do. Skyrim was built for the XBox 360 and just ported to a PC. Practically speaking, you're just playing a console game. Doesn't matter how many buttons the PC has, the base game is limited to console capabilties.

 

Basically, playing Skyrim on PC is like putting an ounce of water in a 1L bottle. Sure it works, it's able to carry water. But it's not using full capacity.

 

Honestly, I prefer it that way. PC gaming used to its quote-unquote "full potential" is expensive out the ass. The graphics card alone can easily be as expensive as a newly-released console.

 

I honestly wish more developers would tone the graphics down just a notch so people with tighter pockets can have access to all the juicy stuff PC has to offer (e.g. user-created content that doesn't necessarily come straight from first-party servers, console commands, or the ability to back up your saves in a separate folder in the event of a crash or corruption) without having to pay for the equivalent of three consoles just for the hardware alone.

 

At the very least, developers should offer reduced graphics settings that are actually compatible with lower end PCs. Not the current system of "low specs" which still require $150 graphics cards.

 

And more importantly, the definition of a "lower-end PC" or a "mid-tier PC" should stay consistent for at least the lifespan of an average console. Upgrading my low-end PC to keep up with the times should only be about as expensive, on average, as buying a new console. For example, when a new console comes out, it usually runs about $300-450, but it lasts for an average of five years. This means that new hardware for consoles (not counting replacements for broken hardware) is about $60-$90 per year. Upgrading a gaming PC should be about that expensive, not the $150-$200 per year that it actually is. Then I could have more money to spend on buying ... ya know ... games and stuff!

 

So I wish Bethesda's attitude about PC gaming was actually the norm.

 

 

Skyrim can run on a pretty low-end laptop really. At least nowadays. Also Skyrim only really feels half-baked IMO because at the time of making, the XBox 360 was quite outdated in terms of hardware. I used to have a laptop that can run Oldrim on medium + 400 mods including some graphical mods, but I can't even run base Fallout 4 on it. That's the extent of difference between Skyrim and Beth's more current games, which also speaks volumes about the difference in power between the old consoles at Oldrim release and the current ones, which are better able to keep up with PCs.

 

However, Skyrim's limits comes from that it's a forked Gamebryo engine (Morrowind Engine) which was graphically tuned and even more streamlined for the current gamer. They were more concerned with making Skyrim mass marketable than keeping all of the game mechanics IMO. Oblivion's console version was quite clunky in terms of control. Skyrim was better tuned to have easier control to reflect the current mass market of the console gaming market. The need for SkyUI is quite a testament to why it's not well tuned to PC gaming.

[Lachdonin]

Stebbinsd! What the hells are you doing over here. Don't you know its dangerous to wander alone?

 

 

The need for SkyUI is quite a testament to why it's not well tuned to PC gaming.

 

 

Eh, YMMV. I personally prefer Skyrim's base UI over SkyUI, which i find to be a cluttered mess that fails in every way to convey information in an efficient manner or be visually pleasing. Even with it's customization options, i've never gotten the damned thing to feel like anything but a chore.

 

So, i personally don't think it's a good starting point for discussion. It's just another in a rather long line of terrible RPG interfaces, and the entire thing needs to be re-examined from the ground up.

 

But, that's a general problem with TES (and most RPGs). They're built on a familiar framework, and that framework is basically garbage. Weight Behaviours, Armour Classes, Menu Management, Durability, Classes, Conversation, Stat Management... Hell, even basic controls are burdened by traditional thinking that doesn't take advantage of modern solutions.

[nayakri]

 

 

 

Well, I'd love to see Elsweyr or Black Marsh :smile: I'm probably going to cry if they'll give us Vallenwood, though. I'm not sure why, but Bosmer people never got my heart (they're even more annoying than Thalmor for me, which is kinda terrifying).

 

Frankly, though, I'm less worried for a setting than for a plotline and mechanics. We already saw in Skyrim how much Bethesda can cut out for a "new content". I swear, for each little pixel on their textures they take away something good from the previous game. Darts, spell creating, telekinesis and skills themselves have been changed for a better graphics and annoying bugs.

 

This is just my little dream, but I'd hug Bethesda if they will make a game with mechanics taken almost entirely from Morrowind - I'd love to see dialogue text box :tongue:

 

No, but seriously. I really hope they will stop taking things away and start giving. And that their guilds will be more than a single, 5-hour plotline...

I think your complaints are more because of limitations of console playing. I mean if just compare Oblivion and Skyrim controls. IIRC Oblivion uses more buttons than what's present on an XBox controller.

 

 

Excuse me? Sorry, I don't understand what are you talking about - I'm playing on PC and using keyboard, so there are hardly any limits here.

 

I don't want to be a... well, I don't know even what to call it, but I never played any of TES games on a console and never going to, so I hardly follow what happens outside of PC world.

 

Doesn't matter if you play on a PC. The point is Skyrim was built to be playable on a console. Which means it is still restricted to what a console can do. Skyrim was built for the XBox 360 and just ported to a PC. Practically speaking, you're just playing a console game. Doesn't matter how many buttons the PC has, the base game is limited to console capabilties.

 

Basically, playing Skyrim on PC is like putting an ounce of water in a 1L bottle. Sure it works, it's able to carry water. But it's not using full capacity.

 

So that's what you meant. Sorry, I didn't understand you before.

 

Hm. I must admit - it's kind of embarrassing but somehow I always thought they first make a game for a PC and then squish it all into a console version. I know, a mistake on my part. Sorry.

 

I don't really think that making a more interesting game is related to buttons - seriously, it's a really lame excuse. I mean, you have all the buttons you need - just add some unique options to different objects, not to buttons. That's at least my own opinion, sorry.

 

 

 

 

Doesn't matter if you play on a PC. The point is Skyrim was built to be playable on a console. Which means it is still restricted to what a console can do. Skyrim was built for the XBox 360 and just ported to a PC. Practically speaking, you're just playing a console game. Doesn't matter how many buttons the PC has, the base game is limited to console capabilties.

 

Basically, playing Skyrim on PC is like putting an ounce of water in a 1L bottle. Sure it works, it's able to carry water. But it's not using full capacity.

 

Honestly, I prefer it that way. PC gaming used to its quote-unquote "full potential" is expensive out the ass. The graphics card alone can easily be as expensive as a newly-released console.

 

I honestly wish more developers would tone the graphics down just a notch so people with tighter pockets can have access to all the juicy stuff PC has to offer (e.g. user-created content that doesn't necessarily come straight from first-party servers, console commands, or the ability to back up your saves in a separate folder in the event of a crash or corruption) without having to pay for the equivalent of three consoles just for the hardware alone.

 

At the very least, developers should offer reduced graphics settings that are actually compatible with lower end PCs. Not the current system of "low specs" which still require $150 graphics cards.

 

And more importantly, the definition of a "lower-end PC" or a "mid-tier PC" should stay consistent for at least the lifespan of an average console. Upgrading my low-end PC to keep up with the times should only be about as expensive, on average, as buying a new console. For example, when a new console comes out, it usually runs about $300-450, but it lasts for an average of five years. This means that new hardware for consoles (not counting replacements for broken hardware) is about $60-$90 per year. Upgrading a gaming PC should be about that expensive, not the $150-$200 per year that it actually is. Then I could have more money to spend on buying ... ya know ... games and stuff!

 

So I wish Bethesda's attitude about PC gaming was actually the norm.

 

 

I agree with you about graphics - whenever I want to play a new game, I have to check if my good old PC will survive it. Heck, that's why I'll probably never play in the Witcher 3. I don't really understand what's with this all great graphics today. I mean, take Undertale - a great game without 3D. Working? Working.

 

If someone asks me, game companies of today have been misled into thinking that if they'll make a beautiful game, it will be a hit.

 

 

Stebbinsd! What the hells are you doing over here. Don't you know its dangerous to wander alone?

 

 

The need for SkyUI is quite a testament to why it's not well tuned to PC gaming.

 

 

Eh, YMMV. I personally prefer Skyrim's base UI over SkyUI, which i find to be a cluttered mess that fails in every way to convey information in an efficient manner or be visually pleasing. Even with it's customization options, i've never gotten the damned thing to feel like anything but a chore.

 

So, i personally don't think it's a good starting point for discussion. It's just another in a rather long line of terrible RPG interfaces, and the entire thing needs to be re-examined from the ground up.

 

But, that's a general problem with TES (and most RPGs). They're built on a familiar framework, and that framework is basically garbage. Weight Behaviours, Armour Classes, Menu Management, Durability, Classes, Conversation, Stat Management... Hell, even basic controls are burdened by traditional thinking that doesn't take advantage of modern solutions.

 

I'm afraid that traditions are going to stay. I played in one game that had everything kind of different and I thought I'm going to die - old good ways have its advantage, I think. I wouldn't say "no" to some genious changes in this category, but seriously, I doubt it will ever appear.

[Lachdonin]

I'm afraid that traditions are going to stay.

 

Unfortunately, i think you're right. Which is why i've personally been growing more and more disenfranchised with RPGs of late. It's always the same core problems with no attempts at revision. There's this mentality that somehow more options means it's better, without ever having to address the fundamental deficiencies. The problem even extends to narrative structures, with an inane focus on 'Choice' rather than good storytelling or world building. Games like New Vegas are held to a gold standard (despite being s#*! wrapped in garbage) while anything that steps out of line and does something different and possibly revolutionary (Fallout 4's dialogue) gets shouted down by the ravenous consumer whose more interested in their comfort zone than advancing the genre.

 

I can only hope that CDPR does something at least a little original with Cyberpunk's mechanics... Though from the gameplay trailer, it looks like more of the same. Still stoked for it though.

[chanchan05]

 

 

 

 

Well, I'd love to see Elsweyr or Black Marsh :smile: I'm probably going to cry if they'll give us Vallenwood, though. I'm not sure why, but Bosmer people never got my heart (they're even more annoying than Thalmor for me, which is kinda terrifying).

 

Frankly, though, I'm less worried for a setting than for a plotline and mechanics. We already saw in Skyrim how much Bethesda can cut out for a "new content". I swear, for each little pixel on their textures they take away something good from the previous game. Darts, spell creating, telekinesis and skills themselves have been changed for a better graphics and annoying bugs.

 

This is just my little dream, but I'd hug Bethesda if they will make a game with mechanics taken almost entirely from Morrowind - I'd love to see dialogue text box :tongue:

 

No, but seriously. I really hope they will stop taking things away and start giving. And that their guilds will be more than a single, 5-hour plotline...

I think your complaints are more because of limitations of console playing. I mean if just compare Oblivion and Skyrim controls. IIRC Oblivion uses more buttons than what's present on an XBox controller.

 

 

Excuse me? Sorry, I don't understand what are you talking about - I'm playing on PC and using keyboard, so there are hardly any limits here.

 

I don't want to be a... well, I don't know even what to call it, but I never played any of TES games on a console and never going to, so I hardly follow what happens outside of PC world.

 

Doesn't matter if you play on a PC. The point is Skyrim was built to be playable on a console. Which means it is still restricted to what a console can do. Skyrim was built for the XBox 360 and just ported to a PC. Practically speaking, you're just playing a console game. Doesn't matter how many buttons the PC has, the base game is limited to console capabilties.

 

Basically, playing Skyrim on PC is like putting an ounce of water in a 1L bottle. Sure it works, it's able to carry water. But it's not using full capacity.

 

So that's what you meant. Sorry, I didn't understand you before.

 

Hm. I must admit - it's kind of embarrassing but somehow I always thought they first make a game for a PC and then squish it all into a console version. I know, a mistake on my part. Sorry.

 

I don't really think that making a more interesting game is related to buttons - seriously, it's a really lame excuse. I mean, you have all the buttons you need - just add some unique options to different objects, not to buttons. That's at least my own opinion, sorry.

 

 

 

 

Doesn't matter if you play on a PC. The point is Skyrim was built to be playable on a console. Which means it is still restricted to what a console can do. Skyrim was built for the XBox 360 and just ported to a PC. Practically speaking, you're just playing a console game. Doesn't matter how many buttons the PC has, the base game is limited to console capabilties.

 

Basically, playing Skyrim on PC is like putting an ounce of water in a 1L bottle. Sure it works, it's able to carry water. But it's not using full capacity.

 

Honestly, I prefer it that way. PC gaming used to its quote-unquote "full potential" is expensive out the ass. The graphics card alone can easily be as expensive as a newly-released console.

 

I honestly wish more developers would tone the graphics down just a notch so people with tighter pockets can have access to all the juicy stuff PC has to offer (e.g. user-created content that doesn't necessarily come straight from first-party servers, console commands, or the ability to back up your saves in a separate folder in the event of a crash or corruption) without having to pay for the equivalent of three consoles just for the hardware alone.

 

At the very least, developers should offer reduced graphics settings that are actually compatible with lower end PCs. Not the current system of "low specs" which still require $150 graphics cards.

 

And more importantly, the definition of a "lower-end PC" or a "mid-tier PC" should stay consistent for at least the lifespan of an average console. Upgrading my low-end PC to keep up with the times should only be about as expensive, on average, as buying a new console. For example, when a new console comes out, it usually runs about $300-450, but it lasts for an average of five years. This means that new hardware for consoles (not counting replacements for broken hardware) is about $60-$90 per year. Upgrading a gaming PC should be about that expensive, not the $150-$200 per year that it actually is. Then I could have more money to spend on buying ... ya know ... games and stuff!

 

So I wish Bethesda's attitude about PC gaming was actually the norm.

 

 

I agree with you about graphics - whenever I want to play a new game, I have to check if my good old PC will survive it. Heck, that's why I'll probably never play in the Witcher 3. I don't really understand what's with this all great graphics today. I mean, take Undertale - a great game without 3D. Working? Working.

 

If someone asks me, game companies of today have been misled into thinking that if they'll make a beautiful game, it will be a hit.

 

 

Stebbinsd! What the hells are you doing over here. Don't you know its dangerous to wander alone?

 

 

The need for SkyUI is quite a testament to why it's not well tuned to PC gaming.

 

 

Eh, YMMV. I personally prefer Skyrim's base UI over SkyUI, which i find to be a cluttered mess that fails in every way to convey information in an efficient manner or be visually pleasing. Even with it's customization options, i've never gotten the damned thing to feel like anything but a chore.

 

So, i personally don't think it's a good starting point for discussion. It's just another in a rather long line of terrible RPG interfaces, and the entire thing needs to be re-examined from the ground up.

 

But, that's a general problem with TES (and most RPGs). They're built on a familiar framework, and that framework is basically garbage. Weight Behaviours, Armour Classes, Menu Management, Durability, Classes, Conversation, Stat Management... Hell, even basic controls are burdened by traditional thinking that doesn't take advantage of modern solutions.

 

I'm afraid that traditions are going to stay. I played in one game that had everything kind of different and I thought I'm going to die - old good ways have its advantage, I think. I wouldn't say "no" to some genious changes in this category, but seriously, I doubt it will ever appear.

 

 

I'm just using buttons as an example of limitations on a console compared to a PC. If you've ever played Dark Souls 1, whose PC controls was just horrendous, but plays well with a controller, you'll see why I thought of it as an example.

 

Another thing to consider is the audience. In general, the current audience of console gaming seems to prefer simplified controls, and along with that came a simplified armory. Basically, Skyrim somehow tried to strike a balance between dumbed down but immersive still (it was more successful than Fallout 4 in this regard). If you would realize how much hidden content there is in the game that was removed for the sake of consoles, you'll be surprised. Just take a look at a playthrough using the mod Civil War Overhaul. As far as I know almost everything there was just unlocked from the hidden inaccessible game content that made the game much more fuller, with the author only going for bug fixes. It's a huge difference.

 

Basically from what I read, Beth "wrote" a PC game, but "built" it for the console, leaving a lot on the cutting room floor but let it remain in the game files for modders on a PC to unlock when the release the console port to PC.

 

However, the new consoles are quite powerful, and I hope that they'll be able to allow an ease on the restrictions in future TES games.

[nayakri]

 

I'm just using buttons as an example of limitations on a console compared to a PC. If you've ever played Dark Souls 1, whose PC controls was just horrendous, but plays well with a controller, you'll see why I thought of it as an example.

 

Oh, no, I understand you perfectly - I played Dark Souls 2 on PC and my first hours were spent on trying to figure out how you jump without a controller. It was pure hell before I managed to discover how keyboard worked in the game.

 

 

Another thing to consider is the audience. In general, the current audience of console gaming seems to prefer simplified controls, and along with that came a simplified armory. Basically, Skyrim somehow tried to strike a balance between dumbed down but immersive still (it was more successful than Fallout 4 in this regard). If you would realize how much hidden content there is in the game that was removed for the sake of consoles, you'll be surprised. Just take a look at a playthrough using the mod Civil War Overhaul. As far as I know almost everything there was just unlocked from the hidden inaccessible game content that made the game much more fuller, with the author only going for bug fixes. It's a huge difference.

 

I think every game has the same problem, not only those on consoles - cut out content because of lack of time or not enough will to finish their job. I wondered though why Bethesda is so keen on cutting out more and more content with every new game.

 

I don't know, I think the only way to stop this wave of errors is to decide whether next Bethesda games are going to be only on consoles or PC. Otherwise, we're going to have pure chaos.

 

 

Basically from what I read, Beth "wrote" a PC game, but "built" it for the console, leaving a lot on the cutting room floor but let it remain in the game files for modders on a PC to unlock when the release the console port to PC.

 

However, the new consoles are quite powerful, and I hope that they'll be able to allow an ease on the restrictions in future TES games.

 

I really hope you are right. Perhaps I'm wrong about this, but I believe this whole mess with different consoles is only for a certain period of time - after some years it should start stabilizing and it won't so troubling as before. But I only believe in it. And hope that if it will change, I will be still alive...

[Evangela]

I think Bethesda creating their games first on PC and then porting to consoles stopped being a thing with Skyrim.

[stebbinsd]

Parts 3 and 4 of my series is out now, if you're interested.

 

Part 3:

 

Part 4: