Talk:The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim

name pronunciation

Is the game pronounced a single sound to rhyme with 'trim' or as 'sky-rim'?

I can't seem to find a video or article which makes this clear - if anyone knows can they put the phonetic letters on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.158.110.187 (talk) 15:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I've always pronounced it "sky rim". "Skrim" wouldn't seem to make sense, which is the only way I can think of to pronounce it in a single sound. I don't have a reference to back up my pronunciation, but alternatives to "sky rim" have never occurred to me. 67.158.43.41 (talk) 08:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

You must've never played Oblivion. Skyrim is mentioned plenty in filler dialogue from random NPCs - it's pronounced "sky-rim." 173.86.141.12 (talk) 00:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

that's annoying Skyrim sounds better than Sky-rim anyway I've added in IPA to the article 195.158.110.187 (talk) 13:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Beta

There currently is now public beta, but a group of hackers believes that they have the beta keys for this game, their website is http://endohacking.webs.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jello331 (talk • contribs) 22:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

video file

This

see site info for http://www.elderscrolls.com/ ie http://www.zenimax.com/legal_terms.htm ie "All content and materials on the Sites, including but not limited to text, graphics, logos, button icons, images, audio clips, and software included in the Services, are the property of ZeniMax or its licensors and are protected by U.S. and international copyright, trademarks and other proprietary rights and Intellectual Property Rights laws..." etc

I think it may not be possible to use this video clip under a wikipedia license. 83.100.248.248 (talk) 05:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Removed file since it no longer applies to this article under the WP:Non-free content criteria. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 18:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

game engine

Removed this: diff

''Skyrim'' will utilise a new proprietary [[game engine]], forgoing the [[Gamebryo]] engine used for the previous two instalments in the series.<ref name=engineign>{{cite web|url=http://uk.pc.ign.com/articles/111/1112464p1.html|title=Rage Tech Being Kept Inside Bethesda Family|publisher=[[IGN]]|work=ign.com|author=Jim Reilley|date=13 August 2010|accessdate=12 December 2010}}</ref> The new engine will incorporate some existing technology used in other Bethesda games, such as ''Oblivion'' and ''[[Fallout 3]]''.<ref name=HowardInterview>{{cite web|url=http://eurogamer.net/articles/2010-08-16-bethesdas-todd-howard-interview|title=Bethesda's Todd Howard Interview|publisher=Eurogamer|work=eurogamer.net|author=Tom Bramwell|date=16 August 2010|accessdate=12 December 2010}}</ref> Executive producer [[Todd Howard]] has stated that the studio has invested in new talent to significantly improve the characters and animation over previous Bethesda games.<ref name=HowardInterview2>{{cite web|url=http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2010-08-16-bethesdas-todd-howard-interview?page=2|title=Bethesda's Todd Howard Interview (page 2)|publisher=Eurogamer|work=eurogamer.net|author=Tom Bramwell|date=16 August 2010|accessdate=12 December 2010}}</ref>

I didn't find anything in the three references that confirm a new non-gamebryo game engine, or any reference to this game.83.100.248.248 (talk) 16:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

It implicitly says that there is a "new engine built for the game" which obviously means it is not the same old Gamebryo engine. And Todd Howard has only really been working on one game, which is Skyrim. No it doesn't implicitly say "Skyrim", but common sense dictates he is referencing this game. There's plenty of other news reports which link the Skyrim rumours to the interviews with him. A connection can certainly be made. At the very least, we can change it to "From interviews with executive producer Todd Howard, it is possible that Skyrim will utilise...", rather than blanket removing it. The animation improvements sentence is perfectly valid, as he was describing all future Bethesda games in general. --Dorsal Axe 17:28, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

You mean this [1] "Bethesda Game Director Todd Howard explained in a separate interview with IGN that his game would not use id Tech 5. The studio's new engine built for its upcoming title is more beneficial to creating huge, open-world games, such as Fallout 3 and The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion" - that's a single mention of the word new. Don't overdo synthesis or speculation please. "New" could equally apply to a update version of the current engine as much an entirely new engine.

Obviously I get that it's now obvious that he will have been refering to this game (Skyrim), but remember that this article is supposed to be encyclopedically verifyable, and not speculative at all. (It falls under the guidlines given in Wikipedia:No original research, specifically you're suggesting the common mistake to use Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material_that_advances_a_position - I mostly agree with you, but what is and is not ok for putting in the article is another thing.) 83.100.248.248 (talk) 18:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Well excuse me while I eat my virtual hat .. Bethesda has announced it is a new engine, my apologies for the inconvenience Dorsal Axe.83.100.248.248 (talk) 20:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

No that's okay. Perhaps I was too hasty in my hidden excitement for this game. ;) --Dorsal Axe 22:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like they're making heavy use of twitter .. Pete Hines (vice president) is promising more full details soon on his account http://twitter.com/DCDeacon/status/13813723919552512 (saves me a lot of bother looking too.. :) 83.100.130.11 (talk) 23:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

trailer narration

removed diff

Narration by Max von Sydow

using a google search [2] I only found guesses that it was this person narrating, can someone confirm who it is ?83.100.248.248 (talk) 18:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Direct Sequel

Last I heard, this was a rumour, yet now the article is claiming that it was confirmed, can anyone confirm this confirmation? 217.42.67.175 (talk) 18:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

According to the reference, and several other places, it's a direct sequel. If something comes up later on saying it isn't a direct sequel, then we can use it as a reference and update the article with that information. We're just going with what we know, and what we can back it up with. --Dorsal Axe 19:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I checked over the source. It claims that the premiere video reveals that it is a direct sequel, and watching said video seems to confirm this. The confirmation that it is a direct sequel seems wrong to me, unless I've missed a source. 217.42.67.175 (talk) 15:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it has actually been confirmed, though all the game-sites are saying it is... From the trailer it seems that it is a sequel and not a prequel. Not sure exactly what "direct" means in this context.83.100.186.32 (talk) 17:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

There is absolutely no reason to assume it is a direct sequel. The rumours orginated from a translated report of someone claiming to have overheared a discussion - that is hardly a reliable source. The video HINTS that it MIGHT be soon after the oblivion crisis, but there is never any explicit statement. Just because Oblivion is mentioned, doesn't mean it will directly follow the story of Oblivion. I'm removing the "direct" part until that is actually confirmed. 84.176.178.26 (talk) 17:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I agree.Sf5xeplus (talk) 19:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The game informer magazine, issue 214, said that this game is set 200 years past the events of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion. So it is a sequel, but not an immediate (direct?) sequel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.181.225.135 (talk) 02:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Future events

eg this diff and the Gameinformer january edition eg [3] [4]

Basically, future events are only considered suitable for inclusion if the event itself is notable. So the exclisve reveal doesn't quite make it, even though it's clearly true and from a reliable and verifyable source. I know that may seem a little odd, and probably a bit 'tight' to not include it but it is the general way things are done. more info here Wikipedia:NOTCRYSTAL#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball. (Actually that link is about articles not content of articles - but still worth bearing in mind)

Another thing to bear in mind is "when the full details are known, will what is currently in the article still be relevant?" (and therefor still in the article) - if the answer is no then it's probably a good idea to just wait and see. Hope that makes sense.83.100.186.32 (talk) 01:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Game plot speculation

diff

Phrases such as is thought to.., and expectations of the game being set in Skyrim, no mattter how obvious it may seem at the moment can't stay until confirmed. See Wikipedia:No original research. The claims may seem sensible, but aren't fully reliable.213.249.239.13 (talk) 18:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Well they did confirm the dragons. Not sure why that's been removed. --Dorsal Axe 20:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Hang on, you sure? all I've got is this [5] and the assumptions of the game sites, plus the teaser trailer, which has the problem that it may not relate directly to the game (eg Oblivion teaser trailer could have given the impression you were playing as Uriel Spetim in some sort of RTS..) - obviously dragons though .. but a reliable source yet?83.100.173.33 (talk) 23:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

ok [6] dragons back in then.83.100.173.33 (talk) 23:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm at a loss how to reincorporate that info into the article as a readble sentence.83.100.173.33 (talk) 02:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

It's easy enough, make a section titled Dragons. Then underneath it make a paragraph with only one sentence, "There will be dragons.[ref]"Shardok (talk) 23:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

podcast info

http://bethblog.com/index.php/2010/12/16/the-bethesda-podcast-episode-6-enter-the-dragon/

Not a lot of info, but does say that developement started after oblivion, and gives a figure for the number of developers (over 100), if anyone thinks such info would be useful.83.100.173.33 (talk) 02:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

release date

yeh, remembrance/veterans' day is pretty unimportant?... :S Flipping Mackerel (talk) 00:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see what connection that day has to this game, other than being released on the same day. --Dorsal Axe 08:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Exactly! Flipping Mackerel (talk) 21:43, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Fixed.Shardok (talk) 16:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

new sections

I've added a gameplay section... someone else might want to add a plot section based on the new info - I'd suggest using a similar article structure to that in the oblivion article.Sf5xeplus (talk) 15:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Article lead, 2nd section

Sounds the 2nd Section so not much more interesting for the reader? So for me it sounds more interesting:

"Skyrim's main story is set 200 years after the events of Oblivion, around a place in the Nordic country on the fictional continent of Tamriel, will feature dragons and revolves around the Nordic god Alduin, who comes to destroy the world."

I will first seek to third opinion before I change the article. Kind regards Abani79 (talk) 21:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

That's only a textual change - to be honest with you I think your version is not quite as good grammatically, and the current version would be preferable. Also your version doesn't mention that the nordic country is Skyrim, which is probably quite important.Sf5xeplus (talk) 21:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

If you take out the middle part like so...

"Skyrim's main story is set 200 years after the events of Oblivion will feature dragons and revolves around the Nordic god Alduin, who comes to destroy the world."

...it makes no sense. Sir Robert "Brightgalrs" Schultz de Plainsboro (talk) 05:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I've rewritten the lead section. Hopefully the second paragraph makes more sense now. CR4ZE (talk) 09:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I usually get a bad feeling when people say "rewritten" - but it seems ok - definitely tidier. big sigh of relief. Couple of points though:

• I think the previous "Radiant AI" should be namechecked as a reference to the previous game.
• Removed direct sequel - still not sure why people add this - it's a sequel (not a prequel) - to clarify the Lord of the Rings (Book or DVD number 2) was a direct sequel to the Lord of the Rings (Book or DVD number 1), because it follows on, pretty much from the next day. The Lords of the Rings is not a direct sequel to The Hobbit because there are many years in between - that's how I see it anyway.
• I think the "compass style menu" needs explanation and expansion - as I understood it the menu is more tightly integrated into the game world (a bit like Fable III or Dead Space (video game) attempted to connect the menu systems into the game world )
• I prefered the previous explanation of "perks" ie Additionally gaining a level now gives additional skill specific abilities in addition to character attribute increases. I'll probably replace that back in if no one objects? Sf5xeplus (talk) 17:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
• Any reason that the second paragraph in the lead section was removed? It's important to have plot details in the introduction of a video game article. Also, I think this whole thing with the "Radiant Story" doesn't belong in Gameplay, because it's not something the player physically "does" while playing the game. I'll move it to Development if nobody has any objections. I've hidden the third paragraph about "Dragon Shouting" because the source - a Photobucket image - has been deleted. If a new source is found, I'll rewrite the paragraph because it almost reads like an advertisement. CR4ZE (talk) 01:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Radiant AI - That's probably someone getting confused on the topic of Radiant Quests, which is explained in the magazine. It *is* a direct sequel according to Bethesda. Just do a google search for it and you'll see all the articles quoting them saying that. That is why people keep putting it back to direct sequel.Shardok (talk) 14:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The "dragon shouts" are mentioned in the GameInformer magazine.83.100.230.154 (talk) 18:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• This "direct sequel" debate seems endless. For now, we should just refer to it as a sequel until more information becomes available. CR4ZE (talk) 03:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Minor points

The "wall" (see http://media1.gameinformer.com/images/site/pages/esv/index.html?es=5# ) confirms that the narrator in the trailer was Esbern, (and thus voice by Max von Sydow), that the King was murdered, and that the player starts as a prisoner (quote) "As Skyrim begins, a lone prisoner begins to learn that he may hold a similar power" :) as with previous versions.83.100.230.154 (talk) 18:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Also ign says that draw distance has improved - is this reliable ? http://uk.xbox360.ign.com/articles/114/1143527p1.html 83.100.230.154 (talk) 18:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The_Elder_Scrolls_V:_Skyrim#Combat

Apart from the section being over detailed and requiring a general rewrite because of that, and the minor issue that it starts "The game does well in ..." when this is speculation as of now, the problem is WP:COPYPASTE

eg:

• accurately mimicking the imbalance prevalent in melee combat by adding staggering affects and camera shake
• There's a brutality to [the combat] both in the flavor of the world, and one of you is going to die. I think you get very used the idea that enemies are all there for you to mow through, but it doesn't seem like someone's life is going to end. We're trying to get that across.
• satisfying thud arrow economy
• there are three words for each shout, and there are three levels to them
• the amount of time you hold down the shout button determines how many words come out

also compare

• for instance, the 'sword perk' increases the chances of landing a critical strike, the 'axe perk' punishes enemies with residual bleeding damage effect after each consecutive blow, and the 'mace perk' ignores armor as to land more powerful strikes upon the enemy. the wikipedia article

with

• For instance, the sword perk increases your chances of landing a critical strike, the axe perk punishes enemies with residual bleeding damage after each blow, and the mace perk ignores armor on your enemies to land more powerful strikes. [7]

That's a copyright violation..

Quotation is occasionally necessary, but in general not if the information can be written in your own words with no loss of impact. I'm only going to say this once.. In general and copy-vios are without question and a warning to the editor.. Next time I'll just delete it. Sf5xeplus (talk) 03:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm addressing all these issues. Shouldn't take very long. CR4ZE (talk) 04:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I've done some cropping, but there is still a little fluff that could be cut out. I'm done for the time being. CR4ZE (talk) 04:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I made some minor changes [8] - should I be using Oblivion as a baseline from which to describe the game.??

Also I removed the bit about "knock back attacks" using shields - though added about using timing - maybe this should be in - but Oblivion already had a "shield stagger" effect (I think).

Probably should say something about the attempts to make it less of a "slug match" in combat - but can't think of the words. I guess it can wait.Sf5xeplus (talk) 08:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I've done some minor work too. There was no need to split the paragraph about stealth off, because it's only a couple of lines long. It's better to reference Oblivion as little as possible, because we're alienating readers who've never played an Elder Scrolls game before. CR4ZE (talk) 11:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't copy and pasting.

I appreciate your concern, but I wasn't copying-and-pasting. I paraphrased it to the best of my ability. But, yes, I do understand that it was a bit excessive. I'm glad you trimmed it down.

( To CR4ZE)

Mileylikeshersalvia (talk) 22:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Merge completed

I have completed merging the Creation Engine article here. CR4ZE (talk) 05:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

"witness their own execution" - removals

diff

• The bit about the blades dying out has lost its reference - it was from the gameinformer magazine fixed

• The game begins with the player character "witnessing [their] own execution", the circumstances of which are not currently known. : ok this doesn't makes sense - it is a mistranslation (or some sort of preminition ?) - has anyone got the original dutch text? Sf5xeplus (talk) 01:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• http://forums.bethsoft.com/index.php?/topic/1161723-dutch-cover-story-interesting-info/ this isn't a reliable source - nobody from bethesda confirms the info - needs alternative references - one about fast travel, the other about the main quest being 20hrs. It's repeated elsewhere eg [9] but they're all spamming the same info - really need the dutch magazine title and pages, possibly with included quotes in the ref. 01:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Behemoth of new info

I can't find a way to properly add this new information to the article.

Here's the original podcast, which is 56 minutes long: http://www.gameinformer.com/b/podcasts/archive/2011/02/03/toddhowardse.aspx

CR4ZE (talk) 07:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what to do with it either - there's info. in there but it's more 'icing' than 'cake' - one thing that did stand out was that dragons can attack from the air and from the ground, had a special team working on them for 2yrs, have different attack patterns, are not rideable and there can be more than one at a time..

The other bit that would have been a good addition was the stuff about mounts - but that was a bit vague - seemed to say there will be mounts (horses) (didn't I read somewhere about ridable mammoths ??) - but not clear on the details.

I'd rather wait until it gets put in print - don't really like working from audio sources - probably won't be long before they start showing the game more widely. Sf5xeplus (talk) 04:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh it confirmed more of the plot - the bit about the greybeards calling you to [wherever] via the thousands of steps . .. for training in dragon speech.Sf5xeplus (talk) 05:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I've added in all the important stuff, like dragons and quests, and kept out fluff like mounts and factions. I've also used alternative sourcing to the original podcast to eliminate neutrality issues. I can't remember what was said about the plot, so you can add it to the Plot section as you wish. CR4ZE (talk) 05:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Promises by the developers

A lot of the detail currently in this article about what is or will be in the game is based on comments made by representatives of developers Bethesda in interviews. Although this is clear from examining the sources, it might be an idea to make it clearer in the article itself. For example, the article states that "[dragons] will attack cities and towns at random, often nose-diving to the ground before marching through city streets and breathing fire, engulfing buildings and causing significant damage to city structures." Sounds exciting! What the source actually shows, however, is that developers have stated that this will feature in the game, not that it actually does feature in the game. One can't assume that they amount to the same thing.Hobson (talk) 16:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Are you saying that game developers are unreliable sources, or that the article should read "the game will feature" instead of "the game features"? Because I disagree with both. Please elaborate. CR4ZE (talk) 06:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I think what he is trying to say is that dragons attacking a town might not be an actual feature present in the game, but instead would be something that you experienced once or twice during the course of the main quest, perhaps through some sort of cutscene.Although the all the info I've heard from Todd Howard seems to imply that dragon attacks on towns will be random, but he only implies this, not confirms it. 75.107.0.53 (talk) 19:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Although, in the podcast that was recently on Game Informer where they interviewed Todd Howard, he mentioned that there was a team in Bethesda that spent two years working on the dragons, designing the animations and perfecting the AI.So it doesn't seem like they would spend that much time working on the dragons if they were only going to feature them briefly in the game. 75.107.0.38 (talk) 13:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm saying that we don't know what the game features or doesn't feature. What the sources actually tell us is what the developers have said in interviews. That's what the article should say - eg "developers Bethesda have said the game will feature ..etc". Throughout the article, there are references to things that are or will be in the game. But none of the sources verify that those things are in the game.Hobson (talk) 20:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, as the IP user above you pointed out, Todd Howard stated that there has been a team working on dragons for two years. He specifically said that the dragons were able to land in cities and breathe fire, destroying people and buildings. It's not like he said "we think that dragons will...", he specifically made a point of it. Also, writing "developers Bethesda have said the game will feature..." constantly will make the article read horribly. CR4ZE (talk) 00:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• see Primary,_secondary_and_tertiary_sources - the developer releases are primary sources, and the developer associated press campaign with GameInformer is not definately un-biased either. See also the whole of the guidline at Wikipedia:Verifiability ie Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy , and , While primary sources are normally welcome, there are dangers in relying on them. etc etc

Possibly problems are buying into hype etc..

Game review websites are not consistently always that reliable - due to their own conflict of interest issues - ie advertising revenue etc.

There appears to be little that can be done until the game is released and actually played and reviewed.Sf5xeplus (talk) 12:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

More new information due out soon http://botchweed.com/game-news/new-skyrim-info-next-week -EddyDew (talk) 08:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

New Info

I don't know if this is legitimate or not, but someone posted a link to this site on the TESNexus which talks more about the features of Skyrim.

http://www.gameranx.com/updates/id/1407/article/bethesda-reveals-new-skyrim-facts/

99.196.128.59 (talk) 14:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Interesting - it looks likely to be true, but I wouldn't add any as yet - the actual overall relevance to the game isn't clear (ie don't give undue weight to a single source)

By the way the first gameplay trailer is out - it can be found on the official website, and elsewhere.Sf5xeplus (talk) 12:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Contrary to popular belief, this is all information taken from the Official Playstation Magazine UK. I have the magazine myself, and it lists all this info, but all the relevant stuff has already been added to the article. CR4ZE (talk) 02:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

More like Morrowind

According to this link, Skyrim will be a lot more like Morrowind. I think this should be included in the Settings section of the main article. - AeonEchelon (talk) 00:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted though that while like Morrowind in many ways, it will follow Oblivion in general setting type, being low-fantasy rather than high-fantasy. I don't know where I heard this... if anybody could confirm it that'd be great, I'm quite confident it's true.--207.161.209.229 (talk) 02:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Minor points

• In gameplay it quotes "[w]e take the paradigm for reading AI, but we let people do what they want under extra parameters" - I may be stupid - but I have no idea what the first part of this means - can someone rewrite it so it's self explanatory.
• In folklore it reads "through a course of events, the player character learns that he/she is "Dragonborn."[10] This allows the player to use dragon shouts. " - this is a bit confusing - I assume it means that only Dragonborn can use dragon shouts. Can this be clarified or rewritten a bit please.
• In developement there are quite a few quotes, many are justified - but is "[i]t's exciting finally to announce the game. [...] We've been working for many years on Skyrim and the technology behind it. A new Elder Scrolls game has been a long time coming, and we can't wait to show it off." really necessary. It sounds like the sort of thing all developers say from birth..
  • Also The art design of Skyrim is described as being "very different" - unfortunately this tells me nothing really, and lacks context. I've seen the screenshots and it's not clear what is meant - perhaps very different from Oblivion? Also in the same section the art design is described as "epic reality" as well as "closer to home" - I assume these are the developers words - could someone write it in more plainer english please, and in their own words. Thanks.Sf5xeplus (talk) 13:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. CR4ZE (talk) 23:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Danke, si gut.Sf5xeplus (talk) 17:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Ahopp, 19 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

Please edit article, changing "Spells can be used in ranged and close combat forms. Spell types have specific qualities; a cold spell slows and drains stamina, whilst a fire spell causes prolonged damage through burning, and may also ignite the environment." to something more similair to " Spells can be used in ranged and close combat forms. Spell types have specific qualities; a cold spell slows and drains stamina, whilst a fire spell causes prolonged damage through burning, and may also ignite the environment. Overall, there will be approximately 80 to 85 spells." (As noted in the OXM article and the GI article)

Ahopp (talk) 18:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done, although I used "over 85" like the source citation says instead of 80–85. — Bility (talk) 03:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

What pegi age rating will skyrim be

please can anyone confirm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.175.150 (talk) 19:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Interview with Todd Howard

Some new info about some of the features in Skyrim in an interview with Todd Howard:

http://pc.ign.com/articles/115/1158651p1.html

He talks about a few things, such as traveling by horse carriages, and dragons that respawn.Beware the joke questions near the bottom.75.107.0.52 (talk) 01:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

question

Is it possible to ride a dragon, as you would a horse in oblivion? or if not, if another Elder Scrolls comes out in the next few years, is that a possibility? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonmaster92 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Dragonmaster92 (talk) 14:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC) Dragonmaster92

user generated content ps3/xbox 360

there's nothing in the artical about user made Mods being possibly avalible for consoles. could someone please add it cuz im not sure how. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.22.6 (talk) 19:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

User-Generated Content in Skyrim — April 21, 2011

'Bethesda's Todd Howard has confirmed that the studio is trying to find a way to let 360 and PS3 gamers install user-generated content with TESV: Skyrim. The only problem is finding a way to allow users to download the content. "It works on all the consoles," he said. "As far as the 360 and PS3, right now there's not an avenue for us to make that available, but we’d very much like to find a way. We have talked to Microsoft and Sony, and so there's a chance it might happen one day, [but] I don't see it happening for release."

Third-party mods have been a huge part of the Elder Scrolls series since Morrowind and have allowed PC players to add almost anything to their games. The leading TES mod site, TES Nexus currently features over 24,000 files, and there is every indication that Skyrim will continue the high level of input from the modding community.'

Resources: Unofficial Elder Scrolls Pages. (UESP.net)

Therefore, there won't be any user generated content. 24.179.27.28 (talk) 20:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

"...and doing so allows for better items to be bought or looted from dungeons."

In the gameplay section it states that leveling up increases the value of loot and what can be found in stores. This system was used for Oblivion, but was, for the most part, not used in Morrowind. There has been no confirmation that loot or store goods will scale with level, for all we know it could be preset, or scale to the level of enemies rather than your level. --184.94.68.35 (talk) 03:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

A misunderstanding about Radiant Story vs. Radiant AI

"Predecessors to Skyrim made use of an artificial intelligence system known as Radiant AI. Skyrim makes use of an updated system known as Radiant Story.[8]"

That is a quote from the article, talking about Radiant Story and Radiant AI. It is simply not true, the source listed even says something completely different. Radiant AI HAS NOT been replaced by Radiant Story. Radiant Story is a feature used to govern quests, and make quest oriented features more dynamic. Radiant AI is still the system that governs all AI in the game, and it has been vastly improved.

The entire paragraph needs to be rewritten to say this, as, in its current state it is totally wrong. I thought I'd post this here for discussion for a day or two before editing it myself. --184.94.88.4 (talk) 05:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I can see the angle you're coming from. My main reason for reverting back is that your re-writing used "offering far more complexities", which reads more like an ad than a Wikipedia article. The inconsistencies with the source have been redressed, so the paragraph should be clearer to understand. CR4ZE (talk) 06:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and sorry about all the kerfuffle over that article. Your wording sounds great. 206.45.183.236 (talk) 01:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Pre-Order Bonuses?

Is it worth mentioning pre-order\collector's edition bonuses? 203.25.1.208 (talk) 03:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)