Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim

[Danimal]

I think I'll just stay out of this thread until release day. The amount of shit they talked about the last Elder Scrolls got me worked up for a series of disappointments.

 

[Top Secret]

My source is of very low quality. I can't read half the text.

Game looks fantastic though. Very dark, very gritty. 200 years in after TES IV, eh?

Perk system, maybe similar to Fallouts.

Need a higher-resolution nacs.

*Edit*

The game will look at the nearby dungeons you've explored, automatically set the mission in a place you've never visited, and designate opponents that are appropriately matched to your strengths and weaknesses.

FUUUUUUU

Are you god damn serious Bethesda? GET RID OF LEVEL SCALING IT IS STUPID AND ROBS THE PLAYER OF PROGRESSION.

 

[Raziaar]

Fallout does the level thing well. Some areas you're gonna get ****ing destroyed if you're wandering out unprepared.

As it should be.

 

[Krynn72]

If thats the case with the leveling system, I'll probably be waiting for the GOTY collection to come out before I buy it. Not because I want the DLC and shit that they're undoubtedly going to have, but because by then the mod community will have fixed everything wrong with the game, including the leveling system.

So it pretty much goes without saying, if they dont have good mod support, I'm not buying it.

 

[Bad^Hat]

Meh, sounds like I'll be waiting for mods to tweak the balance then.

 

[Wanted Bob]

As much as I dislike level scaling (at least to the extent of Oblivion), I strongly doubt I will be able to wait longer for a GoTY edition. Reading the whole article to get a better idea.

EDIT: Well, at least one thing is certain: characters in this game no longer look like booty.

 

[Krynn72]

Hmm, I wonder if my brother changed his address yet. Maybe I'll get his Game Informer.

 

[unozero]

does Fallout have lvl scalling?

just saw the scans..looks neato I also heard we get crafting skills this time around.

 

[Wanted Bob]

Uh oh... it sounds like there might be finishing moves in this game D:

I sincerely hope they are optional.

 

[Krynn72]

just saw the scans..looks neato I also heard we get crafting skills this time around.

That would be cool.

Uh oh... it sounds like there might be finishing moves in this game D:

That would not be.

 

[VirusType2]

I want to cut off limbs or heads with the final strike. If (that's not a "Finishing move") && (that's not cool), then what is?

 

[Wanted Bob]

Eh, not if it's done Fallout 3 style. I would rather there be no dismemberment (or maybe slash wounds) than have silly gore.

At first I was really worried when they said there would be perks, then Howard mentioned that these "perks" would basically be similar to the abilities you got at certain skill levels in Oblivion (the spin move and whatnot). I think I'm okay with that...

 

[Top Secret]

I am fine with finishing moves/perks. I just don't want Level Scaling.

 

[VirusType2]

Eh, not if it's done Fallout 3 style. I would rather there be no dismemberment (or maybe slash wounds) than have silly gore.

At first I was really worried when they said there would be perks, then Howard mentioned that these "perks" would basically be similar to the abilities you got at certain skill levels in Oblivion (the spin move and whatnot). I think I'm okay with that...

There was an Oblivion mod featuring dismemberment that looked really damn cool from what I saw (despite a couple of glitches), but it was just too quirky of an installation and control scheme for me to bother with.

 

[Krynn72]

There was an Oblivion mod featuring dismemberment that looked really damn cool from what I saw (despite a couple of glitches), but it was just too quirky of an installation and control scheme for me to bother with.

Your idea of whats "cool" or not has been proven over and over again to be completely backwards. I will use this knowledge to assume the mod you're talking about looked, in fact, really stupid.

Prove me wrong. Give me a link.

 

[Top Secret]

Your idea of whats "cool" or not has been proven over and over again to be completely backwards. I will use this knowledge to assume the mod you're talking about looked, in fact, really stupid.

Prove me wrong. Give me a link.

Either way, this isn't Oblivion we're talking about. A properly implemented dismemberment system would only help immersion.

 

[VirusType2]

Hahah, It's true, I think you guys all have mostly terrible taste.

Deadly Reflex:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fJlH3jGy6g
In this video, it's obviously set to be a one hit kill, but it didn't have to be. The video I was basing that opinion on featured limbs coming off in the arena and shit. It wasn't as over the top as this. You can look through here for more videos: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=oblivion+dismemberment&aq=f

I would expect Bethesda could do better than this mod, so that's why I think it could be really cool. For example, the final strike - might - cut off an arm that was exposed.

I'm a purist; I don't want them to make it all stupid. Do it right or don't do it.

 

[Tagaziel]

In the screenshot with that barmaid I can see that they've finally put environmental shadows in. What other developers had in years ago, Bethesda finally managed to code after eight long years.

Seriously though, the game does look far better than its retarded older brother. Guess they've finally learned how to model a human without him looking silly. I still can't shake the feeling of "rubber" in monster models, especially the undead. They look like rubber-suit skinny people, not undead.

Overall the graphics look decent however. Environment feels good and the shadows really make the difference.

I do not like the continued dumbing down. Less schools of magic? Gee, neat, now you have even less possible ways to develop your character. No crossbows. No classes (bye-bye character defining). Level scaling. Mentor character. One big name VA.

A separate mention goes out to "Radiant Storytelling". Didn't they lear after the abysmal failure called that "Radiant AI" that they can't code worth shit? Radiant AI is also coming back. I bet it will once again be castrated and bring amusement to the gaming folk. What's wrong with the game giving challenge and requiring the player to adapt?

I do like dual wielding and variable levelling however. The setting isn't as stupid as I expected it to be, plus I can assume that my beloved Khajiit will return.

I'm trying to be optimistic. But Todd Howard is not a good game designer, he's a twat.

 

[VirusType2]

In the screenshot with that barmaid I can see that they've finally put environmental shadows in. What other developers had in years ago, Bethesda finally managed to code after eight long years.

Seriously though, the game does look far better than its retarded older brother. Guess they've finally learned how to model a human without him looking silly. I still can't shake the feeling of "rubber" in monster models, especially the undead. They look like rubber-suit skinny people, not undead.

Overall the graphics look decent however. Environment feels good and the shadows really make the difference.

I do not like the continued dumbing down. Less schools of magic? Gee, neat, now you have even less possible ways to develop your character. No crossbows. No classes (bye-bye character defining). Level scaling. Mentor character. One big name VA.

A separate mention goes out to "Radiant Storytelling". Didn't they lear after the abysmal failure called that "Radiant AI" that they can't code worth shit? Radiant AI is also coming back. I bet it will once again be castrated and bring amusement to the gaming folk. What's wrong with the game giving challenge and requiring the player to adapt?

I do like dual wielding and variable levelling however. The setting isn't as stupid as I expected it to be, plus I can assume that my beloved Khajiit will return.

I'm trying to be optimistic. But Todd Howard is not a good game designer, he's a twat.

Less schools of magic? Man, I hate this dumbing down shit. I was hoping they'd bring back some of my favorites from Morrowind: medium armor, unarmored, and spears - any or all. I guess that's out of the question.

I think by the next 2 games, there will be just 3 classes: Stealth, Warrior, Mage. How boring.

 

[Warbie]

GET RID OF LEVEL SCALING IT IS STUPID AND ROBS THE PLAYER OF PROGRESSION

Levelling gives a false sense of progression and is used by devs to heard you through a game - which, in most rpgs, results in you fighting creatures of a similar level anyway - and to cheaply extend play time. In the case of mmos and other free roaming rpgs levelling results in a game world that becomes more and more redundant as you pass through it. WoW is a great example - 90% of all content becoming meaningless at end game. And why? Why should an end game bear be able to kill 20 bears from a starting area? What gives you a sense of progression - being able to take down a creature simply because the game has rewarded you for time spent, or becuase you've worked something out and are a better player? I've no problem with being able to gain new abilities and items and get better at using them, or improving stats and tailoring a charatcer or build, but why should progress be measured and the games challenged be governed by how long you've spent playing and how many hitpoints you have?

 

[Tagaziel]

Levelling gives a false sense of progression and is used by devs to heard you through a game - which, in most rpgs, results in you fighting creatures of a similar level anyway - and to cheaply extend play time. In the case of mmos and other free roaming rpgs levelling results in a game world that becomes more and more redundant as you pass through it. WoW is a great example - 90% of all content becoming meaningless at end game. And why? Why should an end game bear be able to kill 20 bears from a starting area? What gives you a sense of progression - being able to take down a creature simply because the game has rewarded you for time spent, or becuase you've worked something out and are a better player? I've no problem with being able to gain new abilities and items and get better at using them, or improving stats and tailoring a charatcer or build, but why should progress be measured and the games challenged be governed by how long you've spent playing and how many hitpoints you have?

It's called "challenge". A game that scales to your character automatically reduces challenge. What's the point of becoming strong if the game automatically adjusts, so that it's just as hard at level 50 as it is at level 1? Games shouldn't be entirely scaled to your character, there should be high-risk areas exclusively for high level characters, so that you can feel a sense of accomplishment when beating them. I know I felt that way after Dead Wind cavern and the Promontory in New Vegas.

 

[VirusType2]

I think Warbie is arguing against parts of the RPG mechanic in general, and is not a counterpoint to Top Secret's.

All I have to say to that is that modern RPGs (and I mean post Nintendo 8 Bit) are [almost entirely] only a mere shadow of what an RPG is supposed to be.

You shouldn't be seeing - level 10 and level 80 bears (or whatever - your point). What I'm saying is that the game should start at something manageable - a mummy or something, and move up to wicked serpent like dragon creatures or whatever. The example is that the enemies are always getting tougher and have good reason to be tougher - they are different creatures. A lot of RPGs just change the colors of the monsters or whatever. And granted, this is plausible sometimes - different snakes for example (as if a snake was a worthy adversary lol), but the problem is that many developers think RPGs should be some sort of grind-fest, when it should be nothing of the sort.

Fighting should only be a fraction of the game - maybe 33%. There should be exploration 33% and figuring out puzzles/traps 33% - at least in my opinion. And fighting should not be the only thing that increases the character's 'experience points'. Trying spells (even if they fail), even falling into a trap should give a person 'trap' experience (or what have you), obviously the character wouldn't 'fall' for that one again. What about mending wounds physically with bandage - not just magically?

Games have just completely lost it at the design stage. The programmers are kicking all kinds of serious ass, for the most part. But games lack passion, cleverness, ingenuity, creativity, etc.

I fully respect The Elder Scrolls for some of their design decisions compared to competitors, the traps and puzzles were great fun, but it still leaves something to be desired - a cohesiveness with the magic system for starters; enemy leveling and armor variety are also a sore point. The overloading of potions... making a bottle out of thin air? REALLY? Ridiculous.

Please play Dungeon Master to learn how an RPG should be done with regards to food/water/magic/potions/healing/traps/puzzles and leveling system, etc.


..The 99 of each potion 'thing' must DIE. Let's chalk that up to a learning phase in video game history, not a staple.

A potion should be the most precious ****ing thing in a character inventory, a total game changer, like a staff to a mage, or a sword to a fighter. You should be able to reuse the flask, so choose what you put in it wisely for what you expect to need it for. And you should get experience for casting a successful (or unsuccessful) magic spell/potion. You should be able to carry more than one flask - maybe 30 by 'end game', but not 99999 potions. If you decide to fill the flask with an offensive fire or poison bomb, well you won't get that flask back - but it should be worth it.

 

[Warbie]

It's called "challenge". A game that scales to your character automatically reduces challenge. What's the point of becoming strong if the game automatically adjusts, so that it's just as hard at level 50 as it is at level 1? Games shouldn't be entirely scaled to your character

I wasn't arguing for level scaling, rather against levelling as we're used to it fullstop (although i'd choose scaling done well - Oblivion didn't do a good job here - over the way levelling has been traditonally handled). I also fail to see how scaling results in less challenge - isn't that the whole point to it? Without scaling you can wonder around certain areas like an untouchable god. Areas/mobs could be scaled to be easy, hard, or to vary in relation to your character, or to a base character, or both.

there should be high-risk areas exclusively for high level characters, so that you can feel a sense of accomplishment when beating them. I know I felt that way after Dead Wind cavern and the Promontory in New Vegas.

I didn't feel accomplishment in New Vegas when areas became easier. I was no better at the game - foes that once seemed unbeatable became as scary as scorpions. This is not how challenge should be handled. What's wrong with an area being difficult because the mobs are tough, or real fast, or because you're not familair with them? Take Bayonetta (I know, different genre), it presents you with seemingly impossible tasks that are overcome by becoming a better player. You increase in strength a tiny amount and earn new skills/weapons/items etc as you progress through the game (so it could be argued that you 'level' to some degree), but any challenge can be overcome regardless of what stage your character is at. It'll take 100s of hours of practise, but it's doable - the defining factor is whether you're good enough. I'm not saying rpgs should mirror this, but they can learn a great deal about empowering the player in a real way and giving a proper sense of achievment.

What I'm saying is that the game should start at something manageable - a mummy or something, and move up to wicked serpent like dragon creatures or whatever. The example is that the enemies are always getting tougher and have good reason to be tougher - they are different creatures.

Agreed. Too often we end up with the ridiculous situation in which a high level bee is harder than an armour clad demon champion from early on in the game. Tastes will always differ - some people like an easy slaughter - but if I bump into an anrgy bear in the woods I want it to always be a challenge. I may be skilled in dealing with bears - can handle 2 or 3 at a time perhaps, with practise and the right skills/experience - but the encounter shouldn't be cheapened by letting time spent determine the challenge.

 

[Sedako]

From this Bethesda forum post:

Since people are asking, wanted to briefly touch on level scaling. All our games have had some amount of randomness/levelling based on player level. Skyrim's is similar to Fallout 3's, not Oblivion's.

Hope that addresses some concerns, and we hope you're enjoying the GI cover story.

Have a great night

NICE, but unfortunately he said 3 and not New Vegas :/

 

[Wanted Bob]

A potion should be the most precious ****ing thing in a character inventory, a total game changer, like a staff to a mage, or a sword to a fighter. You should be able to reuse the flask, so choose what you put in it wisely for what you expect to need it for. And you should get experience for casting a successful (or unsuccessful) magic spell/potion. You should be able to carry more than one flask - maybe 30 by 'end game', but not 99999 potions. If you decide to fill the flask with an offensive fire or poison bomb, well you won't get that flask back - but it should be worth it.

I look to the Witcher for an alchemy system that I actually like. Potions in that game actually meant something. They werent whimpy effects that lasted for 30-60 seconds, they lasted for a LONG time. As a result they were generally more difficult to craft.

 

[Rizzo]

So these screens people seem to have seen, where whould one find'em?

 

[Tagaziel]

I didn't feel accomplishment in New Vegas when areas became easier. I was no better at the game - foes that once seemed unbeatable became as scary as scorpions. This is not how challenge should be handled. What's wrong with an area being difficult because the mobs are tough, or real fast, or because you're not familair with them? Take Bayonetta (I know, different genre), it presents you with seemingly impossible tasks that are overcome by becoming a better player. You increase in strength a tiny amount and earn new skills/weapons/items etc as you progress through the game (so it could be argued that you 'level' to some degree), but any challenge can be overcome regardless of what stage your character is at. It'll take 100s of hours of practise, but it's doable - the defining factor is whether you're good enough. I'm not saying rpgs should mirror this, but they can learn a great deal about empowering the player in a real way and giving a proper sense of achievment.

You're missing the point of an RPG. In an RPG, you create a character and that character, your avatar, is what matters. Unlike action games, RPGs put emphasis on character skill, rather than player skill. This is the defining element of an RPG. I have no problem with leveling, as it simply rewarding to achieve another level, particularly in older RPGs, when level 8 was a real achievement.

I also don't understand your point about not getting "better" at New Vegas. I certainly felt that I was getting better as I learned about my enemies' tactics and how to fight, not to mention finally being able to fight a deathclaw and win. I don't know about you, but I feel that some enemies simply should be nigh invincible at lower levels, regardless of player skill. If they aren't, then why bother making an RPG at all?

 

[StardogChampion]

So these screens people seem to have seen, where whould one find'em?

https://twitter.com/search?q=skyrim+screens

 

[Warbie]

You're missing the point of an RPG. In an RPG, you create a character and that character, your avatar, is what matters. Unlike action games, RPGs put emphasis on character skill, rather than player skill. This is the defining element of an RPG. I have no problem with leveling, as it simply rewarding to achieve another level, particularly in older RPGs, when level 8 was a real achievement.

RPGs and action games are blurring into one, and with that the distinction between your personal skill and that of your avatar's. You can't have perception skill dictating whether you can detect a trap or not when you're staring at it in first person. The same is true with real time combat - it's your reaction time and accuracy that matters. If we stick too rigidly to RPG mechanics we'll continue to end with clunky hybrids that feel shoehorned.

I also don't understand your point about not getting "better" at New Vegas. I certainly felt that I was getting better as I learned about my enemies' tactics and how to fight, not to mention finally being able to fight a deathclaw and win. I don't know about you, but I feel that some enemies simply should be nigh invincible at lower levels, regardless of player skill. If they aren't, then why bother making an RPG at all?

That reads like we're agreeing. Learning enemy tactics and how to fight is what I feel action rpg combat should be all about. My experience of fighting deathclaws was this, however. Shoot one in the head 20 times at a low level for next to no damage. Come back 20 hours later, albeit with a slightly bigger gun and fancier bullets, and one shot them.

 

[Tagaziel]

RPGs and action games are blurring into one, and with that the distinction between your personal skill and that of your avatar's. You can't have perception skill dictating whether you can detect a trap or not when you're staring at it in first person. The same is true with real time combat - it's your reaction time and accuracy that matters. If we stick too rigidly to RPG mechanics we'll continue to end with clunky hybrids that feel shoehorned.

That's why I believe that we shouldn't allow them to blur into one. Variety is the spice of life and in RPGs, the character is what matters, the player is second. For example, perception should dictate what you see and what you cannot. For example, high perception could passively highlight traps. Hell, traps in general should be laid out like real traps. Here's the big difference between Fo3 and New Vegas. In Fo3, traps were laid out in the open, completely illogically. In New Vegas, mines are hidden in bushes, under traffic cones, corners etc. I stopped counting the times I walked into them.

In general, systems should be adapted, but not discarded wholesale, which is what you are suggesting. Going with perception: make it highlight well hidden traps. Make it give a bonus to accuracy. Hell, maxed out perception should allow the player to activate a focus mode, which slows the world down (eg. Turbo in NV).

That reads like we're agreeing. Learning enemy tactics and how to fight is what I feel action rpg combat should be all about. My experience of fighting deathclaws was this, however. Shoot one in the head 20 times at a low level for next to no damage. Come back 20 hours later, albeit with a slightly bigger gun and fancier bullets, and one shot them.

You want to kill deathclaws at level 1? How about the developers provide you a big red "Push this button to win the game!" gadget?

 

[Bad^Hat]

Info is all here in bulletpoint form:

http://www.vg247.com/2011/01/08/the...-details-outed-on-combat-leveling-races-more/

This is something I've been wanting for ages in RPGs...

On Conversations: Conversations aren’t done in a zoomed in static shot anymore.Start a conversation with some and they will act like someone would in real life, looking at you occasionally and walking around a bit and also continue doing a task if they were doing one while talking.

... but I really wonder if it will be free, or if you'll still be locked in place and the characters will just move around with the same 5 preset animations, as in Mass Effect 1. What I've been after is a system where you're still free to move anywhere you want and initiate conversation as you please, without being trapped staring at someone until the game decides the conversation is over. Basically Half-Life 2, except you can talk back.

 

[lord_raken]

About the decrease in skills and magical disciplines. I don't think they have decreased the variety of spells but probably combined schools of magic and a skill now affects more gameplay aspects.

I hope...

 

[Rizzo]

“Radiant storytelling” or Level Scaling 2.0: “The game eventually logs a huge storehouse of knowledge about how you’ve played, and subsequently tailors content to your capabilities and experiences. Entering a city, a young woman might approach you and beg you to save her daughter from kidnappers. The game will look at the nearby dungeons you’ve explored, automatically set the mission in a place you’ve never visited, and designate opponents that are appropriately matched to your strengths and weaknesses.”

I have somewhat of a problem with this. What I think, is have it solvable in a variety of ways. You can go in, brute force and kill everything, sneak in undetectable, with minimum casulties, a diplomatic sulotion, a mix of the above. But don't tailor it specificlly after what my character looks like... Maybe I'm wrong, but it just feels strange reading it like that.

Edit: I should say that I think the rest sounds pretty sweet and that I will definitely get it at some point.

 

[StardogChampion]

... but I really wonder if it will be free, or if you'll still be locked in place and the characters will just move around with the same 5 preset animations, as in Mass Effect 1. What I've been after is a system where you're still free to move anywhere you want and initiate conversation as you please, without being trapped staring at someone until the game decides the conversation is over. Basically Half-Life 2, except you can talk back.

Walking around wouldn't make much sense unless you were locked to a certain radius. And console users wouldn't be able to walk and make dialogue choices with just the left analog stick. They'd have to make the dpad for choosing dialogue options, but I don't see them doing that. It wouldn't even work on the PC - you'd end up looking at the floor when clicking "Bye".

Most MMO's let you move around while an NPC's talking but barely anyone does.

 

[Warbie]

In general, systems should be adapted, but not discarded wholesale, which is what you are suggesting. Going with perception: make it highlight well hidden traps. Make it give a bonus to accuracy. Hell, maxed out perception should allow the player to activate a focus mode, which slows the world down (eg. Turbo in NV).

I agree - but isn't that action and rpg meeting in a way that works for both, embracing the blurring of genres that you're against? It's a far cry from what we used to have in the pen and paper days in which there was no trap to see. I wasn't suggesting dropping anything completely btw - it's this type of thought out blending that I want as, like it or not, action rpgs are a genre all of their own now and need their own way of doing things. I like how in Demon's Souls your weight determines your ability to dodge - my plated warriors escape roll is painfully slow. He still relies on me telling him to dodge at the right time, but the affect of stats on real time play is obvious and it's this type of interaction that devs need to spend more time sorting out. Dexterity could affect countering for example - the higher the stat the longer the window of opportunity to perform the move successfully. They also need to look at what isn't working so well with the action side of things and this is where my gripe with traditonal levelling stems from. I don't want a 'win' button, that's the point - levelling gave me a deathclaw win button.

 

[VictimOfScience]

In all of this new news has there been any mention of having more than like 3 voice actors for 95% of the characters? :-\ Thank god they are making the dungeons and such more unique as well--they looked great in Oblivion but man were they samey. Oh, and those screenshots have me really drooling for this game.

 

[PorkPi]

Sounds pretty sweet at this stage. Looks like they're taking some stuff from Fallout as well, like perks. I am interested.
Edit: Hold up, did I just see V.A.T.S?

 

[VirusType2]

Fighting should only be a fraction of the game - maybe 33%. There should be exploration 33% and figuring out puzzles/traps/riddles 33%

I want to elaborate on this a little more.

All 3 of these elements should be based on survival (even exploration, when it comes to food and water). And survival relies on challenge. You should have to fight while backpedaling and circling around, throwing or launching projectiles, using magic to trap and fire upon enemies from a distance. Rarely at any point in an RPG should you be marching up on an enemy as if you are the one to be feared.

I hate 'so called' RPGs that allow your puny humanoid characters to have their way against.. ****ing monsters. Humanoids are weaker than ****. With tools, much more formidable yes, but humanoids should have to rely on projectiles, cunning tactics and outsmarting enemies, using the dungeon traps against them, evasion and advanced learning/prediction, sometimes speed or endurance. These are monsters. Zombies, ghosts, fanged beasts, all kinds of shit. I don't care what kind of tin suit you are wearing, a gorilla will smash you like a grape - and a monster might should be able to do the same.

I am not trying to say make your character weak and make battles too difficult and such, I am trying to say that you should not be standing toe to toe with a monster/troll, etc, relying on some kind of defense number. That's BS.

EDIT:

It's not that I want to take leveling and the strength increases out of the game, but the first time you face an enemy, it should be extremely ****ing dangerous, like you probably won't make it. Retreat and regroup, try again. Run and close the door behind you. Barricade it.

Learning the enemy is half the challenge. So yeah, facing that enemy again at later levels you should expect to win, without too much problem. Mostly because you don't miss as much, you know when to move, and you have better weapons, not because you have some defense or strength number that is 'so much higher' than before.


There is nothing like an RPG where you actually fear your enemies, despite being completely and totally equipped to dispatch them. And how satisfying it is. Maybe there will be another enemy that comes from around the corner, to take advantage in your weakened fighting state... However, random enemy encounters (like every time you take a foot step there is a chance of a random enemy encounter) is an archaic gameplay technique that has no place in a real-time RPG. You should see/hear them coming, and they should sense you coming as well.

...and I really mean fear them. Like some crazy shit popped up out of the shadows and will not co-exist. Their movement speed should be similar to yours in most cases, meaning: don't take a wrong turn into a dead end while retreating.

When you finally beat that Golem guardian or whatever-the-face that you constantly had to retreat from, and the path that is now safe for exploration, that feeling of progress and accomplishment.


But another thing sorely missing are riddles. A good riddle is a lot of fun, and a good way to change pace.

One downside to riddles are that they are the same every time you play the game - but they don't necessarily have to be. You could have a bunch of them, that the game picks one from.


EDIT:

In a real-time RPG, the underlying theme is TIME. The device should be food and water.

Time : It takes you to figure out riddles, puzzles, and traps, while starving to death or dying of thirst.

Time : Magic, Health, and Stamina (ability to run) replenish over time, slowly, even while in battle, obviously.

Time : In order to limit the 'grinding', the constant leveling up to gain an unfair (and unrealistic) advantage against enemies, there is a limited supply of food.


Some of the gameplay techniques I described obviously wouldn't work in a game like 'The Elder Scrolls' and are suited for a pure dungeon crawler.

I look to the Witcher for an alchemy system that I actually like. Potions in that game actually meant something. They werent whimpy effects that lasted for 30-60 seconds, they lasted for a LONG time. As a result they were generally more difficult to craft.

Unfortunately, I can't relate. I've missed out on this so far but plan on picking it up.

You're missing the point of an RPG. In an RPG, you create a character and that character, your avatar, is what matters. Unlike action games, RPGs put emphasis on character skill, rather than player skill. This is the defining element of an RPG. I have no problem with leveling, as it simply rewarding to achieve another level, particularly in older RPGs, when level 8 was a real achievement.

That's why I believe that we shouldn't allow them to blur into one. Variety is the spice of life and in RPGs, the character is what matters, the player is second.

To me, this kind of gameplay you describe should be suited to a turn-based or strategy RPG. The gameplay I describe (and crave) is real-time RPG - or action/adventure RPG.

 

[Top Secret]

Levelling gives a false sense of progression and is used by devs to heard you through a game - which, in most rpgs, results in you fighting creatures of a similar level anyway - and to cheaply extend play time. In the case of mmos and other free roaming rpgs levelling results in a game world that becomes more and more redundant as you pass through it. WoW is a great example - 90% of all content becoming meaningless at end game. And why? Why should an end game bear be able to kill 20 bears from a starting area? What gives you a sense of progression - being able to take down a creature simply because the game has rewarded you for time spent, or becuase you've worked something out and are a better player? I've no problem with being able to gain new abilities and items and get better at using them, or improving stats and tailoring a charatcer or build, but why should progress be measured and the games challenged be governed by how long you've spent playing and how many hitpoints you have?

I realize that the level scaling conversation went past this post, but I'm just going to address it as a whole:

I don't have a problem with level scaling in MOST games. It is there in one form or another in almost all games. Level 2 of Tetris? Level scaling. Even a lot of action-RPG's it is common to introduce more difficult enemies as the player levels. But TES is an open world RPG series. The idea is that your avatar is, essentially, just another dude walking around. The fact that I am level 1, or level 500 Warrior with the "The Grandfather Sword" and "Godly Plate of the Whale" should not make a difference what gear the bandits in cave X are packing. Or what loot I find. Level scaling means I am never afraid. "Oh damn, that monster looks scary... but the game is level scaled so he can't be much stronger than I am." How fun. >.<

 

[Warbie]

I agree. That's not a problem with level scaling though, rather the way Oblivion handled it. Bandits shouldn't have godly gear, it's silly, and as I said above, mobs could be scaled to be any difficulty in relation to your character.

Let's draw a line in the sand here. To me, this kind of gameplay you describe should be suited to a turn-based or strategy RPG

Agreed. You just have to look at the new Fallout games to see how clunky and mixed up they are, trying to balance old style mechanics with real time action.