EDIT: @ EVERYONE: OP was trying to be clever and was actually defending Skyrim by saying it's story, dialogue, and overall depth should not be subject to harsh criticism as it's an open world game. Since it's an open world game, it does not and cannot focus on story, dialogue, and so on and so forth. I STRONGLY disagree with OP, just wanted to clarify this here as many of us were hopelessly confused since OP wouldn't just come out and say it. Anyways, here we go:



Of course you're saying there is an excuse-- the excuse being that Bethesda creates open world games. The ideology (for a long time) was that players will have to deal with shortcomings if they want a sandbox RPG. I agree, and I'm fine with that. The bugs are acceptable (aside from the PS3 memory issue, which I found unacceptable). You don't need a completely new hand crafted quest pertaining to every bounty in Skyrim, sure. The last line of what you typed here really bothers me. You're saying that if Skyrim polished its story, added meaningful dialogue with consequences as well as interesting NPC's it would be an MMO? This makes very little sense. The "go kill 10 board and come back" is a staple of MMO gameplay, and one that seems like it's worked its way into Skyrim "go kill this bandit, come back and get gold."

Now, while we're talking about both genre constraints and MMO's, let's look at The Old Republic. BioWare managed to have excellent dialogue, a great story, diverse side quests, all in a huge MMO world. Before that game, no one would criticize an MMO's story or quests because it's an MMO. It's a grind fest. That's its genre. Well, BioWare broke the stereotype so why can't Bethesda?



Interesting you brought up KoA, as that serves to further go against your argument. KoA is an open world game. It's huge, and still has interesting combat. Is it as realistic as Skyrim? No. The art style they chose was rather cartoonish-- but still impressive. And yes, it IS still an open world game. Does Skyrim have subtleties that KoA doesn't? Sure! But just because that waterfall looks *really* cool in Skyrim isn't an excuse to have an overall bland and boring combat system. The argument since Morrowind was, "it's an open world game. It would be too taxing on developers to create a good looking combat system for an open world game. Well, obviously KoA beat that "argument." I'm not a game designer, but I don't see how creating fluid, interesting looking combat would somehow be too much for them to handle simply because the game map is big.



As for dialogue, nobody is asking for BioWare quality (realistically). BioWare has always created some of the best RPG's we've ever seen because of their writing. That would be like telling Chuck Palahniuk that he needs to write on par with George RR Martin. Palahniuk wrote some excellent books and fans still demand quality from him, but nobody expects him to beat out Martin. Not gonna happen. HOWEVER, I find Skyrim's dialogue to be so abysmally shallow and lacking I think it's a perfectly legitimate area for complaint. In an RPG, we need choices. Even the good, neutral, evil choices you cited earlier would be 100x better than what we currently have in place. Maybe you'd be concerned about memory constraints, adding that much content to the game-- well, I made several threads (I think you contributed to a few of them, still stubbornly demanding voice acting) which covered the issue of voice acted dialogue vs. test dialogue (provided the text was deeper, more meaningful, with branching options). AGAIN, why can't Bethesda hire writers to create interesting dialogue for the game?



No one is asking for the best of everything-- not even close. We're asking for a step above mediocrity. Bethesda has (once again) brought us a very fun open world game, but as an RPG it's failing worse than prior installments. Their budget, the time they had to produce the game, and their experience should have brought us a more interesting story, better dialogue, and more memorable NPC's. Monster variety, quest variety, writing, dialogue, combat, and depth should NEVER be sacrificed because "it's got a big map."

snip

Skyrim is a huge RPG desperately crying out for some semblance of character, story and purpose.

I supposed it should be mentioned that the central character is our own creation. The quality of a story depends a great deal on the quailty of the main character.

Really? It's kind of amazing how all of us every single one of us decided to start our story at the chopping block waiting to be beheaded. Uncanny. Do you think there's some kind of mass telepathy going on?

You missed OP's point. It's okay, most of us did. He was being somewhat sarcastic and trying to illustrate that Skyrim's shallow story, bland dialogue, and so on are perfectly acceptable because that's not Bethesda's forte.

You're discrediting his approach to the game, you're using his approach to the game (taking full advantage of the open world) and picking specific examples to discredit it in some way. You yourself said that the open world is what appeals to most gamers and even yourself.

So why do you feel the need to pick an NPC that has no purpose other then to just be there?

If you honestly hate this game as much as you make it sound like, then why are you even here? The fact that I have an imagination and can play a game without someone having to hold my hand and play it for me doesn't make me a really devoted fan. I am sorry to say but the problem with Skyrim is that it is trying to appeal to gamers as a whole instead of the niche following it has. I am sorry to also say that the only wrong move Bethesda made was trying to cater to CoD and Halo kids who feel so much self entitlement that they have to demand that this game be made more like Dragon Age or it's the worst game ever.

News flash to those people, you want to play a game like that go pick up a copy of Dragon Age. I don't play any TES game to play Dragon Age, I play it to roleplay in a game that no other game out there offers. I am sorry that it seems so much of this generation of gamers are spoiled little brats who have no imagination what so ever. Again, that doesn't make me a fan boy.

There is a reason I like games of this type, there is a reason I mod for games of this type. There was a reason I gave up Dungeons and Dragons and played games like this instead. Because they gave me that freedom that no game ever had been able to give me. So if this burns your bottom I don't care. Go play Dragon Age if that's what you want. Mean while how about you leave the niche group alone that made TES what it is today. Remember Bethesda may have made the game, but it is those of us who loved and modded the games for years that made them what they are. It's bout time people like you and Bethesda understood that instead of trying to ruin such a good game just so it can be more steamline.

I find it kind of funny how you are acting like you are being the reasonable person here. There is zero chance beth would go to text dialogue. In today'd day and age that would kill sales. It's like asking a store to sell items at a loss because it give you better value. Would it be better? Of course! But it would never happen, and with good reason. You can complain about the amount of depth all you want, but Beth isn't going to cannibalize their sales to appease a couple of fringe forum members.

Definitely agree with the "quality" of storytelling though. There is a ton of room for improvement.

Really. The character and the character's situation are two different things.

There are plenty of excellent games with text dialogue. Hell, like I keep saying-- Zelda is ALL text and I don't see their sales taking a beating. If you have to choose between meaningful dialogue with options (and sure, have voiced greetings) and 100% FULL voice acting, I'll take the text any day of the week. How does that make me unreasonable?

Okay I am not sure you understand what a true RPG is. A game like Dragon Age, and I am a huge Dragon Age fan, is a action adventure game. It is like watching an movie like Conan as you adventure through it. It is a VERY linear game focusing heavily on the story and the action.

Skyrim is more like Dungeons and Dragons pen and paper. You don't have a main driving story, what YOU DO is the story. You are playing a person in this living world, not advancing down a linear path towards an end goal. This litterally lets you play how ever you want. A sandbox RPG if you wish to call it that. For me playing Skyrim or any TES game isn't about the story THEY tell, its about the story that i tell. I would never touch a TES game if it tried to be more like an action adventure game. This is a game where I can truly roleplay anyway I want without having to be forced into a story.

You forgot to add that the option to avoid woefully bad voice 'acting' is quite often a blessing in itself.

You took my comment way out of context. I was replying to someone who (laughably) stated that they could play Skyrim "any way they wanted to," citing their reference to playing the game as nothing more than a hunter. I'm using this NPC as an example of shallow dialogue and unnecessary voice acting, not to mention debating the idea of playing as a "hunter."

I don't know many CoD fans that even played Dragon Age.

@Failed to Open. Was that the point you were trying to make? Cause if so, Riskybiz is right. Most of us missed it.

your idea would ruin this game, TES has always been about open world and exploring, and if they were to remove that element, then this game would be complete trash

I could play an introverted hermit who spends his time in the wild hunting hunters and never come across the NPC you mention nor would the I ever have to step in a town, or even start a quest. Why?

Because it's an open world game, that's its draw.

Not really... I quoted that specific piece because I sometimes like to reduce the size of quotes. You're using shallow dialogue as an example when it has no effect on his way of playing. I could play an introverted hermit who spends his time in the wild hunting hunters and never come across the NPC you mention nor would the I ever have to step in a town, or even start a quest. Why?

Because it's an open world game, that's its draw.

I've purchased every CoD since 3 and have played many an RPG. If people look down on CoD because it's the juggernaut then fine, I enjoy the game immensely but I also enjoy other games. At some point being closed minded is equally as bad as being part of the supposed "problem"... and no I'm not speaking directly to you with that, more to opinion in the sky that some hold about CoD and the people who play it.

Here's my thoughts on that. Ultimately, Skyrim really only gives you two choices. Those being if and when you do a quest. Beyond that there really aren't any choices that matter. You have no choices within the quests and your dialogue choices don't matter. There are a few quests that give you options, like the civil war quest, but that choice doesn't really matter, either. In the end, a few Jarls get changed, but the world moves on the same just like it would have if you picked the other side.

Then I think about when I played Dragon Age 2. Yeah, overall it was more linear game, divided up into three chapters. But when I looked at each chapter individually, something occurred to me. I was presented with a collection of quests, ranging from the MQ to companion quests to assorted side quests. I wasn't forced to do any of them, except the MQ, and I could do them in whatever order I wanted. It was the exact same choice that Skyrim presented me with, only on a smaller scale. Unlike Skyrim, though, it gave me a lot more options in how I wanted to complete the quests, as well as how I wanted to respond to others in dialogue.

So in a sense, Dragon Age 2 gives more freedom and options than Skyrim.

I'm not really trying to make a point honestly. Risk has the general sense of what my point would be, but ultimately I just want to see the other side of the fence if you will.


Of course it would. In no way am I going to advocate the idea that TES become linear. I used the idea as a basis for a counter argument to many criticisms of the game. In a way I'm arguing that you look at the game for what it is, not what it isn't.

If you honestly hate this game as much as you make it sound like, then why are you even here? The fact that I have an imagination and can play a game without someone having to hold my hand and play it for me doesn't make me a really devoted fan. I am sorry to say but the problem with Skyrim is that it is trying to appeal to gamers as a whole instead of the niche following it has. I am sorry to also say that the only wrong move Bethesda made was trying to cater to CoD and Halo kids who feel so much self entitlement that they have to demand that this game be made more like Dragon Age or it's the worst game ever.

Oh come on now, This is just pure nonsense & is wrong on so many levels, You smear those people who want Skyrim to have better quality dialogue & quest content as self entitled spoiled brats? That just beggars belief & is just a desperate fumble of a response to the sensible & razor sharp responses of Riskybiz, You cannot debate head on with him so you resort to smears & untruths, He never said he hated the game yet you threw it in there then proceeded to suggest that if anyone wants more meaningful dialogue & higher quality interactions added to Skyrim then then they should take their entitled backsides over to dragon age, Seriously, You made me spit my false teeth out.

You seem to think that skyrim only offers an open & empty world just for your imagination & to expect anything else is a clear sign of an entitlement issue , I'm not sure whether we're talking about the same Bethesda but as far as i know they have never created a game like that.

::sigh:: I don't think you read the reference correctly. The post I was referring to was saying that Skyrim is essentially the "ultimate" RPG because it offers freedom that no other game can match. He stated "I can play as a hunter, selling meat and fur to merchants." I said that if you RP a hunter who sells his meat and furs to Belathor, why am I greeted in this manner EVERY SINGLE TIME I enter the shop? Could it be because Skyrim's dialogue is laughably shallow? Yes, I think so. Again, you and I will NOT come to an agreement on this. Like I keep saying over and over, the "open world" is not an excuse for mediocrity. I won't be satisfied with this game's shallow dialogue, limited "options," mediocre story, bland combat... I won't. Bethesda is one of my absolute favorite gaming companies, and as their customer (a loyal one at that) I will always demand improvement. And let's face it, TES has a LOT of room for improvement. The open world excuse was valid in Morrowind' time, perhaps even for Oblivion, but in 2012 with Bethesda's budget and talent there is no excuse to not add the elements that are so horribly lacking.

Personally I am not going to be too disappointed if we don't get Dragon Age style dialog but that is not really my issue, so I will leave that to you and Riskybiz. If there is a way to do it, then great. I am all for improving the series.

You can already have great characters in a open world game. Just look at Fallout New Vegas. That was just as open world as any other Bethesda game and had an amazing storyline with some characters i'll never forget. Obsiden gave a great example to Bethesda with the great story of Fallout New Vegas. They showed that a huge open world RPG can have a great story and great characters. (this is all my opinion by the way)

So how does each character resolve the situation differently? Which character did you play that didn't have a dragon popping in to say hello to conveniently interrupt proceedings?

Skyrim is much closer to older RPGs in that the character, and more importantly the DnD model, than games like Dragon Age or Mass Effect. In a way Dragon Age is much similar to Eastern RPGs (Games like Dragon Quest, Final Fantasy, etc) than it would be to Western RPGs (like Neverwinter Nights, Baldurs Gate, etc). Granted that is a terrible comparison as many western rpgs follow the DnD ruleset and it's unfair to lump those who don't with Eastern RPGs, however those older DnD based games give you a range of flexibility that Mass Effect/Dragon Age cannot.

I don't see it as expressing pen and paper rpgs any more than dragon age. In fact, I've played more "scenario" type of pnp games than open ended ones. I guess it all depends on your group. And no, I'm not talking premade scenarios you buy. Just that someone (the gm) might have worked out a world/setting and directs the rest of us a tad. He or she is telling a story too. We don't just randomly wander and start adventuring. Secondly, I don't think pnp can be compared to TES so well because one is almost instrinically associated with a "party atmosphere". Whether with friends or adding npcs in the mix. TES isn't centered around groups. In this respect, Bioware follows the DND tradition better.