Skyrim's Civil War - What could have been

[SajuukKhar]

As we all know, Skyrim's Civil war was.... well... boring.... however, recent examinations of Skyrim's files by the modding community have recently revealed some interesting bits about the Civil War

http://forums.bethsoft.com/topic/1359648-civil-war-cut-content/
For those of you who don't want to read the thread

Content within the games files show that large parts of the Civil War were complete or very near complete before being axed.

Said cut content includes
-Battle for Whiterun like events for each of the other 8 cities
-Quests involving getting soldiers to defect, burning down mills, and recruiting giants and other mercs.
-Getting some form of weekly pay for being in the army that you could donate to the families of those lost in the war.
-Capturing and holding mines, mills, and farms
-Rescuing people from prison
-Killing enemy generals
-Purchasing land and setting patrols
-Attacking Settlements

Whats sad is that many of these things are voiced, at least partially, and have all the markers and stuff ready for them in the game as is.

I can only wonder why Bethesda chose to cut so much completed/nearly completed content out.

 

[Muspelheim]

Well, the most plausible explanation is that they just couldn't get it to work properly, or the way they intended. Skyrim isn't exactly the most well-running game in the world, and it's not entirely impossible that their grand civil war design just didn't work once they actually ran it.
Another reason why they might have axed it is because it overshadowed everything else, making the story less of a free-roaming fantasy adventure game and more like a civil war game with optional grave robbing. Or ArmA 2 with vikings and dragons.

But the possibility I think is most likely is that it just wasn't as fun actually implemented in game as it looks like on paper. It sounds excellent as an idea, but it could simply have felt very grindy and uninteresting once you actually played it, even if it functioned perfectly.

Those are my theories, at least. Thing is, alot of content in games are usually axed during development, for various reason. Skyrim isn't an exception. It's alot easier to add features that doesn't actually help the game than it is finding out which ones to keep, I'd imagine.

 

[SajuukKhar]

I wouldn't be surprised if the "overshadowing everything else" part was true.

Oblivion originally had a very large and detailed quest-line were you rose up the ranks of nobility that was cut because it was so large it overshadowed the main story.

I could see how taking farms, mines, and other things, and then having to hold them while also capturing forts, recruiting giants, and defending the big cities, would have been a management hell, and would have taken time away for players to do anything else in Skyrim.

Still, it would be been nice to at least see the battle for whtierun events for each city, as it is now you capture a fort then the city mysteriously falls under your control. I think adding the battle for each city event would have done a lot more to make the Civil war seem better.

 

[sanquin]

Kind of sucky really, if that was the reason. "Let's cut this part of the game because it's too good.' >_<

 

[Esotera]

Probably because there's so much content. Bethesda's testing department is obviously very stretched on a continuous basis, and I imagine that adding all those options in would be really cool but a nightmare to test.

 

[SajuukKhar]

Kind of sucky really, if that was the reason. "Let's cut this part of the game because it's too good.' >_<

Well, its not so much that it's good, just that it's a lot.

Also, while all of that sound cool on paper, actually playing it in-game could be fairly boring.

Imagine taking over a mine, your objectives are
-Go to a mine, were 5 stormcloak npcs are
-You kill them
-Now you have taken over the mine
-end quest.

Or burning down a mill, it would probably just be
-go to marked mill
-run up to it
-cast fire spell
-run off
-end quest

Killing enemy generals
-go to marked camp
-kill general
-end quest

getting enemy soldiers to defect
-Go up tp NPC
-Talk to him
-Use bride, persuasion, or intimidation
-End quest

Not really that fun sounding is it.

 

[SajuukKhar]

whoops double post

 

[ultrachicken]

I don't think that stuff would have played out very well. The battle for Whiterun was so significant because it was unlike anything else in the game; if it happened nine times, would the battles be as memorable? I think they would just become repetitive.

The management of your chosen army seems that it would become repetitive and boring fast, and would detract from the exploration the series is known for.

 

[SajuukKhar]

I don't think that stuff would have played out very well. The battle for Whiterun was so significant because it was unlike anything else in the game; if it happened nine times, would the battles be as memorable? I think they would just become repetitive.

The management of your chosen army seems that it would become repetitive and boring fast, and would detract from the exploration the series is known for.

Technically you would only do battle for whiterun events more 4 times, not 9.

You would only have them for the 4 enemy towns you have to capture.

 

[sanquin]

I don't think that stuff would have played out very well. The battle for Whiterun was so significant because it was unlike anything else in the game; if it happened nine times, would the battles be as memorable? I think they would just become repetitive.

The management of your chosen army seems that it would become repetitive and boring fast, and would detract from the exploration the series is known for.

Because nothing else is repetitive in Skyrim right? Random dragons, a lot of the dungeons even if the lay-out is a bit different, travelling from place to place if you don't use fast travel a lot, crafting, etc.

 

[SajuukKhar]

1. The current way the gamebryo engines works is a mess. Scripting is heavily limited and the good stuff needs a script extender. No way Bethesda would put that much effort into a game.

2. Strategy elements like setting patrols wouldn't translate well to consoles or the mainstream. Strategy isn't exactly "mainstream." If a 9 year old boy can't immediately figure it out, it will be cut in a AAA game.

3. Burning something into ash doesn't exactly work in Gamebryo. Its another limitation.

4. Attacking settlements wouldn't work either, because a quest-dependent NPC might be killed. If it was an essential NPC, the attacks would always fail because the NPC is invincible.

1. Except the fact it's already in the game, and works without the script extender, proves it's possible, and the fact that most of the quests are in working order, they just need to be activated, shows they did put that much effort into it. Also you are heavily underestimating the game engine if you think something that simple would need a script extender.

2. That is just idiotic, blaming consoles for the removal of it is absurd.

3. Helgen disagrees. Also who said it would be to ash? no one. You don't have to burn something to ash to burn it down.

They could do to the mills what they did to the beehives at Goldenglow estate that you burn down for the thieves guild.
-You light it on fire
-It starts burning, and stays burning as long as you are in the area
-When you leave the area the burning mill is removed and replaced with a burnt down version
It doesn't have to burn down in real time.

4. You are aware it is possible to temporarily disable NPCs for certain quests, and then re-enable them after the quest is done? They did it with the battle of Whiterun to remove most of the NPCs so they couldn't be killed. It's a scripting technique they use many times throughout the game. It's very basic and easy to do.

 

[Zer_]

Kind of sucky really, if that was the reason. "Let's cut this part of the game because it's too good.' >_<

Well, its not so much that it's good, just that it's a lot.

Also, while all of that sound cool on paper, actually playing it in-game could be fairly boring.

Imagine taking over a mine, your objectives are
-Go to a mine, were 5 stormcloak npcs are
-You kill them
-Now you have taken over the mine
-end quest.

Or burning down a mill, it would probably just be
-go to marked mill
-run up to it
-cast fire spell
-run off
-end quest

Killing enemy generals
-go to marked camp
-kill general
-end quest

getting enemy soldiers to defect
-Go up tp NPC
-Talk to him
-Use bride, persuasion, or intimidation
-End quest

Not really that fun sounding is it.

Precisely.

They may also release it all in one big DLC after giving it some much needed polish, which I would totally be okay with.

 

[SacremPyrobolum]

I wouldn't be surprised if the "overshadowing everything else" part was true.

Oblivion originally had a very large and detailed quest-line were you rose up the ranks of nobility that was cut because it was so large it overshadowed the main story.

WHAT!?!?

As you know from my posts on you 'what would you do to improve Skyrim' this was basicly exactly what I wanted from the last game!

Screw you Bethesda! What kind of company says "Well, this content is just TO COOL for our game and will totally make people not do the main quest, so lets just cut it.

Are you out of your minds!?!

You could instead, I don't know, make the main quest as or more instersting, command a larger cadre of Blades, send them out to dispose of dragons or work towards your own interests (tipping the scales in the civil war one way or another, manage your blades to better combat the dragons in Skyrim by having a consequence of not doing so being dragons leaving real and possible permanent scars on the landscape (Burnt down villages, taverns, etc)!

I amount usually this explicit on the forum but the possibility of this train of thought being in Bethesda sort of pisses me off

 

[SajuukKhar]

Precisely.

They may also release it all in one big DLC after giving it some much needed polish, which I would totally be okay with.

Releasing a "DLC" that basically only reactivates code that is already in the game would cause massive outrage. Your quite literally advocating on disk DLC.

Bethesda is far better off just leaving it alone then releasing it and facing the backlash from what amounts to the same crap Bioware and Capcom pull, and you know how much people hate Bioware and Capcom's DLC.

WHAT!?!?

As you know from my posts on you 'what would you do to improve Skyrim' this was basicly exactly what I wanted from the last game!

Screw you Bethesda! What kind of company says "Well, this content is just TO COOL for our game and will totally make people not do the main quest, so lets just cut it.

Are you out of your minds!?!

You could instead, I don't know, make the main quest as or more instersting, command a larger cadre of Blades, send them out to dispose of dragons or work towards your own interests (tipping the scales in the civil war one way or another, manage your blades to better combat the dragons in Skyrim by having a consequence of not doing so being dragons leaving real and possible permanent scars on the landscape (Burnt down villages, taverns, etc)!

I amount usually this explicit on the forum but the possibility of this train of thought being in Bethesda sort of pisses me off

As I said before it has nothing with it being "too cool", just "too distracting". For all we know the nobility questline in Oblivion was a bunch of boring fetch quests.

And as I pointed out before, none of those civil war quests are REALLY that different then every other "go here and kill 10 X" quest skyrim has already. It would just make the civil war have more pointless killing.

Also having Dragons burn down entire villages would be way overboard, the civil war quests only covered mills for a reason, I can image how much backlash there would be over entire villages going away.

Beyond that not everyone sides with the blades so that wouldn't work.

 

[Yokillernick]

Killing enemy generals
-go to marked camp
-kill general
-end quest

I am sorry but I think that you are wrong there. I would have loved nothing more than to actually use my Assassin character, sneak into the enemy camp and slit the General's throat before quietly slipping out again. I mean that would have added extra fun rather than the tedious:

Go find the hidden camp
Do some run around for them taking a fort

While for the others like battle of Whiterun. Don't do the same thing. Instead what they should have did was have like 50 Imperials in a castle and 50 Stormclocks on your side and then have a siege. Not like now 10 Imperials vs 10 Stormclocks. Please don;t tell me that would not work because I have seen the Warzone's Mod which does the exact same thing.

 

[Zer_]

Precisely.

They may also release it all in one big DLC after giving it some much needed polish, which I would totally be okay with.

Releasing a "DLC" that basically only reactivates code that is already in the game would cause massive outrage. Your quite literally advocating on disk DLC.

Bethesda is far better off just leaving it alone then releasing it and facing the backlash from what amounts to the same crap Bioware and Capcom pull, and you know how much people hate Bioware and Capcom's DLC.

WHAT!?!?

As you know from my posts on you 'what would you do to improve Skyrim' this was basicly exactly what I wanted from the last game!

Screw you Bethesda! What kind of company says "Well, this content is just TO COOL for our game and will totally make people not do the main quest, so lets just cut it.

Are you out of your minds!?!

You could instead, I don't know, make the main quest as or more instersting, command a larger cadre of Blades, send them out to dispose of dragons or work towards your own interests (tipping the scales in the civil war one way or another, manage your blades to better combat the dragons in Skyrim by having a consequence of not doing so being dragons leaving real and possible permanent scars on the landscape (Burnt down villages, taverns, etc)!

I amount usually this explicit on the forum but the possibility of this train of thought being in Bethesda sort of pisses me off

As I said before it has nothing with it being "too cool", just "too distracting". For all we know the nobility questline in Oblivion was a bunch of boring fetch quests.

And as I pointed out before, none of those civil war quests are REALLY that different then every other "go here and kill 10 X" quest skyrim has already. It would just make the civil war have more pointless killing.

Also having Dragons burn down entire villages would be way overboard, the civil war quests only covered mills for a reason, I can image how much backlash there would be over entire villages going away.

Beyond that not everyone sides with the blades so that wouldn't work.

I disagree, it's impossible to tell exactly what state the content is in without playing it. In all likelihood, the content wasn't up to their standards. Polishing it and improving upon it gives them a lot more freedom by allowing them to deliver better content.

A lot of games have content that is cut from the initial release, and in many cases developers choose to release it as DLC instead, I don't see this as being any different.

 

[SajuukKhar]

I am sorry but I think that you are wrong there. I would have loved nothing more than to actually use my Assassin character, sneak into the enemy camp and slit the General's throat before quietly slipping out again. I mean that would have added extra fun rather than the tedious:

Go find the hidden camp
Do some run around for them taking a fort

While for the others like battle of Whiterun. Don't do the same thing. Instead what they should have did was have like 50 Imperials in a castle and 50 Stormclocks on your side and then have a siege. Not like now 10 Imperials vs 10 Stormclocks. Please don;t tell me that would not work because I have seen the Warzone's Mod which does the exact same thing.

But it wouldn't be assassin based, they have to make the quest doable for every character type.
The kill generals quest would just be
-go to the camp
-kill the guy
-possibly fight the 6 generic NPC enemies there also.

Warzones wouldn't work on consoles...... so no it wouldn't work, they cant just make content for one platform. also Warzones runs like crap on anything but a really good PC, its just not feasible for the vast majority of their user base, be it console or PC.

If they did it, it would have to be like the Battle of Whiterun, or the fort capturing missions, there's at max like 10 npcs for each side.

I disagree, it's impossible to tell exactly what state the content is without playing it. In all likelihood, the content wasn't up to their standards. Polishing it and improving upon it gives them a lot more freedom by allowing them to deliver better content.

A lot of games have content that is cut from the initial release, and in many cases developers choose to release it as DLC instead, I don't see this as being any different.

Actually most developers don't release cut content that is still on the disk as DLC, and the ones that do get massive fan backlashes for it.

The only thing that gets releases as DLC is ENTIRELY cut ideas, like Shale from Dragon Age, who was originally in the game, but cut entirely except like one or two references

 

[Sande45]

I think the whole civil war is deeply flawed as it is. Something as significant as war just doesn't work as a minor side questline. It really should have have been main quest replacing that silly dragon nonsense or not in the game to begin with.

That said, something like the things they had worked on could have helped to make it little less of a boring grind.