So let me get this straight, they started developing this new Radiant Storytelling or whatever for Fallout 3 but then realized that it wasn't gonna work on it's own and that they had to go back to handwriting the quests.
How does this affect the writing of Skyrim exactly?
If anything it affected Fallout 3's writing, not Skyrim's.

Part of it at least has to do with genre. I think it is getting harder to write epic fantasy stories that are truly unique, without borrowing so much from past epics that it ends up being over the top.

WoW get’s around this somewhat by playing the pop reference card a lot. Or they hang a lantern, pointing out the fact they are gratuitously milking popular mythos in the dialogue where they do it. (Though to their credit they do have some of the best original lore out there.)

The stronger political angle could also be a sign of the times. Many of the themes Skyrim touches on reflect events unfolding in our own societies.

“Dragons” could be seen as a metaphor for biotechnology, against which we are equally defenseless. Stormcloaks could be seen as a well meant but mostly na?ve and uneducated Tea Party of rugged self determinists, the Empire as the troops with outdated methods and technologies that make it hard to show support, the Thalmor as the globalist cabal, and the “just get back to work and ignore it” crowd in Morthal (the one near Dawnstar, not sure if that’s it) reflects the “immerse yourself in work” escapism of most rose-color-glasses Americans, etc.

The trouble with that is, these are not concepts that greatly interest most people. While I feel that Bethesda has done an amazing job making it work, there is a fine line with not wanting to make TOO many parallels, and the way around that is to leave a lot to imagination, or let past lore and books fill in the gaps.

It seems also that more of an emphasis was placed on smaller but highly unique and detailed dialogue. Like shop keepers talking about the corruption of a particular town, alchemist students reflecting on the frailty of life, and all the townsfolk and people at the inns bantering about their day, selling their goods, and interacting with each other with far greater diversity than any previous ES title.

This IMO adequately compensates for any lack of quest depth.

You can ask them about their background, trade, specific locations, specific persons, rumors, secrets and much much more

I think it was probably a case of them just not believing it was necessary to make deeper questlines, or include better dialog ect. I don't think Beth pay attention to fan feedback, they base their decisions on market anolysis. So if the anolysis says MMOs are whats selling then make the game more like an MMO and focus on a lot of simple fetch quests that you see in MMOs (although I admit I've only played one MMO but I'm making the assumption that it's typical in terms of quests), like bring me ten fire salts, or five ice wraith teeth, or whatever.

Radient Story is designed to cut corners. That's why it is in the game and that's exactly what it does. I personally would have been all too happy if they'd postponed release to make the guild questlines longer and more satisfying but they wouldn't because to them they're fine as they are.

Skyrim is part of an industry that rewards the writing of games like Assassin's Creed and Mortal Kombat. By those standards, it can be considered the David Mamet drama of videogames. Certainly a step in the right direction.

Really, it's close to impossible to find any decent writing in videogames. I think Skyrim and Portal 2 are the only two good written games I've played in all 2011. And while I consider Portal's script far better than Skyrim's, these are such rare occasions where you can enjoy an interactive narrative not completely and utterly stupid in the worst imaginable way that, hey, we should be more than happy with it.

Skyrim is part of an industry that rewards the writing of games like Assassin's Creed and Mortal Kombat. By those standards, it can be considered the David Mamet drama of videogames. Certainly a step in the right direction.

Really, it's close to impossible to find any decent writing in videogames. I think Skyrim and Portal 2 are the only two good written games I've played in all 2011. And while I consider Portal's script far better than Skyrim's, these are such rare occasions where you can enjoy an interactive narrative not completely and utterly stupid in the worst imaginable way that, hey, we should be more than happy with it.

Writing a story is not the same as writing quest dialogue for a sandbox game. There's nothing wrong with applying these principles to the writing, but you can't ignore the limitations imposed by the format.

Let me give you an example of a very easy story to write: You have a character who has been designed by a studio. Every part of this character's past, his general attitude toward life, his role in the narrative, his friends and family, his colleagues, his opponents and their unique motivations are all known beforehand. All of the dialogue is written directed toward this character. A small amount of flex dialogue has been written to provide players with a small illusion of choice, but, by and large, it's all cut from the same cloth. The number of characters this protagonist interacts with in a meaningful fashion is probably a couple of dozen. The number that require extensive dialogue maybe half a dozen. There is one plot with two or three alternate endings and a couple of "branches" that rotate around the main trunk. Any competent developer should be able to write a good, engaging story and provide decent dialogue and voice acting.

Let me give you an example of a very difficult story to write: You have a character designed by a player of which the studio can have no knowledge. This character might be anything: a hero, a villain, a madman, a pacifist, a drunkard, a farmer, a wandering bard, a barbarian, a sophisticated urban thief, a village priest, a sultry mage, etc., to infinity. The designers give him the role of the "chosen one" to provide a single thread of consistency between all of these possibilities. Without that thread, there is no way to attach a major narrative. They have no idea what his role in that narrative will be, whether he will follow it, ignore it, pervert it, screw it up, or actively reject it. Because this person is a complete unknown to the developers, they can't create friends, family, colleagues, or a personal nemesis. All of the dialogue has to be written toward an everyman and any player who has created a character that is not incredibly generic and bland will find the dialogue choices and responses inappropriate in direct proportion to the degree of individuality with which they have infused their character. The number of characters that the player will have meaningful interactions with is probably the same, but they could be any of hundreds of different characters, all of which have to be given back-stories, personality, goals, routines, dialogue, relationships, opinions toward the player and the events of the world, etc. The number of characters that require extensive dialogue has grown from half a dozen to three dozen at a minimum. All of them need professionally written dialogue and voice acting, all of which must be directed toward a character who is a complete unknown to the developers. Multiple plots have to be written, each with branches and subplots that provide some modicum of choice for players who want to pursue them in a non-standard fashion, all of which have to work together harmoniously without interfering with each other. The number of companies that have performed this feat successfully, to the standards you have indicated is exactly 0. The number that have a shot is perhaps 2: BGS and RockStar. [Edit: And possibly Obsidian. But even Obsidian used an extra device in New Vegas to focus the narrative: your character is given a history as a courier.]

Knowing the principles of good writing is not enough. You also have to understand the format and the game requirements.

The easiest way to create the type of narrative that you are suggesting is to remove choice from the player by defining the central protagonist beforehand as various other "RPGs" do: DA2, the Witcher, ME, etc. It is no mystery why these studios receive kudos for their writing. They've chosen the easy route. Mostly because people keep demanding better narratives from RPGs.

Here's your challenge: write a single scene between the player and one of the main quest characters that is engaging, carries dramatic tension, and has convincing dialogue. Here's a small test sample of player characters that the dialogue must be written for:

1. A player who wants to play the part of a noble warrior (the Nord equivalent of a knight) who fully embraces his destiny as a Dragonborn. He's big and tough and wants to "save the world". (Here's your "straight" character.) How does your quest character address them? What does he or she say?

2. A player who wants to play the part of a mage who is physically weak, craves magickal power, has rarely ever stepped outdoors and is skeptical of her destiny as a Dragonborn. She is indifferent to the plights of the many and only concerned about accumulating knowledge and furthering her own development. She'd rather read a book than delve a dungeon.

3. A sleazy Bosmer cutpurse who has spent his entire life stealing from people he considers trusting fools. He thinks the whole Dragonborn thing is a load of crap, but he'll use his "destiny" to score some big gold from superstitious idiots who think he is some sort of hero. He couldn't care less who lives or dies as long as it isn't him.

4. A high-minded Altmer who has decided to spurn civilization and live in the forests as a druid. This character doesn't believe that man or mer have any more right to existence than the dragons. He is indifferent to civilization and views all things dispassionately from the perspective of natural balance and harmony. He has no interest in participating in the affairs of men and cares nothing for politics, seeing all men as equally foolish.

5. A simple Breton alchemist who wants to tend her garden and heal the sick. She's much too humble to believe that she could be the Dragonborn, and while she might go along with it, she always thinks that it's a mistake, that somehow the gods have chosen the wrong person. She spends most of her time trying to convince people that they have the wrong person.

6. A bloodthirsty Orc barbarian whose sole purpose in life is to prove that he is the most powerful warrior that ever lived. He cares only for his own glory and nothing for others. Being the Dragonborn simply confirms what he already believes. In fact, there's no reason why he shouldn't be the high king of Skyrim since he's obviously been chosen by the gods.

Now, write a dialogue between this character (through dialogue options) and the main quest character they are conversing with. The dialogue options have to suit the player's character and the NPC's dialogue has to apply equally well to each example character. (All of them are equally valid RP options, so you can't exclude any of them.)

Now write a story arc that accommodates each of these player's RP preferences. Each quest in the story has to be able to appeal to all of these (and innumerable more) types. Has the plot changed at all based on the character?

Now try another experiment: pick any one of these characters and write dialogue and a story arc that applies to this character alone. The player has no choice but to play the part of the character you have selected. Was this easier to do? Was the writing better? Was the story more engaging?

I encourage everyone reading this to give it a go.

Writing for sandbox games is not the same as writing a linear script. Each dialogue "chunk" has to stand alone and appeal to every possible play-style. Every quest has to appeal to every possible character type. Unless you provide branching options. If you take a single narrative for a pre-made linear game and allow for even one other character type written with the same degree of depth and conviction, you have effectively doubled the length of the script. You have also doubled the cost of writing and voice acting and added additional testing. I guarantee you that no two lines of dialogue will be the same if you are writing convincing dialogue that effectively captures the player's choices. Every time you add another character type and expect to achieve the same high quality as the first, you have added the full length of the script again, along with all of the different branching quest options, etc. And that doesn't even include cutscenes, which are almost anathema to a sandbox RPG.

The only way to reduce the workload is to remove choices from the player. The fewer choices the player has, the easier it will be to write, and the less it will be a sandbox RPG. The developers pick a point somewhere on the line between tightly scripted linear narrative and open, free-form sandbox and write to that point. The closer you are the first pole, the better the writing is and the fewer choices you have. The farther to the latter pole, the worse the writing is and the more choices you have. That doesn't mean sandbox games have to have bad writing, and that some aren't better written than others, only that they need to spend exponentially more time and money writing and producing it if they hope to provide the same quality as the linear narrative.

Writing for a sandbox game is not like writing for a linear game. This applies in a massive way when comparing RPGs; for example, RPGs where you are handed a character created by a developer and told to 'role-play' him are about 2x easier to write than writing quests and dialogue for a game like Skyrim. Writing dialogue for a linear action game is about 2x easier than writing for RPGs like DA2 and TW2. Therefore, when making your comparisons, keep in mind that it is about 4x harder to write good dialogue for Skyrim than it is for Portal 2. (I consider that a very conservative estimate; it is actually probably much harder than that.)

You'd have a point if any of the stories were significantly non-linear. They aren't. Pretty much all quests are independent of each other, and branch perhaps ONCE if that. The writing for something like this IS easy. You want to talk about hard writing, talk about Bioware.

Let's face it, they just have rather poor writing. It's unnatural and lacking. This is nothing new.

Please read the whole post before replying. I assume you haven't, since your post ignores everything that follows the paragraph quoted.

BioWare's writing is better largely because they give you fewer choices. Try writing a story about a character that you have no information about. If you know most of the character's details beforehand, it's a piece of cake. That's why RPGs increasingly favor centering a narrative around a pre-defined protagonist. It's the only way developers can write a good narrative in a reasonable amount of time. If you request better narratives, you will get fewer choices. It's not complicated.

Please read the whole post before replying. I assume you haven't, since your post ignores everything that follows the paragraph quoted.

BioWare's writing is better largely because they give you fewer choices. Try writing a story about a character that you have no information about. If you know most of the character's details beforehand, it's a piece of cake. That's why RPGs increasingly favor centering a narrative around a pre-defined protagonist. It's the only way developers can write a good narrative in a reasonable amount of time. If you request better narratives, you will get fewer choices. It's not complicated.

Sorry, but I don't buy that for even one second. Bad writing, is bad writing. Obsidian was able to write a more compelling narrative and quests for Fallout New Vegas, using the engine and tools given to them by Bethesda, and in a very short time-frame as well.

They worked with existing ideas from Van Buren though. Which was in development before 2003. I mean there are like dozens of pages of design documents leaked. Caesar's legion, hoover dam, all that crap.

They just took a working engine, half a dozen existing plot lines, mixed the HHHECK out of them and what did they get? VEGAS!

However, the dialogue in Morrowind is the same for every single NPC, repetitive and basic.
It's the overall feeling of Morrowind that makes it better than Skyrim for me, because it's an all new world to discover. Skyrim doesn't feel alien to me.

Still, they had only about what, 1 year to implement it all together? Bethesda had around 2 years of conceptual work, and 3 years of actual work fro Skyrim?

Writing for a sandbox game is not like writing for a linear game. This applies in a massive way when comparing RPGs; for example, RPGs where you are handed a character created by a developer and told to 'role-play' him are about 2x easier to write than writing quests and dialogue for a game like Skyrim. Writing dialogue for a linear action game is about 2x easier than writing for RPGs like DA2 and TW2. Therefore, when making your comparisons, keep in mind that it is about 4x harder to write good dialogue for Skyrim than it is for Portal 2. (I consider that a very conservative estimate; it is actually probably much harder than that.)

Since you're all good little readers, you won't mind reading what I wrote about this in http://www.gamesas.com/topic/1322758-about-the-main-quest-the-craft-of-storytelling-and-beths-recruitement-process-long-post/ (which is based on my experience writing fiction and writing quests for Oblivion):

I often wonder to what extent voice acting has to do with the limited stories. After Morrowind, gamesas made the decision that every. single. line. of dialog had to be voice acted. That makes it harder to change the story lines, or add more story, later in development, because you need to give the dialog to the actors and producers to record. Something like Radiant Story could be much better if it had the ability to create dialogue without voice acting. Even the hand-written stories could do more if they didn't need so much voice acting, seems like.

3. An awful use of cinematics or just a lack of them. Bioware succeeds in telling a great story not only because of a more linear plot but also because of the way they present their game. I understand that TES can't have any cutscenes other than in the beginning....

As for 2011, did you play The Witcher 2? (...) How could you say good writing is so rare? Just pick up a Bioware game, it will probably have a much better story than any TES game on the market (...).

Skyrim completely misses the requirements for a good story by lacking any sort of character development, cohesive interesting antagonists, dramatic tension, or a main character that matters (...).

They had two years and a team of experienced developers with full time wages to make a big mod for Fallout 3 using existing pre-defined plotlines (Down to dialogues) and concept arts.

...

They worked with existing ideas from Van Buren though. Which was in development before 2003. I mean there are like dozens of pages of design documents leaked. Caesar's legion, hoover dam, all that crap.

They just took a working engine, half a dozen existing plot lines, mixed the HHHECK out of them and what did they get? VEGAS!

...bethesda's strong points are the gameworld itself...