I think a lot of the disagreements on the forum boil down to: People who want to be told a good story don't like Skyrim's story because, frankly, there's not much to it; people who want to tell their own story are happy that there is one studio left that still lets you do that.

"The atmosphere was very Witcher, but it got old. Fast."

That was one of the best rpg's i have ever played and you totally lost all credibility when you said that? I mean that game (and I have all the books for that matter) gave you an abundance of choices what you are exactly complaining about
in this post.
Also did you actually read any of the books in the game about the lore? As much as I minimally agree about the combat system in this game, there are few games last year with this calibre of combat.

I'd take Skyrim over any of those titles you mentioned. Dragon Age, Mass Effect 3, all that comes across as sensationalised Hollywood garbage. Elder Scrolls isn't in your face and I like that because it allows the player to you know - use his imagination as much as he wants and to be able to RP? You entirely missed the point LOL.

Apparently you want the game to be the same as Morrowind. Well go back and play it then, I'd take Skyrim ten times out of ten as it's new and refreshing and has evolved the series whilst apparently you bask in nostalgia.

I don't have any problem with narrative-driven stories like BioWare's (I play them, too), but I want to have the choice to 'play a movie' one day and 'play a RPG' another day. In my own, idiosyncratic view, a RPG is a game that let's me control my character however I like. To me, being forced to follow a narrative = an action or adventure game with RPG elements.

It blows my mind how people who can present perfectly well reasoned descriptions of what disappointed them about Skyrim, normally focusing on the lack of consequences and linearity of certain quests, then go on to praise Mass Effect.

Maybe it's because I'm new to Elder Scrolls but more familiar with Bioware, but what many claim here is happening to Bethesda is precisely what I think happened to Bioware. Knights of the Old Republic is leagues above any Mass Effect, and seeing how demanding most veteran fans here are with Bethesda, I don't get why they are not the same with Bioware. Are really Mass Effect's quests less linear than Skyrim's? Does Mass Effect really have any relevant consequences for your actions? And don't even get me started with the storytelling...

I agree with a lot of things in the original post, but I don't know many modern games that do what Skyrim offers much better than it. Certainly not Mass Effect. Also, I find it curious that someone who likes the 'several characters living different adventures' approach to Skyrim gets bothered by the lack of different moral paths when trying to complete certain quests. That should be more of an issue for those who, like me, like to complete the whole game with one character.

Agreed; I think that is exactly it.

In my case I do not at all prefer 'stream of consciousness' play, and I expect a well structured* main campaign [gameplay aside] for any RPG to be interesting.
Fact is, I do not need a game for... what amounts to a digital daydream; I can do better without its framework and limitations.
What I can't do (and do seek out in games), is tell myself an illustrated tale that comes as a complete surprise.
*(And in this... [for me] personally crafting a PC is unimportant so long as the PC I get seems well done; but it's always a welcome bonus if the story of the game gets tailored to a specific PC that I create.)

*(Here, "well structured" does not necessarily mean linear; and preferably not so.)

Yess.... and no.

It depends on what you mean by "tell your own story". Like any medium, there are limits on how we can tell the story. The first mission of the thieves guild, for example, seems better suited to being a dark brotherhood first quest (sneak in, eliminate the mercenaries that get in your way, murder the owner of Goldenglow, escape through the sewer) than the thieves guild. It's remarkable what a difference stabbing all the mercenaries makes in that quest. .

Meanwhile the first mission of the Mages Guild (Under Saarthal, I mean) could be completed really easily by any kind of character, there is nothing to differentiate it for a mage at all. Considering the theoretical lesson in the college and the overall deadliness of magic, it would have been quite possible for Bethesda to have engineered that quest so that you were forced into a magical duel with a lich, as an example. (Or rather, the son of Gaulder bombards Tolfdir with magic while he brings down the orb-shield, and it is left to you to shield Tolfdir with some kind of ward before you both finish Gaulderson off in whatever way you deem appropriate).

The thing is, if you left me to tell my own story, I could do so in a much more fluid way than I am able to do through a game, which puts limits on what can happen, puts limits on what it delivers, and all in all ends up with a "Jack of All Trades, Master of None, which isn't at all better than a Master of One" game..

Certainly, the game needs to give you something to work with: you can't RP in the void. But I think a lot of the complaints about Skyrim's lack of structure are based more on different priorities, preferences, and play-styles than they are about actual absences in the game's mechanics. But maybe that's just me. I have no problem RP'ing in this game, and most of the RP complaints I see are about people complaining that the game didn't force them to act in character, which just seems silly to me.

The problem with a lot of these 'the game doesn't force you to do it' arguments is that they seem, to me, to be based more on bad role-playing than anything else. (I'm not directing that at you, I just mean arguments of this nature in general.) I haven't joined the Mages' guild yet because I haven't made a mage for Skyrim (highly uncharacteristic for me, since they're my favorite class, usually). When I do, I'll join the guild and I'll be using magic to do pretty much anything. The fact that the game doesn't force you to use magic doesn't mean that the quests are broken. Don't get me wrong: it would be incredibly cool if there were puzzles/objectives in those quests that could only be completed by using a spell, but the fact that there isn't (I'm guessing) is a missed opportunity, not a broken mechanic. You can't complain that BGS didn't force you to RP. You can say that the RP would have been better if there were more occassions in which you are forced to use your class skills. I'd agree with that.

I'd take Skyrim over any of those titles you mentioned. Dragon Age, Mass Effect 3, all that comes across as sensationalised Hollywood garbage. Elder Scrolls isn't in your face and I like that because it allows the player to you know - use his imagination as much as he wants and to be able to RP? You entirely missed the point LOL.

Like Gizmo said, if I want to daydream, I can do it through better mediums than Skyrim. I have a sketchbook for that.

I do still tell my own story in Skyrim, though. It's my character and I build her accordingly. She does the quests that are appropriate for her personality, etc. The game world and it's stories provide the framework for that story. It also forces limitations. If that framework is shallow and uninteresting, then it's not a particularly good place to tell my story. I might as well go back to my sketchbook.

See, I'm exactly the opposite. I believe I've already explained why in the first post. To each their own.

disappointed that the guy playing sparticus died and now we have to watch the show with a replacement? yes very much so.

I have no problem RPing in TES either. And as I said before, I have no problem RPing in Bioware games. Heck, I've RP'd in Read Dead Redemption and Assassin's Creed, even though that's not what they're made for. Personally, I have an easier time RPing in Bioware's games because of things like a ton of dialogue options, choices and consequences, and character development which is virtually nonexistent in most TES games except for maybe Morrowind's character development.

That really is just poor writing on the part of the quest designers. You can go through the entire mage guild quest, becoming archmage, knowing only 3 basic level spells. You can go through the entire Thieves Guild questline being the most brutish, unstealthy character. You can just slaughter your way through most of them. Same with the Dark Brotherhood. You might have spent a bit more time in jail, but you can walk up to your target and punch them in the face until their dead. The Companions... well, that is just fighting, so you can do that any way you want.

You hear this argument constantly but it still makes no sense. RPing involves the world reacting to what you do and nothing in Skyrim does that. If no choice matters then you are not RPing. Explain to me how you RP a quick talking, sly, persuasive character that depends on wits more than muscle. You can't because the games mechanics don't allow for it. The Speech skill is a joke. How do you RP a Nord who despises the Thalmor? You have no options to tell them what you think. You can't change how they react to you aside from quitting out of dialog and attacking them. Even then this in no way effects how they deal with you. How can you RP any personality type when the only way you can express yourself is through killing. Then you pay a fine and everything reverts back to the way it was. There is nothing persistent in the world. Add on top of that the utterly ridiculous amount of immortal NPCs and you're left with even less ways to RP.

People just have different tastes. I'd rather explore an interesting world filled with interesting locations RP'ing a character I created myself than be forced to follow a specific narrative. Maybe it's because I'm an extreme introvert and primarily inner-directed? I don't have much use for people in real life, so I don't much miss them in games, either. I'm sure that has a lot to do with my preferences.

Well, I'm not a very good artist, so I guess Skyrim is still better than a sketchbook for me.

I understand very well that you need good material to make a good story. At the same time, different people have different capabilities when it comes to improvising a story from the materials that are supplied. Some people will look at a stick and go: "well, I guess I could use it as a sword". Dull. It takes a different kind of imagination to break it in two and use the two halves like nunchucks.

RP in Skyrim is like that. A lot of people look at the tools that they are given and go: "not much to work with". Other people look at the same tools and go: "this is gonna be fun!" Not all RP'ers are created equal, the same way that no two artists, athletes, or scholars are equal.

One example: food in Skyrim is, technically, pretty useless. From a mechanics perspective (certain recipies aside) there's no reason to bother with it. Yet I have one character who always gets drunk after clearing out a dungeon, drinking the wine and eating the food of her slain foes, mocking their corpses the whole time. All that is happening to an outside observer is that my character is picking up food objects, opening the menu and eating them. It has no impact on the game whatsoever. But internally, I'm relishing my character's lusty satsifaction at having bested a keep full of ignorant dogs, savoring the experience of a brutal victory. Another player might just look at the food and say: "if I eat it, it only gives me 5 Health? What a waste!" Game mechanics can only take you so far. The rest is up to the player.

You can argue, of course, that I'm 'just imagining' everything. That my experience (as rich as it is) 'doesn't matter'. To that all I can say is: "I'm sorry you don't get it, because I'm having a blast". I'm pretty sure the only person who decides what matters and what doesn't is the player him or herself.


Yes, exactly.

People just have different tastes. I'd rather explore an interesting world filled with interesting locations RP'ing a character I created myself than be forced to follow a specific narrative. Maybe it's because I'm an extreme introvert and primarily inner-directed? I don't have much use for people in real life, so I don't much miss them in games, either. I'm sure that has a lot to do with my preferences.


You're right: the quests are just not designed with enough creativity. But the mechanics themselves aren't broken. I don't want classes back, for example, but I wouldn't mind if the character I played actually had to use his skills.


The more the world reacts, the better the RP experience. No disagreement here. But don't assume that everyone needs the same amount of reactivity to RP. You're describing an experience that I've never had playing this game. Skyrim allows me to play all kinds of characters and supports those characters by giving me the props I need. Some areas are definitely better supported than others: it's a lot easier to RP a mage, thief, or warrior than a sly rogue or a healer, but the last time I checked my main character had about twenty successful speech tests under her belt. That's not enough, but it gives you something to work with. This same character has completed several quests by sneaking past enemies instead of fighting them, so I can play a sly rogue as long as I pair it with another characteristic, like stealth. If I were playing a Nord who really hated the Thalmor I would just follow them into the wilderness and murder them. I agree that it's a shame that I can't also just tell them off.

The perfect game (imo) would be a game like Skyrim that has incredibly well-executed, long, complex, compelling narratives filled with interesting characters, choices that have a profound impact on your character, etc.; lot's of those narratives (one for every guild, plus several non-guild-related quests); and tons and tons of interesting little side-quests around interesting secondary characters. Then I want to be able to opt out of every single one of them so that every single time I play the game I can construct a story around my character based on a different selection of quests. Being forced to use one character and follow one narrative (even with lot's of branching paths) is not my idea of a good RPG, no matter how great the story is. That's just my opinion, of course, and no one has to share it. That's just what I want. BGS games come closest to that formula, which is why I play them more than other games.

Here's my general problem with that attitude or approach. Roleplaying in a single player game is nothing more than making up a story in your head and acting it out. You can do that within the context of the world and the stories it provides or you can "improvise." If you're forced to improvise to make the game enjoyable, that doesn't speak very highly of the game...

The point of role playing is having to make decisions in the role of the character, having a personality, and dealing with the repercussions of those decisions. Killing random Thalmor in the woods effects nothing so you are actually doing nothing. Pretending what your doing matters when it doesn't is senseless. That's playing pretend not playing an RPG. You can't make enemies in this game. Everyone forgives everything you do so no choice ever matters. The game doesn't allow for you develop an actual personality because no matter how you act nothing is persistent in the world. Not to mention there are no mechanics that even allow it.

Killing random Thalmor in the woods shouldn't have any consequences, unless you botch it.

That sounds like a lot of fun to be had, but [to me] that does not sound like a game.

I make a distinction between roleplaying, and a roleplaing game. Anyone can rolepay; and anything goes, but the perfect RPG IMO, has little to do with complete freedom or opting out, and it has everything to do with [simultaniously] the given (or created) character in not just a setting, but in a situation in a setting; and ample opportunity to extrapolate their likely reactions and behavior in that situation ~~ and equally, a set of well thought out rules that govern the game. This would include, (but not require) turn based combat for example; and/or most certainly the progression rules for character development (and that could be points, "improve by doing", or some other method... though I find the 'improve by doing' rather tedius and unrealistic).

You mention perfect RPG: Mine is balanced and extensive AI for the word events and NPC actions... It could be text based and I wouldn't care; if done well, I'd be more than content.

I'm not here to troll. This is my honest opinion, and I don't intend to change any of yours. Also, I'll probably be making a few comparisons along the way.

I got Skyrim for Christmas. At first, I loved it. Played it for almost a straight two weeks. Heck, I even shelved Red Dead Redemption, another game I got, to concentrate solely on Skyrim. Levelled up my character to 30, completed the main quest, Thieve's Guild, and Dark Brotherhood. Okay, that was fun. Let's start a new character. Completed the Companions with him. Now I need a mage, who I used to complete the College. By that time, I had begun to get tired of the game, with around 80 hours clocked in total. And I haven't even touched the game in over two weeks. Here's why.

The main questline wasn't memorable. In fact, I barely remember anything about it, aside from learning the Shouts and meeting Paarthurnax. The ending of the game was pretty cool too, but to be honest, Alduin was too easy and anticlimactic. The characters were boring (aside from Esbern), the storyline wasn't written nearly as well as I expected, and it just seemed bland. In my humble opinion, it was the worst story TES has had. I even enjoyed Oblivion's questline of "fetch this, fetch that" more than Skyrim's. I was just over at a friend's house today playing Mass Effect and holy crap. I only got about 3 hours into the story, but I've gotten hooked. I can say the same for just about every Bioware game I've played; Dragon Age, KotOR, Baldur's Gate... Bethesda, if you read this, I strongly suggest you learn some things from them. Bioware knows what's up.

The gameplay itself was an improvement over Oblivion, I'll give it that. But there's still something strange about it. It's essentially just block, attack, block, attack. I've gotten into playing Demon's Souls and the combat in that is much more active, much more exhilirating than the combat of Skyrim. You actually have to time your attacks, hold your shield up, and roll out of the range of your opponents. Even the weakest enemies can give you a hard time, and running in two-handing a sword is a death sentence unlike in Skryim where you can take thirty hits before chugging a potion. By the time I shelved TES V, I dreaded every time I saw a Draugr simply because I had began to get tired of the combat. The dual-wielding weapons and magic and stuff was super cool at first, but after a while it just got uninteresting.

I can't help but notice how the series has been going. I started out with Morrowind and have played every other game except Arena and Redguard, and the games have been steadily getting worse. They've been going from more traditional RPGs to action-adventurers with barely any RPG in there. And before you say, "Barely any RPG? What's more RPG than creating your own character and being able to do LITERALLY ANYTHING YOU WANT?" Well, there's no real choice and consequences system. The dialogue options are uninteresting. For example, there's no dialogue option to tell Astrid, "You're a merciless killer and deserve death" or what have you. Instead, all you have is, "Fine, I'll kill one of these prisoners" despite the fact that you can still attack Astrid.

[EDIT] - Now, the atmosphere. It was much better in Oblivion; it was gritty, medieval, and was decently done, but it was certainly no Morrowind. In Morrowind, the moment you got out of the Census and Excise office, you were assaulted with racism, political intrigue, and you really felt like a foreigner in an unforgiving, alien world. In Skyrim, I felt like I was just another citizen. No one seemed to have any real quarrels with me regarding my race, my occupation, my criminal past. The guards even clearly knew my first character was the Listener but they did nothing about it except occasionally hinting that they know about it. What an awesome system of law, huh? The problem with the atmosphere is that the grittiness is getting generic and overdone. - [EDIT]

In fact, I'd be hesitant to award Skyrim as GotY. Only reason that keeps me from not awarding it is I've only played one other game that was nominated at the VGAs, and only for an hour or two.

Also, all you people who say "Get mods to make the game so much better" aren't helping your case at all. A game should be amazing without mods. You shouldn't need to fix hundreds of bugs, add more equipment and quests to have a great game. Sure, they may be nice and convenient, but I would never even nominate a game for GotY if it needs mods that badly.

I may be misleading you guys a bit. I still think Skyrim is a great game. The best game in the series? Not at all. Game of the Year? I hesitate.

Again, this post is all my opinion. If you think this game is the greatest thing to bless the Earth, good for you. Leave your flames at the door, and please keep discussion civil .

I disagree. Killing Random anything should be something the game makes a note of and ideally make use of that information in some way ~besides just incrementing a 'things killed' counter.

This is one reason I dislike any RPG that ignores character alignment (of some type). An RPG worth its bits should have a means to acknowledge and/or distinguish actions that are in or out of character. The PC should have known ethics (even if only known for a lack of them). RPG's where the player just does whatever they feel like ~irrespective (or not) of the PC and their personality; just don't have the means to interpret... they cannot read the players mind ~(yet ).

I disagree. Killing Random anything should be something the game makes a note of and ideally make use of that information in some way ~besides just incrementing a 'things killed' counter.

This is one reason I dislike any RPG that ignores character alignment (of some type). An RPG worth its bits should have a means to acknowledge and/or distinguish actions that are in or out of character. The PC should have known ethics (even if only known for a lack of them).

Having perfect freedom to customize your character and choose your path is not the same as "pretending everything".

Well, I certainly don't feel forced to improvise any more than any other game I've ever played and I'm enjoying the game quite a bit. It seems weird to chastise people for using their imagination in a RPG. No RPG that I've ever played has ever come remotely close to providing the number of options I can dream up in my head. Does that mean that every single RPG svcks? Is everyone still waiting for a 'real' RPG to come along?