Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Skyrim Interview

The Elder Scrolls: Skyrim interview on IGN talks with Todd Howard of Bethesda Softworks on the next installment in the RPG series. They discuss the events leading to the game's story, the new game engine, fast-travelling, auto-leveling, dragons, melee combat, NPC conversations, and more.

View
14 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 ] Older >

14. Re: Skyrim interview Apr 2, 2011, 22:14 Jerykk
 
I dunno Jerykk, usually in an RPG you use the non-enchanted stuff until you find enchanted stuff and then you never look back.

Not in RPGs that don't have enchanted items. That's really the whole problem. In Elder Scrolls, there's no reason to use anything that isn't enchanted. There are no downsides. Enchanted items should be very rare and you should not be able to enchant them yourself. If enchanted items are commonplace, they should have negatives associated with them. Maybe they're less durable and do less base damage than non-enchanted weapons. Or maybe the enchantments have penalties to balance out the bonuses. There needs to be something.
 
Avatar 20715
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
13. Re: Skyrim interview Apr 2, 2011, 10:27 Slashman
 
Jerykk wrote on Apr 1, 2011, 23:26:
But why would they? An enchanted longsword that's used against someone who is magic immune is still a longsword. It should still do the same damage as a normal longsword does. Trying to balance that out would be... strange?

Not really. Plenty of RPGs have multiple, non-enchanted versions of the same basic weapon type, each with variable damage. Some blades are crafted better than others. A rusty, dull, iron sword isn't as effective as a sharp, clean, steel sword.

I dunno Jerykk, usually in an RPG you use the non-enchanted stuff until you find enchanted stuff and then you never look back.

The reason it probably feels strange in TES is that enchanted stuff becomes easy to get after a while so you see all these other swords that you will never use.

My only issue would be having the common enemies you fight wear all the same enchanted stuff you do all the time.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
12. Re: Skyrim interview Apr 1, 2011, 23:26 Jerykk
 
But why would they? An enchanted longsword that's used against someone who is magic immune is still a longsword. It should still do the same damage as a normal longsword does. Trying to balance that out would be... strange?

Not really. Plenty of RPGs have multiple, non-enchanted versions of the same basic weapon type, each with variable damage. Some blades are crafted better than others. A rusty, dull, iron sword isn't as effective as a sharp, clean, steel sword.
 
Avatar 20715
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
11. Re: Skyrim interview Apr 1, 2011, 14:49 eRe4s3r
 
Better take May and june off as well, because The Witcher 2 hits then...  
Avatar 54727
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
10. Re: Skyrim interview Apr 1, 2011, 13:47 Creston
 
Jerykk wrote on Apr 1, 2011, 12:28:
As for enchanted vs non-enchanted, why would non-enchanted be just as effective, or nearly as effective? If that's the case, why would you ever bother enchanting?

Ideally, the best non-enchantable weapons would do more base damage and be more effective against enemies who have high magic resistance.

But why would they? An enchanted longsword that's used against someone who is magic immune is still a longsword. It should still do the same damage as a normal longsword does. Trying to balance that out would be... strange?

Edit : Btw, there is literally nothing I dislike in this interview. I think Skyrim is going to fucking ROCK.

/Takes November, December and January off.

Creston

This comment was edited on Apr 1, 2011, 13:56.
 
Avatar 15604
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
9. Re: Skyrim interview Apr 1, 2011, 12:28 Jerykk
 
As for enchanted vs non-enchanted, why would non-enchanted be just as effective, or nearly as effective? If that's the case, why would you ever bother enchanting?

Ideally, the best non-enchantable weapons would do more base damage and be more effective against enemies who have high magic resistance.
 
Avatar 20715
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
8. Re: Skyrim interview Apr 1, 2011, 11:09 Creston
 
Jerykk wrote on Apr 1, 2011, 02:25:
I'd also like to see a better balance between enchanted and non-enchanted items. There's never been any reason to use anything that wasn't enchanted unless the enemy had a constant 100% Reflect spell cast on themselves. They should focus on different damage types, like piercing damage, blunt damage, etc. Arrows, daggers and shortswords should ignore certain amounts of armor, while blunt damage ignores a portion of shield protection and has a chance to knock back or knock down enemies (or you). Locational damage would be nice too, especially for archers. Shoot a heavily-armored enemy in the leg to slow him down so you can keep your distance.

Yeah, that's not gonna happen... The console kiddies would all scream "WHY DUZ TEH ARM0RD GUY NOT GO DWN WHEN I HIT HIM WITHJ DAGGERZZ??!LOLZ!"

As for enchanted vs non-enchanted, why would non-enchanted be just as effective, or nearly as effective? If that's the case, why would you ever bother enchanting? They just need to make enchanting cost something if you do it yourself. (And not gold, since that's practically infinite anyways, especially with their stupid "bandits in full Daedric armor" system. I loved Morrowind where you needed souls.)

Creston
 
Avatar 15604
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
7. Re: Skyrim interview Apr 1, 2011, 10:51 Creston
 
finga wrote on Apr 1, 2011, 01:23:
I do agree with making some serious prerequisites for some perks, but giving people a perk every other level is kind of annoying. When I was playing New Vegas, I remember being disappointed whenever I would Ding and it *wasn't* a perk level. When you make perks such an amusing and interesting part of building your character, then blocking access to that system 50% of the time is kind of frustrating.

I say pile on the perks and just balance the enemies accordingly. Then again, Elder Scrolls has already been too easy for years now...

I like getting a perk every level too. As for the game being too easy, eh, the mod community will fix it, as always. I'm not worried.

Creston

 
Avatar 15604
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
6. Re: Skyrim interview Apr 1, 2011, 02:25 Jerykk
 
I do agree with making some serious prerequisites for some perks, but giving people a perk every other level is kind of annoying. When I was playing New Vegas, I remember being disappointed whenever I would Ding and it *wasn't* a perk level. When you make perks such an amusing and interesting part of building your character, then blocking access to that system 50% of the time is kind of frustrating.

I didn't really have a problem with it. It made the perks feel that much more valuable. Conversely, in FO3, the perks never felt valuable because you could get 30 of them. To be fair, most of the perks were pretty useless too but if Skyrim is going to have 50+ perks, I'm pretty sure many of them will either be generic and/or useless.

Then again, Elder Scrolls has already been too easy for years now...

They definitely need to nerf Chameleon this time around. You should not be able to get a constant 100% chameleon, regardless of how many enchanted items you're wearing. In fact, they should probably just remove Chameleon entirely. It makes Invisibility redundant and Invisibility is much better balanced, since you lose it the moment you attack or interact with anything.

I'd also like to see a better balance between enchanted and non-enchanted items. There's never been any reason to use anything that wasn't enchanted unless the enemy had a constant 100% Reflect spell cast on themselves. They should focus on different damage types, like piercing damage, blunt damage, etc. Arrows, daggers and shortswords should ignore certain amounts of armor, while blunt damage ignores a portion of shield protection and has a chance to knock back or knock down enemies (or you). Locational damage would be nice too, especially for archers. Shoot a heavily-armored enemy in the leg to slow him down so you can keep your distance.

This comment was edited on Apr 1, 2011, 02:32.
 
Avatar 20715
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
5. Re: Skyrim interview Apr 1, 2011, 02:00 Bhruic
 
Our graphics work centers around doing things that will look the same regardless of platform, and sometimes that implementation will be different on the 360, PS3, and PC.

Well that's disappointing. Not necessarily surprising, but disappointing nonetheless.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
4. Re: Skyrim interview Apr 1, 2011, 01:23 finga
 
Jerykk wrote on Apr 1, 2011, 00:30:
I hope Skyrim has much better balancing than Bethesda's previous games. The fact that you get a perk every level already seems overpowered. It was definitely overpowered in Fallout 3, where I quickly reached the point where I had all the perks I wanted and just chose the rest at random. At the very least, there should be skill and/or attribute prerequisites, ala New Vegas.

Still, I look forward to exploring a huge, detailed world with tons of things to do. That's always been Bethesda's strength.
I do agree with making some serious prerequisites for some perks, but giving people a perk every other level is kind of annoying. When I was playing New Vegas, I remember being disappointed whenever I would Ding and it *wasn't* a perk level. When you make perks such an amusing and interesting part of building your character, then blocking access to that system 50% of the time is kind of frustrating.

I say pile on the perks and just balance the enemies accordingly. Then again, Elder Scrolls has already been too easy for years now...
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
3. Re: Skyrim interview Apr 1, 2011, 01:09 Jerykk
 
I don't think that'll happen if you get a perk every level. If there's no level cap (as has been reported), Bethesda is going to have to make a crapload of perks which will likely result in a bunch of generic ones. Stuff like "+15 to Enchantment," similar to what they did in FO3.  
Avatar 20715
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
2. Re: Skyrim interview Apr 1, 2011, 01:00 StingingVelvet
 
I really hope the perk system makes each character more unique, which would be a change from previous TES titles.  
Avatar 54622
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
1. Re: Skyrim interview Apr 1, 2011, 00:30 Jerykk
 
I hope Skyrim has much better balancing than Bethesda's previous games. The fact that you get a perk every level already seems overpowered. It was definitely overpowered in Fallout 3, where I quickly reached the point where I had all the perks I wanted and just chose the rest at random. At the very least, there should be skill and/or attribute prerequisites, ala New Vegas.

Still, I look forward to exploring a huge, detailed world with tons of things to do. That's always been Bethesda's strength.
 
Avatar 20715
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
14 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 ] Older >


footer

.. .. ..

Blue's News logo