Gone.

New Vegas was released a full year before Skrim was. More than enough time to make alterations.

My point is not so much about New Vegas, it is about why haven't they taken some hints from previous games (New Vegas as well). Nothing in Skyrim makes any differnence whatsoever. My companions give me no reason why I would want to even attempt to save their worthless hide.

Writning for Bethesda has been a sore spot for years now. Oblvion, for all it's flaws waasn't too terrible with this, Fallout 3 got a little weaker in this area, but was stil a decent story...and I still cared whether or not npc's and my companions lived or died, or even what they thought of me. I remember not doing the Tenpenny Tower quest a certain way because of Charon being my follower at the time. Skyrim? I couldn't care less about any of them because Bethesda dropped the ball on so many fronts it's not funny.

Well clearly not since they barely finished the game as it is.

I agree with you that the companions aren't very good. Quantity over quality it seems. And nobody has stepped into the shoes of Ken Rolston/Michael Kirkbride/Mark Nelson(BlueDev), to name a few, which is a real shame. Writers have never been abundant in Bethesda and it shows.

To say they haven't taken hints from previous games is unfair though as clearly they have (You never used to be able to share things for instance) .That they haven't taken the hints that interest you is another thing entirely.

It was somebody else - I forget who, said that Bethesda excel in creating open worlds and others (Obsidian in this case) excel in writing. It would be nice if at some point Bethesda bought/merged with a company that specialised in writing instead of First Person Shooters. Though they are not without the capacity of good writing. The Dark Brotherhood quests (Emil Pagliarulo) in Oblivion for example.

Edit: (Needed to look up the spellings of certain names. Moslty Emils)

or rather, still haven't finished the game.

None of the major quest lines are very good or creative.


There were really a number of good and interesting quests inside OB. Even the Fighter's guild in oblivion was more involved than any of the major quest lines of skyrim. And FG was the simplest main quest line of Oblivion.

There is nothing in Skyrim that compares to 'Through a nightmare, darkly' or 'A brush with death' - and those were just side quests!

I have been saying, and I feel more this way every day, that Skyrim was designed to be appealing right up front. Make things simple and easy to grasp for new players, and lure them with prettiness. Keep the quests idiot-proof so people get their carrots for instant satisfaction.

There is certainly merit in what you say, though another alternative is because the game wasn't going to be a launch title for a new generation of console and on a not that different engine (I'm being kind, though the graphics have improved), I don't think they were expecting Skyrim to sell particularly well, particularity at the beginning of development. Although they did address a lot of complaints about Oblivion, I don't think they were willing to risk spending too much money on developing a game with no real hook to sell it on. I think that's why they chose the 11.11.11 date. A way of making the game stand out.

I don't think they dreamed in a million years that the game would take on and beat the huge winter blockbusters that it did, much less the global recognition it's received. Had they known or expected this, I think the game would have been much better polished and with more features including many of the ones requested on these forums.

Everything about Radiant Quest smells of keeping the development costs down. It's not added to the value of quests, but it's made them cheaper (less voice acting) and quicker to make.

I disagree entirely. The Elder Scrolls is Bethesda's flagship franchise, its what they made their name on. They staked it all on Skyrim, and is has succeeded handsomely. Its not the game that many experienced RPG gamers wanted (myself included), but it is undeniably the blockbuster hit that Bethesda wanted.

Wanted? yes, expected? No. They've said as much in every post release interview.

I'm not saying they didn't expect it to be a success. They wouldn't have developed it if they didn't expect that, but Oblivion was a Xbox360 launch title. Skyrim was released at the end of the consoles lifetime. That's quite an important distinction when selling a game to the casual market.

This would not have been enough time for Bethesda to implement things like the reputation system, but it would have been enough to at least take notice that NV made a proper interface for Companions, for instance.

BUT: On the topic of Fallout, New Vegas is going to be the new standard on which Fallout 4 is judged, because factoring out bugs (the two devs effectively cancel out on buggy releases so its okay to disregard them for sake of comparison) Obsidian made the deeper, more involved game, and the majority of people who are into the Fallout reboot are going to want to see the foundation New Vegas laid out improved upon. This means certain elements need to stay, namely:

- Reputation
- Branching paths
- Good quality writing
- Choices with consequences

I am a little uneasy about the future of Fallout now, since precisely zero of those standards were set in Skyrim (or even present, for that matter). And if Fallout 3 is anything to go by, a lot of the development standards set in Elder Scrolls tend to bleed into Fallout.

As am I. I never thought I'd hear myself say this, but I'm beginning to come around to the idea that Obsidian really should make the next Fallout. Of course that will never happen. The biggest thing that I didn't like about New Vegas was mostly the location. For some reason Vegas didn't really grab me. Most everything else about it I enjoyed.

EDIT: Maybe another bit of it was the recycled assets from Fallout 3. New Vegas in many ways looked like we were still playing FO3...a game I was growing tired of playing at the time.

Same here. I didn't like New Vegas at first, but once you find a way in, its a great game. And it makes Fallout 3 and Skyrim look very simplistic in comparison. For the record, I love Fallout 3, but having seen what improvements New Vegas brought, its very difficult to go back.

This is what worries me about Fallout 4. We all saw the improvements in quest design that New Vegas brought, and almost all of it was ignored in Skyrim. Even obvious things like http://gamasutra.com/blogs/EricSchwarz/20111124/8956/Moral_Ambiguity_and_Choices_in_Skyrim_All_Setup_No_Payoff.php, http://www.gamecritics.com/brad-gallaway/fifteen-hours-with-skyrim-and-thats-enoughand the big one, http://www.gamecritics.com/richard-naik/breaking-the-immersion-skyrims-racism-lacks-authenticity. This is why I'm so critical of Skyrim. I actually really like the game, it is beautiful and atmospheric beyond anything I had expected - but when you consider what the game could have been, I am disappointed. If it had a multi branching story like New Vegas, I doubt that I'd have played another game for the next year or so. But I've seen everything in the main quest, and most of the dungeons with one character.

I don'y want anybody to get the wrong idea, I don't hate Skyrim by any means. I love it as a game, but as an Elder Scrolls game, and as an RPG, it leaves much to be desired (IMO). I would hope that with the next gen of consoles Bethesda will bring back some of the depth in their games that has continuously been stripped out...but that is likely wishful thinking there.

I think people need to understand that removing something and adding something new is actually easiler than improving something old while having to add something completely new. Instead of thinking how to make unarmed / acrobatics better as a skill, it's easier to just remove it. Instead of having to deal with balancing how fast things degrades, it's easier to just remove it. Why add more things to need balancing and tweaking when you already have that problem before? In a gamer's standpoint, obviously it is nice to have many many choices and features, both from the past titles and new ones from the sequels. But it doesn't work that way when you are designing a game. There are only so many manpower and time a company has, you will have to choose something that you want and you will have to remove else for it.

The horse riding system in Oblivion aren't all that great, so they wanted to remove it for Skyrim, but fans wanted it back, so they added it back. Turns out it is worst than Oblivion in that you can't talk when mounted. I think that is a good example as to why you just can't have everything from before and just add more to it for the sequel. If we look at all the crazy radiant story features that was marketed before launch, and all the features of it that we actually get shows how little time they actually have to really keep the "promise". Let's not forget every sequel needs to keep up with the standards graphics wise. That takes a lot of time. Then you need to make the world more detailed than before, you need handcrafted dungeons, bigger cities, more immersive envoirment, better animations, better spell effects, etc. These are all standards that sequels for a TES game should have, if they skip any of that, fans will rage even harder. Imagine Skyrim used the exact same engine from FO3, or they didn't handcrafted dungeons, but random generated ones. Imagine spell effects still look like crap and animations are still terrible. Imagine characters still look more like aliens than fantasy races.

As for game mechianics stuff like attributes, perks, skills, these are all mainly coding stuff. It shouldn't be harder to add to the game, but you will need to spent a lot of time balancing and tweaking before it is even acceptable for release. It takes a lot of time with a very weak return. When you have more and more skills, and other factors, it becomes harder and harder to balance. And for a singleplayer game, you're not going to sell the game with how balance it is. Imagine the taglines for the trailers instead having dragons, you have more balanced skills, not very attractive is it?

Personally I hated how little dialogue choies there are, and how linear quests are. The game isn't perfect, the developers aren't perfect beings. We can suuport them and hope they will do even better next time. it's not simply they sell out and want more money so they are bad. That's a very shallow and stupid way to complain about something without any thoughts put into other perspectives that is not your own. DA2 is a great example of selling out, compare that to Skyrim, how is this selling out?

Was there really a need to make another thread of this? Does whining about Bethesda on their own forum hel anyone except someone upset?

If you're mad that Bethesda's cutting content, be pissed at the industry that has has allowed this to become the norm; as well as the corrupt game review sites that turn a blind eye to this crap. Bethesda's doing what they feel will keep them in business. None of us have the right to tell them otherwise. The adage of "Don't like it? Don't buy it" comes to mind here.

Check out Old Republic's criticism; then look at how many review sites are intentionally avoiding the issues.


A wee bit off-topic:
Per the first thread OP "Leaving aside FNV which i consider the golden standard of recent sandbox RPGs"


Am I the only person that saw this game as just a big user made mod of FO3? I mean... really? Am I the only one that doesn't see this game as some messiah of open world sandbox gaming? Because I sure didn't like it without a ton of great user made mods. (Edit: Referring to NV, NOT Skyrim)

I really don't understand how they could've taken such big steps backwards in the story and quests, how could anyone trade in deep handcrafted quests with multiple branches and consequences for a constant "I want you to go to this cave and kill the bandit leader." Exploration means nothing in Skyrim, atleast in FO3 and NV I could go into a cave and find a unique weapon (unique in model and power) and be like "Oh cool!" now it's find iron dagger of flames which I saw the vendor selling before I left.

On a positive note the game looks good and the music is awesome.

It seems a lot of people are complaining about many things. Plenty of things.
I just think there's too much of it.

No, of course Skyrim ain't gonna be perfect. There's gonna be problems. There's gonna be flaws.
Every time I see a "Bethesda is getting lazy" post or a "Skyrim is the worst Elder Scrolls game!" post.... I die a little on the inside.
You can complain, yeah. The game has flaws, of course.

But the game is still good enough. I won't say it's perfect. It's not. But is it something to really worry too much about?
No, it's not. Just enjoy it for what it is, and maybe wait until the next Beth game until you decide they're dumbing-down the games.

There is a pretty big difference between styles for Elder Scrolls and Fallout that Bethesda too for Fallout 3, though, and that is the silver lining I am hanging on to.

In TES games, Bethesda seems more interested in packing as much stuff into the game as they can that they never slow down and make any of it matter in the long run. That is why I am 240 hours in and utterly bored of Skyrim now: nothing I do ever matters. Granted, those 240 hours I do consider time well spent, but I don't usually find myself bored of an Elder Scrolls game.

Fallout 3, on the other hand, Bethesda slowed down and took their time. They made the factions more interesting and fleshed out the quests to have an impact on what was happening (The Pitt, in particular, has one of the best decisions I was ever asked to make in gaming history, and EVERYTHING rode on it). As a result, I felt like I was a member of the world, fighting to survive and ultimately to help make the wastes a less dreary place to live. It wasn't perfect, but it was a decent attempt.

Skyrim, though, I don't feel connected to the world in any way. Nothing I do ever matters. Dragons are still sailing around when I finished the Main Quest, the choices I have to make are simply to choose between two bad options for which one I think is less bad without ever being given a reason to care.

The following is a comparison of a notable choice in Fallout 3 (The Pitt) and in Skyrim (The Forsworn Conspiracy). Spoilers involved, so read at your own risk.


Skyrim's example is presenting the player a choice that was not thought out well. They made me hate both parties and then choose which one should win the day.

The Pitt's was well thought out, because it gave me a reason to care by making me sympathetic to the slaves cause before asking me "how much are they really worth to you?"

In short, for TES VI, I want Bethesda to slow down and give me a reason to care about what happens in the world, instead of dumping me in as the doer without letting me have any input. This will mean fewer quests, but it will ALSO mean I will play the game over again. And as I stated previously, the two even each other out. A shorter game is not necessarily a bad thing. If Bethesda shot for 100 hours of content per session but developed in a way where you could get those other 200 hours from multiple play-throughs and make us want to actually see the other side of the looking glass, everyone wins.

And see? I didn't even bring up New Vegas!

I recently replayed Fallout 3 (fnished up about 1 week ago) and was actually pleasantly surprised by how much more fun I found it to be after my jaunt with Skyrim. Don't get me wrong I still enjoy Skyrim but there's are many things about Fallout 3 that I like better.

Well I know when I want Bioware to change something I go complain on Capcom's message boards.

That too, is what I thought upgrading was going to do.

In all honesty, I wouldn't be against degradation coming back. Just not in place of Smithing. In an "either / or" situation, Smithing is far better, far deeper, far more complex than Armorer.

But a combination of both? I wouldn't be against that. At the very least, upgrades eventually fading away from weapons and armor.

@Thomas Kaira

That decision in The Pitt threw me off so bad. It's like you could never walk away clean. Still there is much that you could talk about from NV like the Survivalist and Dead Money. Though Dead Money was really linear it's story and writing were top notch. Lonesome Road was okay, what I really liked was the flaregun though Skyrim has the equivalent in the form of a spell.

Besides deeper quests and a better story it's the in game politics thats missing from Skyrim.

And you didn't use terms like "dumbed down" either! Congrats.

I see your opinion. I'm not going to say I agree or disagree, because I don't feel like my consequences didn't matter in Skyrim, and I think there's validity to both styles, and I'm really not sure what I would prefer for Elder Scrolls - more content to dive into, or less content that is a little bit deeper. (Again, I don't particularly feel a lack of depth in Skyrim's content - I feel like there were plenty of decisions in Skyrim that left me wondering if I had done the right thing or not).

I'll just say, I understand what you're saying and your point of view.

The Pitt was by far the best DLC for FO3 by far. Lookout Point was a close second though. By far my favorite DLC of any game to date (not including SI since that is technically an expansion) was Dead Money for FNV. It was almost a shame that it came out first because while the other DLCs were very good they weren't as good as DM.

What is the point of having tons of quests if they are all cookie cutter quests. I will gladly take fewer quests with multiple ways of doing them because i can make different decision for each new character. Yes i can make a new character in Skyrim but the quests will always play out the exact same way and very few quests give you different options.

I am in full agreement. I would not give up Smithing no matter how easily exploitable it is, simply because it makes a lot more sense than the magical Armorer hammers.

I would never want to give up Smithing just to have Armorer back, as you said, especially when having BOTH is quite reasonable. I am never against the addition of new features, I just don't like it that these features are replacing old ones that could have been easily melded into the new ones with a bit of work. Expansion over replacement. Keep spellmaking and tweak it so that it works with the dual-casting. Keep armorer but tweak it so that it works with the smithing. Don't just throw it away and expect the new things to pick up the slack, all you get are unhappy people.


Of course not, I'd be dumbing down my argument to do so!

BETHEZDA R DURMING DUWN TEH GAME FER CAZUALS!!! MERERWIND WUZ DA BEST!! SKYRIM, Y U NO MERERWIND BUT WITH DIFFERENT NAME?!?!?!