That's ok. When the next TES games out, everyone will complain endlessly about its short-comings and in the same breath espouse how great Skyrim was in comparison. Then the same people who complained about Skyrim will tell you how great Skyrim was before TES VI came along and kicked their puppy.

This pattern of behavior will continue until the world explodes.

P.S. I look forward to seeing the OP's glowing review of Skyrim when TES VI: comes out.

Fallout is a far more verbal series to begin with. These are games where it's possible to talk your way through the first two games. Difficult, but generally possible.

No? That's called competition. If Bethesda produces RPG games, then they're gonna get compared to other companies that make RPG games. That's because we're all consumers and we all want more bang for our buck.

But even so, we could very well compare Fallout 3 to Skyrim instead of New Vegas to Skyrim and it'd still sound the same. As I said before, Skyrim basically lets you say "yes" or "no" whereas Fallout 3 provides dialog for good, ("I'd love to help!") for evil ("[censored] off, I've got better crap to do") and for neutral ("will I get paid for this?"). The dialog was actually meaningful too, with good getting karma perks and sometimes a nice weapon as a bonus, neutral generally fishing for more caps and evil getting various other reactions.
Off-topic, but Fallout 3 also did random encounters better. They happened once, so you didn't get the same one over and over and over and over. In Skyrim you see the same ones nonstop.

And while Fallout 3 severely lacked quests, again, they typically all had a good path, a neutral, and an evil. And of course, you could walk away and not do the quest. That's four "choices" if you really wanna count Skyrim's "do or don't do" as a choice.


So even if we pretend New Vegas doesn't exist, I STILL have to wonder what happened to Skyrim. Beth made Fallout 3, and the only things they decided to carry over from it were.....perks (pseudo perks for the most part. They basically took the old skill perks from Morrowind and Oblivion that you used to get naturally and turned them into things you had to pick) and....the lockpicking mini game.

Hell, even the exploration in Fallout 3 was better...

Different paths toward the same goal, and different paths toward different goals, don't seem to be lacking in Skyrim, regardless of the state of its dialogue.

The only other Tes game I played was Oblivion and I thought the dialogue stunk. Skyrim's isn't much better and my opinion has nothing to do with nostalgia. In addition, I can't speak for or against Bethesda, but they certainly could have done better. As for exploration I am not much of a fan, as I fast travel every where. I do however understand that the audience that Bethesda seeks to appease the most are teens and preteens, who care more about hacking and slashing. To actually have to sit and decide how to respond to dialogue pertaining to later consequences is to much for their cognition. But what do I know?

Since you're looking for examples:

Escape From Chidna Mine. Despite working alongside the Forsworn king (can't recall his name) to escape the mine, after escaping, I turned on him, allied with the Markarth guard, and slaughtered him and his Forsworn brothers.

Choice to go off the beaten path. It is in Skyrim.

Also, as far as In My Time Of Need goes, you don't have to hear out the A'likr assassins. And you don't even have to "Exit" out to do it, there is a dialogue option that all but tells the A'likr to f off, you came to kill them and you are going to do that.

Let's be honest, Bethesda were never known for their writing (which is decent at best, truly horrible at worst. Little Lamplight ) nor for their in-story choices; that's the domain of Bioware, Black Isle/Obsidian, and now CD Projeckt RED. Beth offers a huge world to be lost in, at the expense of NPC interactions. That being said, actual quest text beyond ''you must do X'' would be good, but the very model of Radiant Story (which is gimmicky at best, worthless at worst imo) means that getting more for anything but core story quests is very unlikely.

From Beth anyway. New Vegas pulled it off nicely; usually, the NPC gave you an objective, then you could ask for more information/directions, sometimes by passing a skill check (another thing almost absent in Beth's games). But Obsidian are simply just better at making RPGs than Bethesda (than anybody else, even), so...

Using your head - that's part of roleplaying though. That's kind of the point of roleplaying.

Also - do you say that books are inferior to movies because books leave things up to the reader's imagination, while a movie forces a particular vision?

The fact that Skyrim (and other Bethesda games) encourage the use of your mind and imagination is not a bad thing.

This, here.

You want to argue that New Vegas does something better than Skyrim? Okay. They are ultimately different games, and New Vegas, while a very enjoyable game, didn't capture me the same way Fallout 3 and Elder Scrolls games do.

But to make up lies that Skyrim 1.) has no choice whatsoever and 2.) that past games somehow had more is what I get upset about.

Ultimately, yes, Skyrim does lack in choice - compared to other IP's out there, not compared to Elder Scrolls. Elder Scrolls has never been about choice within a questline or storyline, because Elder Scrolls have never been storyline based. They have been character and world based, thus it is all about existing in an open world, and creating the character that you see fit, and less about that character's choices within a particular questline. The choice does come in the form of "good quests" or "bad quests", it's not in completing a quest in a "good" or "bad" way. That is more of a BioWare approach. It is not a lesser approach by any means, but Bethesda's approach is certainly my preferred one.

But if you want to say that Fallout: New Vegas has more choice than Skyrim? I'll accept that. I haven't played too entirely deep into New Vegas, I think I got about 15-20 hours in before I kinda just lost the drive to continue with it, but I do know there were loads of elements that I certainly would not be angered to see enter into Elder Scrolls - hardcoe mode, the multiple factions that you have the choice of going, etc... - but at the same time one cannot fault Bethesda for not taking that creative direction, when that has never been their creative direction or vision. People say after so many years it should improve, but should it? Really? If that's not the vision they are looking for?

That's like saying why hasn't Final Fantasy's combat improved into a more real time action based combat system like Skyrim's, when that style of combat is not what Final Fantasy is about. It's about completely character driven, turn based combat.

Elder Scrolls isn't about branching questlines. Never has been, and I'd take a guess to say it never will be.

Comparing Skyrim to Oblivion and Morrowind, however, I absolutely would say we have more choice than ever before.

There is one instance that is similar to the Morrowind descriptions: During the Peryite quest, the Khajiit gives you nice directions to the Dwemer ruin.

But yeah, that's it. This game was made for people who only play once. The average playtime is 85 hours. That's pitiful for an Elder Scrolls game.

I've played Fallout 1 and 2. I liked them, but they couldn't hold a candle to Baldur's Gate 1 and 2, in my opinion. I've played New Vegas. It's got some witty dialogue, but I didn't like having my hand held all the way around the southern horn. And the dialogue was too witty, too comical, too absurd for me. But, I had just come off of about 200 hours or so of Fallout 3, so maybe I was bored with Fallout in general. Anyway, I didn't think the quests in New Vegas were all that wonderful... but, evidently, that puts me in the minority on this forum. It's also probably because I lean toward open exploration rather than being given a "Choose Your Own Adventure" booklet to read. Remember those? They were about 90 pages long and they gave you tons of choices resulting in multiple endings... but it was finite and it defined your character. That's kind of how New Vegas was for me. Aside from restricting me to follow a precise path, it pretty much defined my character. Role-playing? Sure... as a courier who survived a bullet to the head whose mission is to find the guy who did it, why, and get revenge... with some railroading along the way. Maybe change his hair style... cool, he's bald, no he's got spiked hair... whatever. You may change your look, but your the same ol' guy.

With Skyrim, I don't have to be "bound" by anything. Same with Morrowind, another great.

Could Skyrim's quests have been a bit deeper and more robust? Could the dialogue been more interesting? Sure. Everything can be improved (like the horrendously buggy New Vegas could have been). But, the quests in Skyrim are not what make me love the game. That was New Vegas' strength (a different game), and that's about it. But, the two are entirely different games and I have no idea why so many people are getting bent out of shape over it.

A book requires Mental involvement because it invokes it, without it there would be just words.

Skyrim handles alot of what Books do not, Visually. please do not try to be cheap, you know what I am talking about. your roleplaying doesn't mean jacksquat in game. of what wool are you trying to pull by insinuating its the players responsibility to come up with reasons that the game doesn't provide for itself. again You roleplaying your characters motivations is FINE, I'm not disputing that. but you seem to think thats also fine to be a crutch for the games own stories.

Stop with Cidna mine, please, Longknifes example trounces that. going into the realm of Choice and consequence, there is a bare minimum of consequence...Madnach is either dead or not and Markarth goes back to normal done and done. you want to roleplay why you took a certain choice. great I do that too, but don't act like its a selling point to roleplay the after effects imagining things that aren't there. I'd fine a more tangible ground to agree with you on if there were aspects like NV's choices and rewards for thinking out the box. then we'd have a discussion but you're effectively presenting personal feelings, nothing concrete and using it as a point....


what do you mean TES series have never had Branching Questlines? Daggerfall did however small they were and its ending revolved around that, Morrowind had a few here and there as well. Oblivion it got even less , followed by Skyrim the smallest yet since Arena...

Beth would really do well to take a hint from Obsidian in regards to their dialog and quests. TES may have never been about that, but it could be and would be much more enjoyable if it were.

And this is where I completely have to disagree with you again.

First of all, there's no way I would say exploration is better in Fallout 3 than Skyrim. No way.

Following that - you even said it yourself. Fallout 3 had far far far far fewer quests than Skyrim. Far. So they can put more effort and emphasis on giving each quest multiple paths, because there are far less than them. I believe Fallout 3 had closer to the 30-50 hours range of content, whereas Skyrim is billed at 200+.

Secondly, while Fallout 3 and Skyrim are built off the same engine, and a very similar foundation, they are different IP's with a different history.

Without having any experience with Fallout before Fallout 3 (I didn't even know there was a Fallout series until Fallout 3 came out), it seems that the original Fallout games were more dialogue driven. Someone in this thread stated that you could get through the entire game on just dialogue. How true that is, I don't know, but if true, there is a precedent there that Fallout and Elder Scrolls are completely different in their approach.

Fallout being much more story driven, Elder Scrolls being much more character / open world driven. Even playing Fallout 3 compared to Oblivion or Skyrim, I can feel that difference. I don't feel so much like I am creating a unique character, but rather creating a BioWare-esque character that can be "good", "evil", or "neutral", because hey, those are the 3 choices that I am going to have in the game.

And ultimately, because Elder Scrolls is character driven and not story driven, it cannot have "good", "evil", and "neutral", because ultimately, those choices do limit the character. So Elder Scrolls give you a very basic, very general "yes" or "no" approach, and allows the player to fill in the blanks, because that's the entire purpose of Elder Scrolls is for the player to fill in the blanks, and for the game to put as little thought and word into the character's mouth as possible.

That's the difference between Fallout 3 and Skyrim, the difference that while Fallout 3 and Fallout: New Vegas may excel in "choice", the fact is, Elder Scrolls is not about that choice, it is about the player fitting in their character's motives, and not the game giving you your motives from a list of 3 defined choices.

I think the Fallout 3 / Fallout New Vegas / BioWare "good", "evil", "neutral" system is great - for those games. I would hate them for Elder Scrolls, because I don't want the game telling me what my character is, and why he is doing things.

I'm not necessarily saying that Elder Scrolls handles it perfectly, persay, but it is the vision and direction of Elder Scrolls, and always has been. The kind of "choice" you criticize it for not having is not what it is intending to do. That's not the game it is trying to be, and it never has been, so to condemn it for not being that kind of game isn't exactly a fair assessment.

Do they have real stats on this? Is it Steam?

If so, I'd love to hear the average playtime of Bethesda's titles, from Morrowind to Oblivion to FO3 to New Vegas to Skyrim.

The achievements are a good marker, alot of the Temporary sparks to Skyrim barely delved in some of the questlines, its interesting but flicker folk don't concern me. I love mah TES.

You're right. People are dead. No longer in the world. There is probably a bounty on your head for taking justice into your own hands.

What more consequence do you want?

Personally, I don't need the game to beat me over the head with the fact that I did a "bad thing" in order to know that my character is "bad". I don't need a "good / evil" stat that tells me how bad I am - I know that what my character did is bad.

The consequences? The consequences are right there in the piles of dead bodies. Why does the entire world have to alter itself because I chose to kill some people instead of letting them live? Does the world stop in real life when a person is killed? No. So why should it in Skyrim? If I killed someone in Markarth, why do people in Winterhold need to be talking about it, and beating into my head how evil I am?

The game recognizes my deeds when it needs to.

I kill a dragon in a public area? The people gather around, in awe of what they just witnessed. There is a dead body in the street? The people gather around, concerned about what happened. I am carrying around the Mace of Molag Bal in plain sight? People are fearful of me. I am a skilled Conjurer? People recognize that and mention it about me. Despite glitches that do sometimes trigger inappropriate responses, if I am the archmage in the College of Winterhold, people know and reference it. If I have done good deeds for people, and won their favor, they sometimes will come unsolicited and give me gifts, as a token of our friendship. The recognition of acts and accomplishments is in the game. The recognition of who your character is there.

Back to Chidna Mine - of course Markarth goes back to normal. Life goes on you know? The entire city doesn't have to stop in its tracks because the Forsworn king is dead. The guard dealt with the situation, and once it is over with, life goes on. Life in Markarth resumes. Just as would be the case in real life.

It is not realistic for an entire town to suddenly shut down and become something completely different because of one instance. That is not an appropriate consequence to the actions.

However, the consequence of gaining or losing control of holds due to the progress of the Civil War? That is an appropriate consequence. A realistic one. And one that is in the game.

Or you genuinely believe it is an all-around better game, and have a list of legitimate reasons.

Anyways, those comparing Skyrim's "choice" to Morrowind's "choice".... it's humorous. Skyrim is supposed to have more options than Morrowind. Morrowind was made a decade ago. Good lord, the original Xbox could run it. There should be noticeable improvement by now, especially after Bethesda has made similar games in Oblivion, Fallout 3, and now Skyrim. Instead, we're pointing out the rare occasion where Skyrim forces the player to make a choice that inevitably has superficial consequences. Fallout 3 actually succeeded in this goal, almost every misc. quest could be completed in several ways with noticeable end games. That was awesome.

Joining one of the Great Houses in Morrowind was a consequence. You lost out on two story arches by choosing another. You could assassinate the leaders of the Telvanni through the Mages Guild. The two ways to obtain Wraithguard. Failing quests because you didn't do the job right. Those are consequences.

To my knowledge, Skyrim doesn't have much that rivals this. Perhaps it does come close, or even slightly surpasses it. But simply matching Morrowind shouldn't be enough. Skyrim ought to be expanding on this principle, not remaining stagnant.

Answer to that is full voice acting. Of course you can do more if you're only (or mostly) working with text and just a handful of voice actors for the whole game. With full VO, every word costs a lot more.

The comparisons to Fallout always fail to take into account that they can offer player choice because the worlds of Fallout games are self-enclosed. No other game is going to have to refer to what happens in the Capital or Mojave Wasteland. So of course you can let players choose very different quest outcomes.

How would you get a comparison to a game that didn't use Steam? They didn't have telemetric data on those other games.

85 hours is a long time for a modern video game. You're taking into account the type of person who plays a few hours and moves on to something else because they buy a lot of new games.

With DLC, I'm sure my playtimes in New Vegas and Skyrim will be comparable. Probably more time on Skyrim since there is a lot more exploration.

I've updated my previous post a bit.


and I'll answer your Post with a Statement Nell

What Living breathing world you claim Skyrim is, not react to the actions you took? its not a living breathing world anymore is it. and don't go cheap bringing the real world into it especially when iterations of actions in the real world DO reach far and wide.

I'm not terribly interested in what you need, your a meta element to the game and aren't a factor beyond the control of your character in game. but by your statement your trailing the realms of what some folks encounter when they dive into Physics.

If what you do doesn't matter....and there's but one way to do in in the majority of the existence...(in skyrims case) why do it? in this case because its a game right? but your living breathing world....really isnt all that living and breathing.

I hate exploration. Hell, to be honest? I'd be willing to argue New Vegas has better exploration than Skyrim. I know I'm in the vast minority here, but for me, I'm NOT the kind who likes to spend an hour in some random dungeon I found only to find....well jack [censored] really. New Vegas the locations are simplistic, realistic, and they made an effort to make some of the non-quest related locations have unique items or loot. With New Vegas I can enter a cave, finish it in 10 minutes and know what's in it, which is really about all the time I'm willing to invest in random exploration.
But Fallout 3's exploration pulled me in. How?
Every location had something new, from ghouls in party hats to comic book characters with miniguns to unique weapons you would ONLY find if you went exploring (no quest would lead you to them). Furthermore, exploration, like New Vegas, was rewarding. You found skill books and bobbleheads, which encouraged exploration quite well. They gave you plenty to collect. I enjoyed entering some building and finding an interesting trap built by raiders, or finding a bunch of useful collectables.
Skyrim, unfortunately to my knowledge, has alot of 'filler' dungeons that don't have anything special. Why? Because the radiant quests need to be interchangeable amongst these filler dungeons, so nothing can be too special within them.



As for quests?

Quality over Quantity.

Skyrim also has loads more companions than New Vegas, but I doubt anyone would say Skyrim has better companions than in New Vegas.
Same thing here. FO3 did lack sidequests, but at least they were memorable and interesting. Skyrim's really aren't, not even the daedric quests. I enjoyed pimping out Big Town with a defense system and storming the Statesmen's Hotel, but I'm rather indifferent on solving Windhelm's murder mystery and helping Saadia. I really didn't care...

Average play time is 85 hours lol? Oh how the mighty have fallen. What happened to this series?

Celan: FONV is open world, fully voice acted, and has far more branching outcomes in its quests than Skyrim does. It's not a trade off, its a matter of priority. Unfortunately, Beth's focus is more in making the world pretty than anything else.

This. Fallout 3 quests blow Skyrim out of the water. Even the fixed main quest ones make Skryim look sad.

Fighting Alduin (who is just another plain old dragon) with some companions vs. Liberty Prime blasting away Enclave personnel while spewing out stereotypical 50's anti-Red rhetoric? The choice is clear for me.

Oblivion and Morrowind can both be bought via Steam now. Less people would have those two games linked up with Steam, this is true, but I'm looking for average playtime per person, so this really doesn't disturb the data so much. Just gives me a smaller example group. FO3 and New Vegas both used Steam.

And even if 85 hours is a long time, I was interested in comparing it to other Beth titles, because I agree with that guy that 85 hours spent on a Bethesda game is really low. Hell, I have 929 hours clocked into Vegas, 600 or so in Oblivion, 300-400 in FO3 and 145 in Skyrim and 46 in Morrowind (since I recently re-purchased it via Steam like a month ago, so that amount isn't accurate; been picking Morrowind up briefly off and on since I first played the game at like fourteen years old).