The infinite variety of events and outcomes In Real Life. Sorry, I shouldn't assume that everyone knows what popular acronyms like "IRL" mean. The rest of your paragraph there is understandable, given you thought I was referring to the game.

I partially agree but the game does open up in some areas like Falkreath and around Whiterun but yeah I'm sick and tired of walking into mountains only to have to walk back down them because that way wouldn't let me continue upward so I ran into an invisible wall. Levitation would fix that not that I'm one of those levitation fanatics.

Yeah the guild quests are kind of short but they leave room for expansion which is always good. Yeah it is a poor argument and I'm not using it to justify the current quality but pointing out that an improvement could be coming down the line with each new area opened up players could have the guild expand into that area.

It seems to me that it's just as easy to get around in Skyrim as it was in Cyrodiil. Also, if Oblivion was to come out now instead of years ago, it would have looked just as beautiful as Skyrim.

I'm throwing my lot in with the "it's linear" crowd, New Vegas has really opened my eyes to how an open world RPG should be done, having said that, I don't believe Skyrim is more linear than Oblivion or Morrowind, I'd argue that some quests aren't as well written but if anything Skyrim has more branching than any of the previous games.

I do kinda feel the linear dungeons, the fact that we've had all verticality stripped out of the design with the loss of acrobatics makes it especially noticeable, on the other hand; locations feel more realistic, habitations in the real world are mostly linear, because it's functional.

One thing from Fallout 3, New Vegas and Morrowind that I really miss is the hand placed special weapons, Skyrim has them but so far I've found nothing as satisfying as http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Jiggs, even when you do find something it's either less powerful than what you've already got or it quickly becomes useless as you level.

It all depends what you were expecting, I expected Skyrim to be massively linear so I've been pleasantly surprised at the variety available, I just wish the quests and loot were more compelling.

Arrow to the knee is no match for two bullets to the brain.

new vegas is an open world game with invisible walls.



then develope a fps game why you making an elder scrolls game which is an open world series. bethesda fails.

I must be playing a different game. I don't see anything linear about Skyrim. See my sig link about why I love these games. Linear means a straight line from here to there and I sure don't do that when I walk around Skyrim. I just don't agree with a description of linearity at all.

Which is a good thing. Too much freedom for the player limits creativity from the developer.

And Deathclaws, and Cazadores.

New Vegas is a great example of a game with choices, consequences, and a properly branching plot; but the invisible walls and conveniently placed high level nasties which funnel you along the 'proper' route at the start of the game make it a pretty poor example of open world exploration.

Invisible walls preventing you from jumping on top of rocks surrounding plateaus.
But you're right, obviously Skyrim provides x1000 times more freedom since it lets you jump on rocks on steep cliffsides that are impossible to climb with or without invisible walls.

I really can't believe any of you are using NV to try to point out how non-linearity should be done. NV felt far more linear to me than any of Bethesda's games. Every playthrough resulted in the exact pattern of quests which anyone who's played the game is familiar with. It funnels you along the exact same route. Yes there are choices to make and it does have an effect on the outcome of the game but it doesn't really change the course of how you play. NV even has a conclusion that ends the game permenantly. Yea you can artificially hold off on it but that's your choice not what the developers wanted. They hold your hand to almost every single location in the game. It's a thinly veiled trail of breadcrumbs that you follow from start to finish so that you end up seeing every location at least once. There isn't even a need to go exploring because the story takes you everywhere if you just follow it.

NV also has no random events at all, very few enemies in the wild making exploring very uneventful other than key locations, the land mass is extremely small compared to any of the Bethesda games, there are invisible walls everywhere (if that's your thing more power to you but open world games should be open in my book, you may not be able to climb every part of the mountain going up but I take shortcuts all the time coming down. You can't do that in NV due to invisible walls), and NV had very little underground area and most of what was there was cookie cutter. My point is that NV had it's own issues and limitations. There were just as many complaints about those issues on the NV forum when that game was in it's prime. It wasn't any more of a holy grail for RPG than Skyrim is so stop acting like it was so perfect because it wasn't.

This.

+1

Im sorry, but anyone who says New vegas is linear hasnt played it.
There are many sides to take in a lot of quests, which starts when you begin in Goodsprings.
You can side with the powder gangers or the villagers, which will have consequences for the rest of the game.
You can also side with the powder gangers and then betray them to the NCR.
This is just the first quest.

As for the gameworld, if you know what you are doing you can go north to Vegas or East to Novac right from the start, at level 1.
Its unlikely though that youd find these ways on your first playthrough, so in that the game does a good job of familiarising you with the basics as well as offering the choice to circumvent the 'layed out path' for those that are experienced.

NV is the exact opposite of skyrim, its world is linear but the way you approach the quests makes the world feel non linear. the game also doesn't hold your hand to almost every location. you can complete the game without knowing certain areas existed and it is arguable a better RPG than skyrim. I don't know about everyone else but i don't find the random events in skyrim's wild, a strength since they're repetitive and i know the exact place it will appear.

hehe consequences? I killed the entire legion army and even ceasar himself but they still fighting me in the last battle.

I think we all have different ideas of what makes a non-linear game, to some it means being able to go anywhere in the world from the start, to others it means options for resolving situations, I only use New Vegas as an example because of it's brilliant quest design, if you boil it down, all games are linear, they have to be or else the developers would never finish making them.

The scripted events are, individually, very cool. That you get brought into an adventure not because you talked to every single NPC in the bar and one of them starts you on a quest line but because someone got stabbed right in front of you, that's cool.

The problem is that it's inevitable. Instead of these events always triggered no matter what you do have them triggered by other events. Don't have me all but forced into joining the thieves guild the moment I walk into a town (bluntly I tend to avoid that location on replay of the game. It's an irritating 10 minutes of identical conversations I have to have every time I go there the first time). If I steal something and try to sell stolen goods somewhere, then the next time I go to that location start that interaction up. Then there is a REASON for that interaction. Don't just throw me into the 'witness a murder the first time you come to town' bit. Have it random after I've come and gone a couple of times. If I don't like that city and never go there, why draw me into its politics?

The concept is great. The problem is that it's all universal. Trying to force me to see every single plot, story and event the game has to offer every single time I play is not a good thing. It devalues what is otherwise some very cool stories and events. I'd also agree with the guild quests being 'fall down a well' style. Make me work at it for a while so that I actually care about the guild before I'm utterly in charge of it. I've completed all the guild questlines just to say I've done it but have never developed any attachment to any of them. Let me go on quests with some of these people. Do a bunch of work with and for them. Get invested in them before I solve all their problems and become the leader they never met before.

Stab him in his face.

Problem solved.

Atleast you can kill him, unlike in Skyrim where


doesn't solve problems because everybody and their dogs are essential.

Due to Legate Lanius taking over(Who was even worse than Caeser). Everyone in the game comments on what you did though and note on how Caeser is dead. Can't say the same for skyrim. The legion sends death squads against you and all become permanently hostile. I wiped out northwatch keep and the thalmor still speak to me just as normally as when I had not. When you were at Caesers camp did you ever look across outside the encampment and notice the massive amounts of tents set up? You barely made a scratch on their army.

It certainly had invisible walls people complained a lot about and it certainly pushed the player in a certain direction - this was pretty easily bypassed with experience of the game. That was a game design decision you either like or don't but makes sense as new players got an introduction to the world and what was going on, on your second playthrough you'd know enough to bypass all that if you wanted. It also had a hard ending which is really the only way to have multiple endings with massive consequences for the gameworld - it didn't end until the player decided they wanted it to end, so I personally never saw what the fuss was about - give me multiple interesting endings over F3's lame ending (made ultra lame by Broken Steel) just so you don't have to save the one final battle until you're finished any day. Beth wouldn't even let you join the Enclave when trhey still had a hard ending - just like you can only do one tiny sidequest for the Thalmor in Skyrim. New Vegas never forced you into quests or had NPCs harassing you into undertaking them like Skyrim does - hell, you could just wander round kiilling everyone you saw if you felt like it and breaking most of the quests - it supported that too.

The gameworld did get a bit empty in places and that was a flaw, but on the other hand random encounters just get repetitive as you see the same ones over and over. Why Skyrim couldn't have had regular travellers who are just travelling between cities and nothing more spawning on the roads I don't know. That would make the themed random encounters mean something more and spread them out so they didn't get so old so fast.

The MQ did not show you much of the world. In fact, there was loads of content that wasn't at all obvious - the companion quests tended to have very specific triggers you could easily miss. What it did that Skyrim doesn't was support pretty much whatever character you fancied - you could join most factions in the game, all of whom had intelligible motivations. And people noticed what you did and reacted to it. It's real strength was the way the quests made a bunch of interlocking stories that felt like a real narrative and made you an important player without being King Of The World and being in charge of everything (though nobody of course notices you are in Skyrim). The storytelling actually made sense and had a level of complexity Bethesda seem incapable of managing - not forgetting NV was made in what? 18 months or something, was on a waaaaaay tighter schedule and had a lot cut from it due to that - and it still managed to tell a bigger story with far more decision making and consequences than Skyrim manages.

Bethesda seem to be moving into thinking if they give you a big world and a bunch of stuff to do, it doesn't really matter what that stuff is. They make huge roleplaying games, but aren't putting thought into supporting roleplaying. If Bethesda had made New Vegas, you'd be forced to support the NCR and you'd be able to - indeed pushed towards - become chief of every minor faction along the way - that's the Skyrim model. The civil war was a step in the right direction, but it's very badly done. ~They seem to think they have to aim their games at teenage boys who only care about being being the biggest, baddest boss of fantasyland (that's not intended to be ageist, I'm speaking in terms of commercial stereotypes). They're kind of like a band who's got to big and care less about the music than what's going to sell the most records. Unfortunately, that kind of strategy can backfire in the long term.

I just can't honestly see how anyone could say that Skyrim is a linear game. Yes some scripted elements have a linear feel, but they're so far and few between that the game doesn't fell/isn't linear in its design at all.

I just can't see it.

so you think fallout 3 ending was lame? well thats your opinion, in my opinion that was the best ending ever. and when I say ending i mean the last 2 hours of the game. and about fallout new vegas ending, ask everyone how many time the game crashes in that time(console). how about they didnt change anything in the gameplay and used the same engine? obsidian, they become your ideal developer after they created fallout new vegas? and what they created before fallout?
i prefer be forced to support the NCR but get a game that actually feels different. yes they are good at copy pasting FO3 world if thats what you want. storytelling is just one part of the game not everything.im not bashing new vegas but it's never a better game than skyrim.

new vegas actually do that all the time. do I need to explain that?

Nah, I did a quick count about a week ago. Morrowind has roughly twice as many quests with multiple paths. Morrowind also allows you to kill everyone at any time, giving you the opportunity to solve quests that way.
To be fair, if you wipe out an entire keep, there won't really be anyone to tattle on you. I'm actually having the opposite problem, where some characters seem to know who I've killed when it'd be impossible for them or anyone else to have witnessed it.

The world in Skyrim is not linear, however the scripted events make it FEEL linear. The first time you enter Markarth, you witness a murder. It doesn't matter the time of day, there will always be a murder. You enter Solitude for the first time, you will witness an execution. Same thing. It could be 5am and there will still be an execution. Scripted events that have triggers that literally are "go to place x" or "walk near NPC y" are what makes Skyrim FEEL so linear. You can go wherever you want and do whatever you want (which is the opposite of linear), however in many locations, you are practically locked into specific dialogue or events simply because you are there. No special requirements for the scripted events really make the game feel tedious and annoying, and the repetitive dialogue makes it even worse. The dialogue in Oblivion wasn't great, not by a long shot. However, the dialogue amongst the NPCs was at least somewhat random, which made the world of Oblivion feel more alive and believable.


I agree completely. The dialogue in Oblivion was lacking, no doubt. The fact that so many NPCs sounded the exact same (voice-wise) and often pvssyd about the same "random" topics really hurt it, but I find the semi-random pvssyr of the NPCs to be MUCH more immersive and believable than the tightly-scripted dialogue of the NPCs in Skyrim. It just doesn't make sense to me why Bethesda didn't give all NPCs dialogue relating to current events and some random topics to chat about. I completely understand giving NPCs unique dialogue, but I think there needs to be a healthy balance of unique dialogue and random pvssyr. I think Oblivion was lacking in unique dialogue, but Skyrim completely threw out random pvssyr altogether (except for the guards, I suppose), which I think was a very bad move.