Skyrim - 5 Five Ways to Make the Next Elder Scrolls Game Better @ Forbes

[ChienAboyeur]

Second, your argumentation has one little tiny flaw, and that is your assumption that your particular RPG definition is the correct one. (Although I agree that the label "RPG" is thrown around with too much ease).

One thing that many, if not most people, have learned is that there is no general consensus on a definitive definition of an cRPG. Yet, some people seem to behave as if they have seen the light and are willing to go to war to spread their believes.

Thank God that RPG fundamentalists don't have any access to weapons of mass destruction .

You are mixing two things:

RPG definition and what computer games could be called a RPG.

RPGs exist outside computer gaming and the definition of them is known.

In board gaming, table top gaming, skirmish games are not called RPGs. Games like Hero Quest, Warhammer Quest are not called RPGs. Yet both are very alike to certain computer games.

RPGs are used in a professional environment and the definition of them is the same as for the P&P game entertainment area.

But suddenly, when it comes to computer gaming, the general definition (which you consider to my definition when it is not) must not be applied. For some reasons.

And while the general definition is repelled, for some reason, another false statement arises: that a RPG is a matter of taste, that RPG has no definition and that anything could be a RPG, which is immediately contradicted by people's behaviour as they (on what ground?) distinguish between no RPGs and RPGs. This forum can display a non RPG section. Which should not be existing as RPGs in computer gaming has no definition.

 

[ChienAboyeur]

I disagree in part, because - for example - the race defines the role in part.

You can disagree fully. Big typo there.

It should read that in P&P RPGs, roles are undubiously defined (and not undefined)

In order to effectively play a Wood-Elf in TDE you will have to keep away from everything that hints towards materialism. Wood-Elves in Aventuria regard humsn materialism as badoc.

Roleplaying is a matter of constraints. And it is only through various actions that a character is built in the role. If a player wants his character to be perceived as a normative elf, he has to act according to the social norms set by the elves.
If he does not, he builds his character into something else. That might lead for example (I dont say it happens in this game) to be considered a non elf by the elven kind.

It means that contrary to the path taken by some players, the elven condition is not granted and permanent. Some players go the no constraint route: no matter the action my elf takes, he ends being an elf and even more, set a standard for what an elf is in the game universe.

It does not work this way in RPG.

 

[killias2]

Here's the simple fact: labels are a matter of inter-subjective agreement. Video game RPGs are called RPGs not because of their role-playing but because of elements borrowed from role-playing games (tabletop). You can rage and argue that this is incorrect and that there should be a different term that should be applied currently and retroactively to most of the games in the genre, but it's nonsense. A term is a term. When most people hear "RPG" in the video game context they have a general sense of what that means. Keep in mind, this isn't just a national or cultural phenomenon either. It's international. "RPG" is a word in Japanese, even if that word has nothing to do with your version of what RPG should mean. At the end of the day, languages are filled with metaphors and broken references.

In any case, if Skyrim isn't an RPG, I have a very, very hard time believing that anything released before, say, Might and Magic is an RPG. Even then, I'm dubious as to how you'd make that argument. The entire history of the RPG of the genre will need to be rewritten, even though the people making the games thought they were making RPGs, borrowing ideas from other RPGs, and competing with other RPGs. The people playing them thought they were playing RPGs. The people reviewing them though they were reviewing RPGs. The people marketing them though they were marketing RPGs.

But, nope, you possess the Long Hidden, God's Honest Truth when it comes to RPGs, so they're all wrong. It's all wrong. Everyone needs to change the word they use in order to fit my obsessive compulsive view of the way language should work.

 

[killias2]

Let me try another way of getting my message across. Let's take a look at other genre names.

Fighting games? Umm.. don't all games have fighting? How does the term Fighting dictate anything in particular about a game except that involves violence?

Platformer? So your game has platforms?

Real-time Strategy? Arguably, this applies to every game that is in real-time. If your game doesn't involve some form of strategy, I'm not really sure what player involvement even means.

Beat'em'up? Same problem as Fighting Games

Shoot'em'up? Again. Not really very telling.

4x? Aren't the four "X's" common to virtually all strategy games, and most games? Explore, expand, exploit, and exterminate. Besides expand, I'm thinking most games, and, with expand, most strategy games.

See what I mean? Genre names mean shit. The actual words are largely arbitrary, which is pretty much true of all language. Things make sense to us not because the literal meaning of the words but because we call upon common experience to infer meaning from context. I know what all these genres specifically refer to because I know how they're used. It's the same with RPGs.

Not just anything is going to be called an RPG just because the genre standards are imperfect (by your standards). Nobody calls Call of Duty an RPG just because it has progression elements. Not even the Zelda series, despite its relative proximity to the genre, is generally viewed as an RPG series. Categorization of ideas is also problematic because ideas are inherently abstract. However, there is a general agreement on what constitutes an RPG, even if that agreement is different than your idealized version of what it should be.

 

[Alrik Fassbauer]

At one point a descriptive name becomes what is known as a "keyword" in proggramming.

To my complaint that programming languages that use the English language as its underlying language give native English speakers quite an enhancement whereas not natives must learn the meaning of the programmiong keywords first, in order to be be able to effectively use them,
people usually responded with "but they're only keywords!" or "but they're only symbols !" -
- Which would imply that a programming language could have programming "keywords" in *any* language - it could be Esperanto as well. We could have the "print" command translated into Esperanto as a programming keyword/command in an programming language - and *all* such programming language keywords would be in Esperanto ! - Not only "print", but also things like "malloc", "unsigned", "virtual", "include", "return", "new" ...

But people usually say that *everyone* wopuld have to learn these keywords as pure Symbols, not as words from any natural language. So, why, I have always wondered, doesn't there exist any Esperanto programming language ?

I write this just as an example of how words can become Symbols.

It usually happens with names, especially descriptive names, too. Or with Proverbs, best example probably.

Names and words just enter a state of "meta"-being at one point. Their literal meaning just gets lost and they become Symbols for something else. Like in Proverbs.

Just take names as "Jump & Run" and "RPG" as Proverbs. Just do it. You'll notice that the descriptive name of "jump & Run" has kind of transcended itself and has become a kind of "meta-being", so to say. It doesn't describe anymore properly what's exactly going on in this type of game, no - it describes the whole genre !

I think there's a wording like this "pars pro toto" - "a part [name] as the sum of all parts [names]", I think it means (it actually is a kind of proverb itself already) - and that's what is happening when a descriptive name (of several similar games) grows into becoming a name describing a/the whole genre ...

I think thart's what has happened to the descriptive name of "C-RPG" already. Or with "Action-RPG" as well.

The original/i] meaning transcended and got lost meanwhile (in the process of) becoming a whole genre's name.

And that's what happened with God as well, I suppose, at least from a human's perspective.

Or with holy people. The name of "Mother Theresa" has become faer, far bigger than the real person ever was.

 

[wolfgrimdark]

Role playing does have restraints but those restraints can come from anywhere - a game, a friend, a psychologist, or the person themselves as they try out a role. Nor does everyone have to assume the same role. Some might play an elven ranger in a game very differently from someone else. The key point is you need some structure, some guidelines, wherever it comes from, that defines the role you are playing so that you can then try to play out that role as if it were truly you in that role. The idea that this structure and restraint can only come from someone/something else is incorrect.

A role can be very loose. You are a nurse in a hospital. Play your role - in a game, onstage, in therapy. It can be very defined. You are a middle aged hispanic female nurse who has been working at a hospital for 30 years. She feels her job is threatened by recent changes. She is under a lot of stress. A plague has broken out. Now play that role as you think you would if you were her under those circumstances. Either one works fine - just depends on freedom. Now if there are no choices at all ... well then that is more reading a book or watching a movie. You need some ability to fulfill playing that role.

In the context of a game there might be different levels and types of mechanics to help in role playing. Some may be broad and general and others may be very specific. Some may provide more, or less, reaction to how someone plays a role. Some games may make you assume the role of a character while others give you some of the basic tools (i.e. immersion, quests, archetypes in the form of class templates, etc.) and leave it up to the player.

To me the RPG tag, in specific, has never really been about whether the game is or is not an RPG. Its not that black and white. Its a degree that is based on what your options and choices are in building a character, playing the character, and how much the world reacts to that.

Hence Skyrim is an RPG of the form that is more open to having the restraints imposed by the player and provides a variety of ways for that player to carry out whatever role they wish for the character they are playing.

To me a good RPG can be either a pre-defined role or an open one as long as you have plenty of options on how to create your character within the role you choose for yourself or the one that the writers have chosen for you.

So here, you are Commander Shephard. You are in the military and you have X, Y and Z characteristics and restraints. Within that now play out your role as if you were in that situation. The game offers some choices in how you build your character, decisions to make on quests, etc. Now some might consider those options good or bad RP options depending on a variety of factors. I tended to feel I was watching a movie and had some minor influence so I don't put it high on my RP rating ... but there is still some there since it is a role and one you can adjust and try to direct the way you would if you were in it.

In Skyrim I also was given a very simple role. You are a Dragonborn. This is how you start your life. Now how will you play that role? Who are? What is your race? Your profession? That is up to you. It is also up to the player to either ignore role playing and just focus on mechanics, achievements, and meta gaming that's fine. Really depends on the player.

 

[MigRib]

In Skyrim I also was given a very simple role. You are a Dragonborn. This is how you start your life. Now how will you play that role? Who are? What is your race? Your profession? That is up to you. It is also up to the player to either ignore role playing and just focus on mechanics, achievements, and meta gaming that's fine. Really depends on the player.

Simple, yet it can become a very interesting story. And not only inside our mind, as some might argue, but based on everything that happens in game. And it really is (or can be) a lot.

 

[ChienAboyeur]

Here's the simple fact: labels are a matter of inter-subjective agreement. Video game RPGs are called RPGs not because of their role-playing but because of elements borrowed from role-playing games (tabletop).

But what elements? That does not exist. Elements that borrow do exist in the non computer genre games.
A board game skirmish game adapted to computer platform, why should you look up at RPG to look if the elements are employed in RPG instead of sticking to skirmish where the elements you borrow from are employed?
It is skirmish video game, driven to use same elements as it is non RPG counterpart.
The whole RPG elements story rests on nothing.

You can rage and argue that this is incorrect and that there should be a different term that should be applied currently and retroactively to most of the games in the genre, but it's nonsense. A term is a term. When most people hear "RPG" in the video game context they have a general sense of what that means. Keep in mind, this isn't just a national or cultural phenomenon either. It's international. "RPG" is a word in Japanese, even if that word has nothing to do with your version of what RPG should mean. At the end of the day, languages are filled with metaphors and broken references.

In any case, if Skyrim isn't an RPG, I have a very, very hard time believing that anything released before, say, Might and Magic is an RPG. Even then, I'm dubious as to how you'd make that argument.

You base the category of computer video RPGs on the past, without ever assessing the substance of the past. All you do is constantly scaling it back to a past, with the prerequisite the past is right.

I dont understand how people are willing to keep on that path while for other things, they wont do it.

It is higly troublesome as the situation is at it is: in other gaming/non gaming departments, the definition is known (and existed prior video games) and allows to distinguish for example between a RPG and a skirmish game.

When brought on a computer, a board game skirmish game is suddenly labelled a RPG. With the expected consequences: the more it is repeated, the more the past will tend to justify that skirmish games are RPGs.

It changes nothing to what a RPG is.

The entire history of the RPG of the genre will need to be rewritten, even though the people making the games thought they were making RPGs, borrowing ideas from other RPGs, and competing with other RPGs. The people playing them thought they were playing RPGs. The people reviewing them though they were reviewing RPGs. The people marketing them though they were marketing RPGs.

I doubt that developpers think they are developping RPGs because they seldom register their game as RPGs.

As for the rest, the question is the following: why do people want to label skirmish games RPGs (for example)? What is the gain?

But, nope, you possess the Long Hidden, God's Honest Truth when it comes to RPGs, so they're all wrong. It's all wrong. Everyone needs to change the word they use in order to fit my obsessive compulsive view of the way language should work.

Obsessive compulsive? Languages are working this way? Where? Is it often in your world that the words like tree and car are blended in to mean the same?

 

[ChienAboyeur]

Role playing does have restraints but those restraints can come from anywhere - a game, a friend, a psychologist, or the person themselves as they try out a role. Nor does everyone have to assume the same role. Some might play an elven ranger in a game very differently from someone else. The key point is you need some structure, some guidelines, wherever it comes from, that defines the role you are playing so that you can then try to play out that role as if it were truly you in that role. The idea that this structure and restraint can only come from someone/something else is incorrect.

What are you speaking about? It is not possible to stretch interpretation to that margin.

It is not because a player decides that his/her avatar is an elven ranger that the player roleplays an elven ranger. People are turning roles into condition that is granted and can not be removed, no matter what actions they take.

A role can be very loose. You are a nurse in a hospital. Play your role - in a game, onstage, in therapy.

The role of a nurse in a hospital is very loose? It is full of constraints. Do you really think that a nurse who starts poisoning the patients around, gets caught, will be said "oh, it is just another interpretation of the nurse role. Keep up the good work"?
She will be demoted from her position and very likely forbidden to play a role of nurse in as much locations as it is possible.

It can be very defined. You are a middle aged hispanic female nurse who has been working at a hospital for 30 years. She feels her job is threatened by recent changes. She is under a lot of stress. A plague has broken out. Now play that role as you think you would if you were her under those circumstances. Either one works fine - just depends on freedom. Now if there are no choices at all … well then that is more reading a book or watching a movie. You need some ability to fulfill playing that role.

That is not a role. That is a background and possible role playing situations.

Hence Skyrim is an RPG of the form that is more open to having the restraints imposed by the player and provides a variety of ways for that player to carry out whatever role they wish for the character they are playing.

Skyrim is no RPG. It has no role in it.

To me a good RPG can be either a pre-defined role or an open one as long as you have plenty of options on how to create your character within the role you choose for yourself or the one that the writers have chosen for you.

It is self contradictory. Above, you wrote that you expect a reaction from the gameworld and here, you say that you want a role you choose for yourself. How do you want the gameworld to react to a role it has no pre defined references to?

So here, you are Commander Shephard. You are in the military and you have X, Y and Z characteristics and restraints. Within that now play out your role as if you were in that situation. The game offers some choices in how you build your character, decisions to make on quests, etc. Now some might consider those options good or bad RP options depending on a variety of factors. I tended to feel I was watching a movie and had some minor influence so I don't put it high on my RP rating … but there is still some there since it is a role and one you can adjust and try to direct the way you would if you were in it.

Same confusion as usual: Shepard, the avatar, is given a role into the gameworld. It is the case of many, many games. An avatar in a football game has a role, he is a football player. An avatar in a driving game has a role: he is a driver.
Does it mean role playing? No.

Once again, it shows that as they reject the general definition of RPGs employed anywhere else but computer gamers, they are unable to provide any suitable definition and finally, they end with, not the question "what is a RPG?" but "what is not a RPG?" because games that features an avatar that has no role in his/her/its gameworld, they are very few.
[/quote]

In Skyrim I also was given a very simple role. You are a Dragonborn. This is how you start your life. Now how will you play that role? Who are? What is your race? Your profession? That is up to you. It is also up to the player to either ignore role playing and just focus on mechanics, achievements, and meta gaming that's fine. Really depends on the player.

Dragon born is self explicit. You are born in the condition. Condition is no role.

And finally, ignoring role playing comes easily in Skyrim because there is no role in it and therefore no mechanics to support role playing.

 

[darkling]

Cripes. Reading those posts is like trying to read timecube!

I kinda agree with the article. Better combat, a stricter class system, better writing… pretty much my complaints with the TES games in general. And Fallout 3. I had over 40 hours of fun with Skyrim but ultimately left unfulfilled. They're getting better but they need some new game designers and a writer or two.

 

[Pessimeister]

I don't think you can dismiss what anyone is saying with posts like the above; it's disingenuous and ultimately self-defeating. This is a forum after all where we come to discuss such related concepts and questions.

If you disagree with a particular poster, then so be it, agree to disagree and move on - pointless generalisations and inflammatory remarks about people won't assist to have your own voice heard.

On topic - my five points to help make a better Elder Scrolls game:

1. Integrate more cause and consequence; give more choices meaning.

2. More faction based interplay and ideological clashes to enhance point 1. (Think Fighters guild vs Thieve's Guild from Morrowind as a starting point…) This will assist in greater role-playing opportunities. Make those choices and resulting paths obviously different…(I didn't think Bethesda did as good a job as they could have with Skyrim with the Stormcloak vs Imperials to make the experiences seem distinct enough from each other.)

3. Provide an optional framework of classes for those who don't wish to create characters that are generic jack of all trades. I think it's a silly generalisation that just because someone wishes to play within a distinct class, that one somehow lacks imagination. It takes very little imagination to make a jack of all trades.
I liked the option of class templates from Morrowind just fine.

4. Bring back the stats! Or at least give me a speed/jump/acrobatics skill again…Surely my light armour wearing assassin moves more dextrously than my heavy armoured Fighter type for instance. For me, the streamlining of skills done in Skyrim was unwelcome.

5. Employ new writers to create more diversified content and interesting encounters to support such a large sprawling world. Oh…and no more level scaling please.

 

[Tragos]

I think Skyrim is an RPG like Diablo is an RPG , there are no roles to play but you can chose how to fight !

In other news the guy started the article with "The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim is, in many ways, a really terrific role-playing game." and ended it with how disappointed he is, consistency !

 

[crpgnut]

Writing/Story elements (characters,dialogs,choices and consequences…) are crap and the gameplay (combat) is pretty dreadful. Plus the rpg mechanics, enemy variety and dungeon design are weak. I'm sorry, just having a pretty 3-D world to wander around in isn't cutting it for me.

And no, I don't like Bioware's cinematic/interactive movie approach either.

You're welcome to your opinion, but there are millions who enjoyed the game and it still averages over 200,000 players at any given moment on Steam. I'd say Bethesda did something very right for many of us. Too bad you couldn't enjoy it. Still, your opinion is just as valid as mine

Gotta say Chin Voyeur(sp?) is very adamant about his beliefs of the game. I don't see a need to argue with him, since I loved the game. I could care less whether it fit someones definition of anything to be honest. I enjoyed it so it was a win for me and a win for Bethesda. Create more, please!

The best perversion of my name, that I've ever read was crapping-nut I also had someone ask me if my tongue was pierced, since crpgnut backwards is tungprc!

 

[sakichop]

Can't play a role in skyrim? Don't tell that to nordrick, jasper And their horse. R.I.P.

 

[ChienAboyeur]

Gotta say Chin Voyeur(sp?) is very adamant about his beliefs of the game. I don't see a need to argue with him, since I loved the game.

I am that type of people who are adamant about beliefs like human beings are mortal.

Since when love has anything to do here? So if you hated the game, you'll feel like arguing?

I could care less whether it fit someones definition of anything to be honest. I enjoyed it so it was a win for me and a win for Bethesda. Create more, please!

And if people were able to play that game and enjoy it without claiming it a RPG...

 

[ChienAboyeur]

4. Bring back the stats! Or at least give me a speed/jump/acrobatics skill again…Surely my light armour wearing assassin moves more dextrously than my heavy armoured Fighter type for instance. For me, the streamlining of skills done in Skyrim was unwelcome.

Bethesda is one of the only major studios still working to bring RPG to computers.

Decreasing the number of stats is one move toward that as the less stats there are, the less space it gives to powergaming.

 

[wolfgrimdark]

All things considered its pretty clear Skyrim offers many opportunities to role play if you want to but I would like to see some deeper stories and characters. I mentioned this before, but FNV is an awesome RPG that takes some of the open aspects of TES games with some of the deeper development of Bioware games.

P&P has the advantage that it is very open and you have live people who can respond to your actions on the fly making the role playing much more reactive. Computer games (with the exception of MMO style games where you can then role play with "live" people) tend to make it a deeper experience when the game actually reacts to your role. That is just one way I determine how much "RPG" is in a game, along with other factors like ability to design the look and feel of your character, building your character and progressing him - and more choice and options being the better, quest choice options, game world reacting to choices … restraints I can place on my character myself so the game doesn't have to do that for me … but it is nice when the world reacts to some degree.

Still I was pretty happy with the balance in Skyrim since it gave me plenty of opportunity to play whatever role I wished even if not as deep on the characters or reactions … then again some of the Bioware stories are not all that deep or reactionary either.

Oh and forgot I wanted to quote:

1. Integrate more cause and consequence; give more choices meaning.

2. More faction based interplay and ideological clashes to enhance point 1. (Think Fighters guild vs Thieve's Guild from Morrowind as a starting point…) This will assist in greater role-playing opportunities. Make those choices and resulting paths obviously different…(I didn't think Bethesda did as good a job as they could have with Skyrim with the Stormcloak vs Imperials to make the experiences seem distinct enough from each other.)

3. Provide an optional framework of classes for those who don't wish to create characters that are generic jack of all trades. I think it's a silly generalisation that just because someone wishes to play within a distinct class, that one somehow lacks imagination. It takes very little imagination to make a jack of all trades.
I liked the option of class templates from Morrowind just fine.

4. Bring back the stats! Or at least give me a speed/jump/acrobatics skill again…Surely my light armour wearing assassin moves more dextrously than my heavy armoured Fighter type for instance. For me, the streamlining of skills done in Skyrim was unwelcome.

5. Employ new writers to create more diversified content and interesting encounters to support such a large sprawling world. Oh…and no more level scaling please

... because I would be very happy with this list myself

 

[elikal]

I dunno why so many people hate classes, and why everyone wants to be a jack of all trades these days. *shrug* I love having a clearly defined role, as long as it has decend flexibility. I WANT to have a more defined class, to give me depth and background; like I am THE fighter dude or the mage nerd or the thief guy. Or whatever. I like classes.

I tend to agree with the 5 points. Some dialogues with choices and answers would be neat, just a tad of SWTOR, lol. I mean, only in terms of the choices. That would give my character more character.

 

[DArtagnan]

Number one priority would be cooperative multiplayer with 6+ players.

After that, though Skyrim is the best TES game so far, I still think it has a loooooong way to go in terms of character mechanics and overall difficulty balance. That would be my first priority - if I were to improve the design.

An obvious route would be to incorporate something like the FNV "hardcore" mode, but that wasn't enough. I want to be able to play a game that's truly rewarding in terms of what I do with my character - and I want the entire experience to have an interesting balance of challenges.

Especially stuff like stealth/crafting needs a huge overhaul. Make those things much more varied and much more meaningful.

Then, I'd want a more dynamic world. A world where you can cut down trees and they stay down. A world where you can destroy or build entire cities. A world where the economy is fully dynamic - and you can influence it by waylaying supply carts or by starting your own businesses.

After that, I'd make a lot more choices have meaning and consequences - like Pessimeister said. I think it's a big mistake to "give everything to everyone" - because it doesn't immerse you in your freedom of choice. Choice is only interesting when it has a consequence.

Guilds should definitely have exclusive elements, and they REALLY need to offer more tangible rewards and distinctions. I'd also like the questlines longer - and the "randomly generated" missions should have more variety and feel like they're worth doing to gain more advantages.

Then I'd add more underwater exploration. In fact, I think it would be wonderful to have ship and sailing incorporated into the game. Would make for a fantastic long-term goal. Oh, and make sure it's a LONG-TERM goal.

As for combat, it would be wonderful to have more tactical options. Stuff like blinding, maiming and so on would be great. Also, incorporate dismemberment and a system similar to Fallout with various effects for various types of wounds.

I've also found the clothing lacking in the last two games. I think fine clothing should get stronger responses - and I think the whole social roleplaying aspect could use a serious boost. Make your presentation and speech matter more for the "little things" - and increase the level of NPC interaction in general.

Finally, I'd love to have only ONE way to distribute mods. It's great that they've chosen Steam as a platform - but most people go to the Nexus site. This means you have to doublecheck if there are any new mods both places - and you have to mess with two ways to load mods. It's stupid. They need to enforce a single way - and ideally it would be through the game itself - and not outside of the game.

 

[Maylander]

Elder Scrolls is already coming as an MMO, so I hope they don't start bringing multiplayer elements into the single player series. It would be best to keep them separated. The fact that they're so pure in their focus is one of the primary reasons why they succeed in my opinion, just like PB games.

I really felt Skyrim nailed the recipe. The size and scope is right where it should be, all they need now is a bit more focus on story/characters/C&C, in addition to a more interesting setting and a better guild system, and the next game in the series could be flat out amazing.