The Elder Scrolls XVI: Sworn to Carry Your Burdens

[Resileaf]

Skyrim, as observed, was released on 11.11.11, its original release date. This was unusual for recent TES games, as both Oblivion and Morrowind had had to be delayed by various months from the original release dates.

Now, on one hand, that 11.11.11 thing was a stroke of genius. The date was visually impressive and easy to remember, and marketing effectively turned it into a collective event still remembered many years later. However, I think that, by holding on to it, Skyrim could not be finished. The Civil War is the most obvious part, because of how much was left accessible through the editor, but invisible in game. I have little doubt that the writing was not completed adequately and need much work when it was implemented with impressive voicing and localization (Skyrim's localisation stands at least head and shoulders taller than that of Oblivion).

I doubt that this was done because Zenimax needed money to keep development going. Quite the opposite: I think that the game was rushed because of the massive significance of the 11.11.11 and to make more money than it would have otherwise. It sold a lot anyway, it's an awesome game anyway, it just has some very weird writing.

It's pretty much all but confirmed that they couldn't finish the civil war because it was too glitchy and massive for what they wanted to do. There would normally have been huge questlines to take over each hold, and instead, we got... Not that.

[veti]

It's pretty much all but confirmed that they couldn't finish the civil war because it was too glitchy and massive for what they wanted to do. There would normally have been huge questlines to take over each hold, and instead, we got... Not that.

Yes, well, that's - what "not having time to finish something" looks like. And many other quests in Skyrim suffers from exactly the same thing, although to a lesser degree: they leave many plausible endings/avenues simply unresolved. A lot of content was written, and dialogue recorded for it - then cut simply because nobody had time to finish testing and troubleshooting it, which is why the 'cutting room floor' mod exists.

[Rynjin]

Well, that's a remarkably convenient way of asking for things that can't happen in the market. You don't want crunch, you don't want high prices, but you do want games with really high degrees of complexity and production values. This isn't car repair, this is people complaining that their Ford Escort doesn't have the features of a Bugatti Veyron. Well, everyone claimed that Obsidian could deliver that economy-priced super-RPG that would both deliver complexity and production values, and guess what: It's really, really short. Imagine my surprise.

Game publishers make profits or go broke, and a good percentage of their offerings *will* lose money, so the smash hits need to carry the dumpers, because the weird thing about creativity and artistry is that there's no formal process to reproduce it, and even if you could reproduce the same thing, fickle markets will get bored with repetition, that's how Call of Duty went from being an industry juggernaut to being a running joke. It's how Bethsoft went from being innovative and janky to being wildly successful to being a superfund site in the space of a decade.

Game publishers make profits hand over fist whether they take a bit of extra time for polish or not. Maybe not if they did it for every title, but for flagship series like the Elder Scrolls games? Absolutely.

You seem to find it impossible for the companies to make their money back without raising the prices or forcing crunch hours...and that's simply not true. The profit margins on a AAA game are unbelievably huge already; they can afford to make them better, and anything else is a myth those publishers claiming otherwise desperately hope you believe.

You keep trotting out the Outer Worlds as some kind of "gotcha" in this conversation, as if it somehow proves your point. The game has about 15-20 hours of playtime in its main story, with multiple choices per quest and a few neat sidequests. People keep harping on the "12 minutes" thing but it really makes them look stupid. You do know that speedruns are designed to beat games unreasonably fast, yes? You can beat Skyrim in a bit over an hour as well.

In any case, a 20 hour RPG with fully voiced dialogue and solid choices was made on an extremely SMALL fraction of the budget that the typical Bethesda game gets. All without any reports of overwork in their staff that I've heard of, and without raising the price of the game. That scales up just as easily; not at a clear 1:1 where every 20 hours of content is going to cost that same fraction, but close enough.

Given a higher budget than the few million Obsidian had and a longer dev cycle, if Bethesda is not capable of producing a better product, it is because of their own incompetence, not any reality of the industry.

[LibraryOgre]

It's pretty much all but confirmed that they couldn't finish the civil war because it was too glitchy and massive for what they wanted to do. There would normally have been huge questlines to take over each hold, and instead, we got... Not that.

I wonder how things would be different if they decided to leave the civil war unresolved... except in DLC.

So, you have the story there from the outset, you have some skirmishes on either side... then they have DLC that resolves the war, possibly even involving something other than the usual mechanics to resolve it (i.e. some sandtable wars, for example, culminating in you facing down with the opposing general).

This also has me thinking of how I would have appreciated a "**** it, I'm the Dovahkiin, I am king now" option.

[Rynjin]

I wonder how things would be different if they decided to leave the civil war unresolved... except in DLC.

So, you have the story there from the outset, you have some skirmishes on either side... then they have DLC that resolves the war, possibly even involving something other than the usual mechanics to resolve it (i.e. some sandtable wars, for example, culminating in you facing down with the opposing general).

This also has me thinking of how I would have appreciated a "**** it, I'm the Dovahkiin, I am king now" option.

That would have been neat. Probably better story-wise than Dawnguard and more worthwhile than Hearthfire, for sure.

[Lord Raziere]

This also has me thinking of how I would have appreciated a "**** it, I'm the Dovahkiin, I am king now" option.

The entire fandom, a skyrim youtube parody I watched, theorists and a modder all seem to agree with you from what I've seen.

[Kareeah_Indaga]

And many other quests in Skyrim suffers from exactly the same thing, although to a lesser degree: they leave many plausible endings/avenues simply unresolved.

I'm reminded of the lighthouse quest in Solitude. They even had a dialog option for threatening Mr. Come-See-Me-When-You-Get-Bored-Stranger to tell the guards! But no actual option to do so.

This also has me thinking of how I would have appreciated a "**** it, I'm the Dovahkiin, I am king now" option.

Honestly I'm a little surprised the Medes didn't at least try to get the Dragonborn married off to someone in their family tree. It's as close as they were ever going to come to getting their own Dragonborn dynasty, and the PR boost from that would probably be worth whatever they had to do to smooth over the whole, 'sorry we almost executed you without trial' bit.

[Vinyadan]

I wonder how things would be different if they decided to leave the civil war unresolved... except in DLC.

So, you have the story there from the outset, you have some skirmishes on either side... then they have DLC that resolves the war, possibly even involving something other than the usual mechanics to resolve it (i.e. some sandtable wars, for example, culminating in you facing down with the opposing general).

This also has me thinking of how I would have appreciated a "**** it, I'm the Dovahkiin, I am king now" option.

You know, they could still do it, even after the game released. The Empire can still send in a bigger army. There could emerge a new Nord faction led by a charismatic pagan warrior priest. And it's not like the Stormcloaks have to like this new movement, or the Imperials all get along. There could be Imperial pretenders involved, or simple mutiny in the ranks, or accusations of serving the Thalmor, rather than the Emperor. There could be legends of Talos himself appearing under disguise, this time stoking resentment among Imperials.

And the Thalmor could strike. Frankly, they looked far more punchable and interesting than the other two factions.

Skyrim: New Vegas would have been a cool DLC.

[The_Jackal]

Game publishers make profits hand over fist whether they take a bit of extra time for polish or not. Maybe not if they did it for every title, but for flagship series like the Elder Scrolls games? Absolutely.

Okay, so what degree of polish would you think is necessary to satisfy every conceivable RPG grognard's complaints about the game? Also, considering Skyrim is one of the most successful RPG franchises ever in spite of those gripes, what precisely do you think Bethesda's incentive is to keep pouring work into a product that is not only sufficient to turn a profit, but to get re-released successfully numerous times?

You seem to find it impossible for the companies to make their money back without raising the prices or forcing crunch hours...and that's simply not true. The profit margins on a AAA game are unbelievably huge already; they can afford to make them better, and anything else is a myth those publishers claiming otherwise desperately hope you believe.

The profits on the successes are huge, of course. That's what happens when you sell a product with no marginal costs. But the sunk costs in a game are significant and they don't know how it's going to do before it launches. More to the point, game publishers are in the business of maximizing profits for their shareholders, not making less money to appease people complaining about smash hit game because the features they shipped with didn't meet their own expectations.

You keep trotting out the Outer Worlds as some kind of "gotcha" in this conversation, as if it somehow proves your point. The game has about 15-20 hours of playtime in its main story, with multiple choices per quest and a few neat sidequests. People keep harping on the "12 minutes" thing but it really makes them look stupid. You do know that speedruns are designed to beat games unreasonably fast, yes? You can beat Skyrim in a bit over an hour as well.

Last I checked, an hour is five times as long as 12 minutes, and the reason I use the example is because it proves my point. Getting choices does not meaningfully increase the amount of content or value you get from the game. It just takes the same amount of content (or less) and interleaves it behind narrative decision points. Unless you're determined to re-play with every possible option and a cheat-sheet of where the meaningful decisions are, you're just paying for content you won't see. End result: you get less game.

In any case, a 20 hour RPG with fully voiced dialogue and solid choices was made on an extremely SMALL fraction of the budget that the typical Bethesda game gets. All without any reports of overwork in their staff that I've heard of, and without raising the price of the game. That scales up just as easily; not at a clear 1:1 where every 20 hours of content is going to cost that same fraction, but close enough.

I'm sorry, you don't get extra points from me because your studio is smaller. Skyrim is a $60 game. Fallout 4 is a $60 game, and Outer Worlds is a $60 game. And in point of fact, having a smaller studio makes a game less expensive to make, since you're paying fewer staff members, managers, HR, benefits, etc.

Given a higher budget than the few million Obsidian had and a longer dev cycle, if Bethesda is not capable of producing a better product, it is because of their own incompetence, not any reality of the industry.

Well, considering Outer Worlds sold about 2.5 million copies, and Skyrim sold about ten times that, I think you might need to re-calibrate your definition of incompetent. The thing you care so much about, the market evidently does not. And considering this is thread number 16 on the Elder Scrolls on this forum, and I don't even see an Outer Worlds forum post here, I'm not even sure you really care about it as much as you claim.

[Lord Raziere]

Last I checked, an hour is five times as long as 12 minutes, and the reason I use the example is because it proves my point. Getting choices does not meaningfully increase the amount of content or value you get from the game. It just takes the same amount of content (or less) and interleaves it behind narrative decision points. Unless you're determined to re-play with every possible option and a cheat-sheet of where the meaningful decisions are, you're just paying for content you won't see. End result: you get less game.

Ah then why bother having handcrafted quests at all? by that logic clearly we should be playing No Man's Sky and going on an infinite adventure of procedurally generated worlds, resources and so on, something Skyrim will never be able to do. after all, compared to No Man's Sky, Skyrim is definitely less game compared to that.

[Divayth Fyr]

considering Skyrim is one of the most successful RPG franchises

Despite all the rereleases, Skyrim isn't a franchise...

yet anyway.

Well, considering Outer Worlds sold about 2.5 million copies, and Skyrim sold about ten times that.

Apparently Skyrim was over 30 million copies back in 2016, so after all the releases and sales and such it could be much, much higher nowadays...

[Rynjin]

Okay, so what degree of polish would you think is necessary to satisfy every conceivable RPG grognard's complaints about the game? Also, considering Skyrim is one of the most successful RPG franchises ever in spite of those gripes, what precisely do you think Bethesda's incentive is to keep pouring work into a product that is not only sufficient to turn a profit, but to get re-released successfully numerous times?

Level of polish? Honestly, not much more. That's the frustrating thing about Skyrim specifically. Maybe another 3-6 months in development to make the Civil War...playable. Because as-is it's a dead questline with pretty much nothing to it that acts as a millstone around the rest of the game; I don't mean that metaphorically, a whole bunch of glitches arise with mods in particular due specifically to the Civil War questline's partial implementation into EVERYTHING.

But we aren't really talking about Skyrim, we're talking about future Bethesda games in relation to things they released AFTER Skyrim. Namely Fallout 4 and 76. Games which lacked a severe degree of polish in terms of narrative in particular as compared to any other Bethesda game in recent memory.

Bethesda's incentive? Making a good product. They get paid either way.

Zenimax-and-now-Microsoft's incentive? Making a product that keeps Bethesda's brand name recognition as a "hit maker". 4 and especially 76 have done a number on Bethesda's reputation. Beyond that, Microsoft likely wants some of that critical acclaim that Sony exclusives have been getting these last few years. The next Bethesda game could in part be a console seller, and it needs to be worth it for that to be the case; another 76 won't cut it, and another FO4 may not either.

The problem with your "sales numbers > all" metric for game success is that it's an extremely shallow top level analysis. Sales numbers only matter to a certain point, beyond which what matters is the sales numbers of the next game.

Last I checked, an hour is five times as long as 12 minutes, and the reason I use the example is because it proves my point. Getting choices does not meaningfully increase the amount of content or value you get from the game. It just takes the same amount of content (or less) and interleaves it behind narrative decision points. Unless you're determined to re-play with every possible option and a cheat-sheet of where the meaningful decisions are, you're just paying for content you won't see. End result: you get less game.

Your point makes zero sense. Content that you do not see in a first playthrough is not "less game". It is just game you haven't seen yet. Or are you going to claim the Dragon Age and Mass Effect series are failures as well? That would seem to undermine your point a fair bit, if so. I have my own problems with late rentries of each series but even I wouldn't go so far as to say they're failures by any metric.

I'm sorry, you don't get extra points from me because your studio is smaller. Skyrim is a $60 game. Fallout 4 is a $60 game, and Outer Worlds is a $60 game. And in point of fact, having a smaller studio makes a game less expensive to make, since you're paying fewer staff members, managers, HR, benefits, etc.

And this is patently absurd. The game costs will only be smaller because you'll be making a smaller game because your studio is smaller. Trying to make a maximum budget AAA game as a smaller studio is asking to go bankrupt, because the costs remain the same but your ability to create that game are smaller, because your team is smaller. In the absolute best case scenario it takes you longer, which means the costs for HR, benefits, etc. are going to rise commensurately, because you're taking 3 years to make what a team thrice your size could make in one.

IWell, considering Outer Worlds sold about 2.5 million copies, and Skyrim sold about ten times that, I think you might need to re-calibrate your definition of incompetent. The thing you care so much about, the market evidently does not. And considering this is thread number 16 on the Elder Scrolls on this forum, and I don't even see an Outer Worlds forum post here, I'm not even sure you really care about it as much as you claim.

And again we come back to the really shallow "sales numbers > all" metric, which I've already explained is silly.

But beyond that, I'm not saying the Skyrim devs are incompetent; it was you who implied that by saying that a team with ten times the budget and manpower would be incapable of making a game similarly complex but ten times the size of another game from a smaller company.

Beyond that, you do realize the "market" is made up of PEOPLE, correct? I AM part of the market, meaning by definition what I care about, at least some part of the market does.

Finally, yes, of course the Outer Worlds fell off quicker; it doesn't have 6 games for people to chat about and does, as you say, have "less content". It's a much smaller game, which you should know as that seems to be the only thing you care about.

That does not make it a WORSE game. There's no thread for the game Control either, and it was one of the biggest games last year. Sometimes games end, and people stop talking about them for a while. That is part of the natural cycle of any kind of media, and claiming it is some kind of objective proof that the media in question isn't "cared about" is, again, and extremely shallow metric to judge media by.

[Lord Raziere]

And again we come back to the really shallow "sales numbers > all" metric, which I've already explained is silly.

Hey guys, lets find the most sold game in the world and play that since clearly nothing else matters. what is that game? Minecraft at 200 million copies sold. Clearly nothing matters but building things with jank blocks.

[Vinyadan]

Hey guys, lets find the most sold game in the world and play that since clearly nothing else matters. what is that game? Minecraft at 200 million copies sold. Clearly nothing matters but building things with jank blocks.

Tetris for life! If it's blocky, IT SELLS!

[Divayth Fyr]

And again we come back to the really shallow "sales numbers > all" metric, which I've already explained is silly.

Out of curiosity, what other metric would a studio/company use to determine whether something was a success or not?

Beyond that, you do realize the "market" is made up of PEOPLE, correct? I AM part of the market, meaning by definition what I care about, at least some part of the market does.

While true, if you dislike a wildly successful product (for whatever reason), you fall under the "anecdotal evidence" part of the market ;P

Finally, yes, of course the Outer Worlds fell off quicker; it doesn't have 6 games for people to chat about and does, as you say, have "less content". It's a much smaller game, which you should know as that seems to be the only thing you care about.

That is part of the natural cycle of any kind of media, and claiming it is some kind of objective proof that the media in question isn't "cared about" is, again, and extremely shallow metric to judge media by.

Clearly something went better with those games if people still talk about them years and years (or decades) after release, while others are largely forgotten a year or two later.

[factotum]

Out of curiosity, what other metric would a studio/company use to determine whether something was a success or not?

Haven't they famously used Metacritic scores for that in the past? Even to the extent that Obsidian missed out on a bonus payment for Fallout: New Vegas because it didn't reach the required 85/100 score?

[Rynjin]

Out of curiosity, what other metric would a studio/company use to determine whether something was a success or not?

A combination of sales numbers (and overall profit), plus critical reception from both fans and paid critics, as a start...which is what typically IS used. because businesses ARE savvy to an extent. if a game sells a bajillion copies in its first week and makes back all the money spent and then some...but gets garbage reviews from everyone, that typically tells them "we need to do something different next time". Because the sales numbers of your games are built on the goodwill and hype generated by the PREVIOUS game.

A good example to look at is long running franchises like Call of Duty and Assassin's Creed. Particularly the latter.

Ass Creed 2 sold exceptionally well because of the critical reception of the first Assassin's Creed; which to my recollection did not do gangbusters in terms of sales, but well enough to get by at the time. Brotherhood and Revelations coasted on that, but people started to burn out on the series; AC 3 sold very well because people wanted to finish the story started in the "AC 2 trilogy", but sales fell off due to the relatively low fan reception of that game for AC 4, which was very well received so people bought a bunch of copies of Syndicate, then EVEN MORE of Unity.

However, the critical and fan reception of Unity was so horrendous that Ubisoft stopped making Assassin's Creed a yearly series, released Origins to relative critical success (though less copies than Unity; I don't have exact numbers, but every source I can find in a quick search seems to agree that Unity is the highest selling game in the series), and then "refreshed" the market with Odyssey: a somewhat different take on the series; the latter three are the best selling in the series so far (in part due to the market being bigger than it was a while ago, to be fair).

Say what you will about Ubisoft as a company, they know how to very efficiently milk a franchise and keep fans coming back, and that relies on in part actually listening to what the fans say they want rather than just the sales numbers; if they had, the series would have probably flopped completely with those lackluster titles in the middle, with the good sales numbers not carrying over to the newer titles.

Clearly something went better with those games if people still talk about them years and years (or decades) after release, while others are largely forgotten a year or two later.

Not better, just different. The main difference is replayability, which are things all of the Elder Scrolls games have in spades; that's why it's particularly weird to me when The Jackal keeps saying replayability is not a desirable feature in games.

My most played game is Team Fortress 2, with somewhere upwards of around 2000 hours (and I haven't played it regularly in over 5 years). It is a very replayable game, due to it being multiplayer.

Do I think it's BETTER than games I've played less...no.

[Morty]

So, one thing I am hopeful for, if they update the Engine for Elder Scrolls 6: The return of climbing and levitation. I loved climbing SO MUCH in my replay of Daggerfall. And levitation is incredibly fun, even if the NPCs never actually use it (the only person you see in the air is Tarhiel... and we know how that worked out)

I can see the case for levitation, but how are they supposed to add a climbing skill in a game where every obstacle isn't flat and vertical?

[Vinyadan]

Just to clarify, my gripe with Skyrim boils down to the writing (and the interface, and something else that I'll remember later I guess), and I did call it an awesome game. I can't really talk about FO4, which I never finished because I felt overwhelmed by the crafting system and pissed off by a mod that made settlement more varied but also made placement a lot more frustrating, or about FO76, which I never touched.

The matter of choices is an interesting one. It came up in Wolfenstein 2014 and 2015 (aka New Order and Old Blood), both Zenimax games in which you had to make a Sophie's choice. In New Order, you are given no elements to make your choice, and it's extremely dislikable; if you refuse by inaction, in early versions you could not progress the game, as you are literally pinned to the floor, while, nowadays, your character simply gets shot in the head, game over. In spite of the weight the game places on this choice, its effects are mostly cosmetic and related to different side characters (a couple in a fairly big roster). There also are slightly different routes you can take in the levels and one different weapon in your fairly big arsenal. So it's some sort of middle ground -- we give choice, but the game plays fundamentally the same, whatever choice you make, so you don't have to replay it. However, if you want to see what you missed, you have to replay something very similar.

In 2015, there's a lot less emphasis on it, and it's more of a matter of whether you turn left or right (you might not even notice that you're making a choice), and the difference in results is minimal. It's a generally a far less heavyhanded (and, for me, more enjoyable*) game.

*the moon base in New Order was awesome, however. In general, New Order is very carefully crafted and researched in its settings, although its plot is very splatter and vaguely reminiscent of Nazisploitation (evil doctor, cruel Nazi woman with subjugated lover).

[Keltest]

I can see the case for levitation, but how are they supposed to add a climbing skill in a game where every obstacle isn't flat and vertical?

Breath of the Wild figured it out, so its clearly possible.

[Morty]

Breath of the Wild figured it out, so its clearly possible.

Did BotW just have climbing, or a climbing skill that advanced from 1 to 100?

[LibraryOgre]

I can see the case for levitation, but how are they supposed to add a climbing skill in a game where every obstacle isn't flat and vertical?

Climbing checks let you ascend increasingly non-vertical surfaces? So, if I have a good climbing skill, I might go up the side of High Hrothgar, rather than up the path. Set a certain degree that is default climbable, and higher than that requires a climbing check?

Oh, and in my restart of Morrowind, I am doing MUCH better. I beat Firemoth (adding a spell to destroy his intelligence, and another to destroy his endurance made him a LOT easier), and I am much happier with my magic items... I made my pants heal fatigue, my shirt heal health, and my belt help me levitate. Since I always want those three effects, and always want those three items, it means less switching of rings and amulets.

[Keltest]

Did BotW just have climbing, or a climbing skill that advanced from 1 to 100?

Just climbing, but it would be pretty trivial to adapt that to Skyrim's skill system. More skill means faster climb speed and the ability to grip on to steeper slopes.

[Morty]

Climbing checks let you ascend increasingly non-vertical surfaces? So, if I have a good climbing skill, I might go up the side of High Hrothgar, rather than up the path. Set a certain degree that is default climbable, and higher than that requires a climbing check?

Just climbing, but it would be pretty trivial to adapt that to Skyrim's skill system. More skill means faster climb speed and the ability to grip on to steeper slopes.

I'm deeply sceptical of its being "trivial" to introduce. But I'll play along. What would the cutoff point be for what kind of slope needs this skill to be ascended? Would a character without a starting bonus to the skill be unable to climb up anything but a gentle slope? Or would they simply do so slowly? Like in Morrowind, where not starting with acrobatics and athletics means our character can only make small hops and moves slowly. Annoying, but ultimately irrelevant.

But conversely, it also means every single character would advance it sooner or later. Since they all have to walk places and climb uneven terrain. If levitation is a thing, then perhaps it's just every character that doesn't specialize in Alteration. But even then, I'm not going to cast levitation for every steep hill, so the climbing skill will still go up. I guess it's technically better than acrobatics and athletics in that there is actually an alternative to using it.

[Triaxx]

Funny thing about F4. You can complete it without any crafting skills. Want a mod? Turns out you can unbolt it and plug it in freely. You only need a particular amount of skill to create the mod.

So play it as a straight looter shooter.

Climbing in Skyrim would be hilarious.

[factotum]

I'm deeply sceptical of its being "trivial" to introduce. But I'll play along. What would the cutoff point be for what kind of slope needs this skill to be ascended? Would a character without a starting bonus to the skill be unable to climb up anything but a gentle slope? Or would they simply do so slowly?

Why not have it so you have some sort of climbing stamina reserve that runs out as you climb, and the skill just increases how much of that you have? That will directly make it so a higher skill makes for climbing bigger things in a way that ought to be pretty easy to grasp.

[Keltest]

I'm deeply sceptical of its being "trivial" to introduce. But I'll play along. What would the cutoff point be for what kind of slope needs this skill to be ascended? Would a character without a starting bonus to the skill be unable to climb up anything but a gentle slope? Or would they simply do so slowly? Like in Morrowind, where not starting with acrobatics and athletics means our character can only make small hops and moves slowly. Annoying, but ultimately irrelevant.

But conversely, it also means every single character would advance it sooner or later. Since they all have to walk places and climb uneven terrain. If levitation is a thing, then perhaps it's just every character that doesn't specialize in Alteration. But even then, I'm not going to cast levitation for every steep hill, so the climbing skill will still go up. I guess it's technically better than acrobatics and athletics in that there is actually an alternative to using it.

Im speaking relatively of course. The issue here is mostly that were at a glut for options on how to proceed rather than trying to figure out how we would possibly make it make sense.

[Morty]

Why not have it so you have some sort of climbing stamina reserve that runs out as you climb, and the skill just increases how much of that you have? That will directly make it so a higher skill makes for climbing bigger things in a way that ought to be pretty easy to grasp.

The question remains as to how steep does a wall/slope need to be before it starts draining stamina. And how hard an obstacle can a character with no climbing skill at all overcome. Also, what happens if you run out of stamina midway, because you miscalculated? Do you need to go back down? What stops you from climbing the same rock over and over to train? And finally, what's the benefit of spending time, effort and resources to balance it all?

Im speaking relatively of course. The issue here is mostly that were at a glut for options on how to proceed rather than trying to figure out how we would possibly make it make sense.

I don't know about a "glut" of options. You've given one example of a game that's different from Elder Scrolls on a number of fundamental levels.

[Keltest]

The question remains as to how steep does a wall/slope need to be before it starts draining stamina. And how hard an obstacle can a character with no climbing skill at all overcome. Also, what happens if you run out of stamina midway, because you miscalculated? Do you need to go back down? What stops you from climbing the same rock over and over to train? And finally, what's the benefit of spending time, effort and resources to balance it all?



I don't know about a "glut" of options. You've given one example of a game that's different from Elder Scrolls on a number of fundamental levels.

I dont understand where the issue is here. Any answers we could give here are fairly arbitrary. When the question is "could they do it" the specific details of how they implement it matter very little. Tie it to athletics with sprinting and swimming, make it its own separate skill, it doesnt really matter, there are a lot of different ways they could add it to the game without even really needing to change any of the fundamentals around it (bar level design).

[The_Jackal]

Ah then why bother having handcrafted quests at all? by that logic clearly we should be playing No Man's Sky and going on an infinite adventure of procedurally generated worlds, resources and so on, something Skyrim will never be able to do. after all, compared to No Man's Sky, Skyrim is definitely less game compared to that.

Slippery slope fallacy, anyone? Skyrim doesn't have hand-crafted quests?

Look, I'm not trying to present Bethesda as a flawless developer, I'm as critical of them as anyone, I'm just more critical of the people who think they deserve 3D game with a physics engine and a combat system that also is as narratively corkscrewed as Zork. Every developer has to make choices as to what will or won't make it into their game. Features cost money, and branching stories are an INCREDIBLY expensive feature in a fully voiced and animated game, one that the vast majority of the market won't appreciate.

Look, you wanna tell me that the Fallout story is bad? Or that the Civil War feels thin and unfinished? Or that radiant quests are lazy and unrewarding? Sure, I'm with you. I totally agree. But you want a completely parallel alternative to joining the Dark Brotherhood? Or you insist that you have a choice to betray Nocturnal instead of swearing fealty to her? Well, I'm trying to explain to you why that's a really, really big ask. Would those things be nice to have? Sure, why not? But they come at the expense of other content in your game.