I know that there are higher level spells to replace Fury (Frenzy works on enemies up to level 14, for example) but I'd love a system where all spells derive some benefit from your skill level. It's a great low level spell, but rapidly becomes useless as enemies quickly out-level the spell. That's damaging in a game like Skyrim that places so much emphasis on magic but has so few spells to choose from. One of the things that has always bugged me about magic in the Elder Scrolls is how quickly many spells become completely worthless. Remember when the very first spells you got were awesome. And while I'm on the subject of horses: first person camera anyone? I don't think allowing the player to reposition the camera would have been too much to ask. A simple dialogue interface like the one you use for talking to a follower would have been sufficient. Howard.Įasy fix: Allow players to use horses to carry loot. The result is that players now spend more time complaining about horses than appreciating the important parts of the game. In other words, you can do things that you shouldn't be able to do, but not things you should be able to do. In Skyrim, therefore, you can use a follower as a pack horse, or store your loot in a dead horse, but you can't put a saddlebag on a horse and use it to carry loot. I'm not asking for mounted combat (after all, I wouldn't want to try to fight from horseback on Skyrim's icy slopes) but would it have been too much trouble to give players the option to load up their horses with loot? All creatures and NPCs are already containers that you can store things in, all it would have required is for them to give players access to the horse's container (while it is still alive) and impose a limit on how much the horse can carry. So, to avoid the possibility that players might actually use a horse for something (who uses horses in fantasy worlds anyway, am I right?), they made them worse than useless.
In an interview, Todd Howard said that he didn't want to make horses too important because they would draw attention away from the important parts of the game. (And while I'm on the subject of marriage: would it have killed them to make at least one child of each race? Why do all the children look like Nords? Hire ten kids and give them each ten lines of dialogue. A cheap and easy fix that would have avoided a lot of complaints on the forums. This would have required them to record the marriage dialogue for a couple of races and place or adapt a few NPCs for marriage. (If that seems excessive, the game already supports about 60 marriage 's just that a lot of them are duplicate Nords.) From the remaining options, there is only one Argonian, one Redguard, and one High Elf female, so you don't really have any choice of partner if you want to marry one of these races.Įasy fix: A minimum of two partners of each race and gender so the player can marry any race and always has at least two partners to choose from. That's 6 out of 20, or 30% of the available options that just aren't available.
You also can't marry a Redguard or High Elf male. As it stands, you cannot marry a Wood Elf or a Khajiit in Skyrim.
That means there should be at minimum 20 different marriage options (one for each gender of each race). The part that can easily be fixed is the number of available partners. That doesn't fall under the 'easy fix' category because improving the quality of the marriage experience would involve, at a minimum, new quests, scripts, dialogue, and voice acting. I'm not going to talk about how shallow marriage in Skyrim is.
0 kommentar(er)
