Watching films is a form of entertainment too - that doesn't mean the only successful films are feelgood films. I'd say a game designer is far more successful if the player comes away feeling they've engaged with a piece of fiction that has really drawn them in - as well as giving them lots of kickass action and cool loot.

True.


Please reread this and realise what you've written. There was absolutely no logic to this thought.

the thread isn't about lack of content. Nobody has said it lacks content. It's the nature of the content.

The point of completing MOST of the sidequests is simply to complete it.

"Go get my sword!"
why?
"Coz, now nick off"


95% of the quests in Skyrim have completely arbitrary objectives. The only reason the Objectives exist is to give you something to do. There is no deeper resonance behind them, the completion of said objectives makes NO difference what so ever.

I mean, if you never do the MQ then you never see a dragon again. - Oh noes, teh end of teh world.... If pay attention to it... (Reminds me of a Simpsons episode.)

There is an overall lack of story and world development in this game.
The story in Morrowind started off almost as a hint, it then grew and evolved and eventually twisted its self into possibly one of the best game based stories I've ever played.

Oblivion told a solid story if a little predictable and cliche.

Skyrim.... Skyrim tells you whats going to happen from the moment you embark on your venture. Everything between Helgen and Sovngard is filler. You really don't gain any insight into the world or lore. It is, what it is and nothing more.

It`s a total misconception to believe only a feel good game can be a successful game. It is NO guarantee of success either. Just as with any movie, book or film, it`s the story that counts and how it pulls you in.

If all you have are `feel good` films then very quickly you will have empty rubbish that doesn`t even achieve a `feel good` feeling.

This whole it has to be `feel good` for success is also a terribly blinkered an unartistic way of thinking. It kills innovation in story telling.

I think you just totally and completely missed his point.

As you essentially just repeated exactly what he just said.

This. I shouldn't be forced to just because you want to.

Totally no, that wouldn't be TES.

You want to take away the only consequence the MQ has: you stopped the world from ending, so you have to continue living in it.

Except that you can't live in it?

Nothing you do impacts anything else, its like a really uninspired episode of the twilight zone...

i`m agreeing with him.

Fair enough, the way I read it. It sounded like you were arguing against him with his own argument.

Yeah what RPG games would I play then? Fallout 4+ but I don't think I would enjoy it as much as TES... And I hate every other RPG game made besides Beth's, but i do like RAGE but it was too short and it sits on my shelf collecting dust...

No way, i love to play the same character after i have completed the main quest. You are forgetting that a lot of people on the PC use mods to extend the game play. TES should never force me back to the main menu once i finish the main quest.

No!

A - It would remove one of main things which made TES into what it is now.
B - TES can remain to be a sandbox and still have meaningful choices.

Honestly, this is one of the worst ideas about TES... ever (even idea of guns and MP/Co-Op are better)!

Also, the idea of TES is to be a world, not a game (something Oblivion and especially Skyrim seem to forget).

why can;t you just do it yourself?

when you reach a point where you are happy with what your character has done just leave and pretend you finished.

the problem with a hard ending is that it limits your possibilities, for example if someone has roleplayed a particular outcome, or has come up with their own explanation of what happens afterwards, by having a finite ending based on what the player has done it can be very disillusioning, because it fails to understand the players INTENT.

it's like the theives guild questline, all the way I was forced to play the greedy bastard, even though my character was really only there to hone his skills and attempt to put his skills to a more peaceful test, but no, all my dialogue options were about me being greedy, had the game ended at the end of that quest telling me how I accumulated wealth beyond my wildest dreams I would have been sad, because that was not my goal or intent, and in my head that wasn't the end result i was looking for or roleplaying.

I dunno about ending the game. That seems so final regardless of whether the choice is mine or not. I'd like to be around to see what my final decisions and actions actually did to the rest of the World, and experience them in-game rather than having a movie played for me.

I do miss some consequences tho. NV is a good example, where various factions would attack you on sight, etc., if you opposed them. Like barring your entrance to Empire held cities if you assist the Stormcloaks for instance, would be a rather severe consequence of you actions, and it would spur you on to make sure the Stormcloaks won those cities so you once again could move freely and trade there.

I could see the game implementing some more tactical aspects once you truly step into your Dragonborn role. Like Ulfric consulting you on future strategies, which holds to conquer etc. Meybe he would try and marry one of his daughters to you to secure the Dragonborn/Stormcloak line in generations to come, maybe he'd make you Jarl of a hold and you could determine the politics and taxes etc. in that hold, much like you can in M&B Warband.

Anyway, no to a final end, yes to more consequence and changes based on your actions.

This is how i've always played TES games, get the main quest out of the way as soon as possible, then for me the game really begins, modded or not. Skyrim however isn't drawing me in. Whole host of reasons for that but it really doesn't matter since its just my opinion.

But I'm also of the opinion that in order to get the best TES game possible from beth they need to go stop building their games on an outdated and restrictive platforrm, and stop with the goofy release dates because its sounds cool. Make a game for the console, sure moneys a good thing, but don't make it a TES game.

This^ these are Beth. choices. It's just a matter of what choice they make.

Dont you wory, TES will end the day there isnt money to be made on it.

I was morbidly curious as to how this thread would go, given the name it has...

I'm impressed with the intellectual level I found! Good points on both sides.

However, in the end, the base argument is one we've seen a hundred times before regarding TES games, isn't it? How to reign in a sandbox game to make it both enjoyable for the masses and fulfilling to the fans.

Fans (myself included) will always ask for an open-ended experience. We're trained to with the mods of yore. The masses will always demand peerless immersion on top of that. The rub therein lies with the fact that the two are not yet truly possible in a game like TES. The reality of the industry negates the quality of coding and synergy between the two.

We're basically going to keep griping about the level of world change due to our actions in-game until we demand a fully functional AI, imo. I think we are headed in the right direction in terms of game size and style, but I fear the tradeoff it comes with.

that's probably the only truth around here, unfortunately.
but yes, game are made to make money, no money=no games
luckily Skyrim made a lot of money so eventually we gonna get TES VI...probably soon

That is like saying GTA should have an end. There was no moral choices or consequences in GTA games? I believe GTA is one of the best story tellers out there who still manage to make huge sandbox worlds.


The problem IMO is that Bethesda spent to much time on other things instead of the writing. It is not to say they didn't spend time on it, just not enough. Next Elderscrolls game I think focus should be primaraly on the story, then the world. In this game the quests honestly seem just an afterthought.


There does not need to be an end to make the game feel like it has consequences, it just needs to be better written.

So each person should die or stop doing things whenever they accomplish a monumental task?

TES is a world. Not a fairy tale, when something happens the world goes on and that's a good stance for the game. TES definitly needs to sort out a consequence system and have a more engaging narrative for it's quests, but having an actual END at each game? That was a huge problem in F3 that the game would just end at the final battle. Even if it does serve for better story telling it's still frustrating as anything that you have this big enviroment to do stuff in and you, you're time spent into this character and your plans for them just cut out because it's better for story telling. It's not that sort of game. You can still have a satisfying conclusion without having the game end. Actually it's desirable in an open world game since that's why it remains interesting in the long run.

TES definatly needs to sort out consequences and choice in TES to make quests more engaging. But another big part in TES is that you play your own role and use your imagination to make a character and narrative for yourself. Make up your own things to do, finish things you have left undone. It got a good 20 hours out of me after I finished the campaign playing out my own personal role as opposed to some gruff man telling me the results of my actions throughout the game.

Besides that's part of why anticipation for the next game is so good: to hear news of what your actions have had an impact in the long run in future installments. Who would have expected the red year as a result of your actions in morrowind long term?

Even so with a concrete ending to a TES game, it would only annoy players in the next game when the choices they made weren't considered canon. TES game choices should be experienced, and their consequences questionable.

I agree TES needs more choice and experienced consequence, it needs to find a way to be implicated in game. But it shouldn't copy fallout, and you should still be able to experience the game and play your character, even after the MQ.

(God I hoped I addressed this thread in appropriate context)

Personally, I'm fine with Bethesda having their "thing" and sticking to it. Mostly because I'm not such a dedicated fan that I just play their games. I like different companies making games in different styles and concepts - it gives a variety of experiences to have, not just everything being a clone of whatever the current "In" style is.

When I want a open-world, screw-around, sandbox game, I reach for Bethesda. When I want more linear, consequence driven narrative, I go to other companies. When I want brain dead, hack-n-slash lootfest, I got for a Diablo-style ARPG. It's nice having a wide array of choices.... Beth, Bioware, Squenix, Blizzard, Obsidian - it's all good.


(That said, I had no problem with Fallout 3 having an "end" - I just played til I got there, did the Final Quest to see the ending, and then loaded up my just-before-the-end save to continue wandering the wastes. The whole furor over The End, and then having Broken Steel screw things up by making it continue, was so stupid to me. The problem wasn't that FO3 Ended, it was that it Ended badly.)