This anology won't make sense to some of you, but I liken TES games versus linear RPG's to different styles of table-top RPG's, such as D&D, Pathfinder, GURPS, etc. For example, open-world games like TES, versus linear progression games such as Dragon Age, I compare to table-top homebrew, sandbox games versus published, linear adventures.

On one hand, with the homebrew, open-world sandbox game, the players can literally go anywhere, do anything. the DM only has to react to player choices, and 90% of the game is made up on the fly. Some NPC's can be found, but locations like dungeons, ruins, etc tend to be whipped up and created at the moment they are discovered, and not very deep. You get freedom of choice and exploration, but most of the content you find is rather shallow and rushed, unless you happen upon a particular piece of the game that was readied ahead of time by the DM, such as with Skyrim the main story quest , Guild/Faction quests, etc. Everything else feels like a fetch-quest, much like 90% of Skyrim.

On the other hand, published adventures provide memorable, well thought out NPC's, dungeons are deep and complex, and story arcs can be far reaching with multiple paths. The downside, however, is that the freedom and exploration portions are removed (or severely limited) and you are forced to follow a linear path. Great for people wanting to participate in a story, but bad for people wanting freedom and choice. A lot of Skyrim players that rushed through the main story on one character and "beat the game, bored after only 30 hours" seem to fall into this category. They can't be botehred with going out and living their own story, they want the story handed to them. Not a bad thing, mind you, since not everyone who pays full price for a game feels they should have to imagine their own story/fun.

The best games are the ones that can mix these two sides and fine-tune them best to the players tastes. It's a delicate balance, and everyone has a different palate for taste. Too much linear progression, and the freedom of exploration is gone. Too little linearity and the game feels like a shallow gallery of short dungeons, fetch quests, and random loot.

I enjoy both styles of game, when the mood strikes.

Skyrim is more of a rpg then other so called "rpgs" that just got released.
Like dark souls and kingdom of amalur (wich is still great games)

I disagree. Skyrim's linear dialogue (often having ONE way of responding to an NPC, and often ONE way of completing a quest) restricts a player wanted to "imagine their own story" even moreso than a linear RPG.

Well, one difference being, for those wishing to create their own story, play a character a certain way, they don't have to do the quests they don't want to. If my character wants no involvement with any of this Dragonborn business or the Civil War, I don't have to do anything related to those things. In a linear RPG, you are pretty much guided by hand through the game.

I'm sorry, but that's just a lame excuse for ignoring bad design.

Who said anything about design? So, do you want to be forced down a linear path where you have to complete every quest in a particular order?

I'm sorry that Skyrim's 'genre' doesn't work for you.

I have played DAO, ME1&2, and I loved them. The personal attachment to the main character is very high and the relationships to NPC's is 10 times anything you can get in Skyrim.

But I love the TES game mold. Sure Ysolda will never have the depth as Liara, but I also don't have Skyrim telling me what I have to do next either, or that I can look at the scenery, but can't go touch it.

Both game styles are great and I love them both, and they are different and that's ok. I do not ever what the TES games to try to be like something else (since we already have something else), they are doing exactly what I want them to do.

linearity and being 'forced' were obviously not what the post suggested.

as well, in TES games, the concept of roleplaying and using your mind is not a novelty anymore. it's a given. it's expected. in skyrim, we can do that anyways. that's not the issue.

You do realize that their response was in regards to Skyrim already being linear with respect to dialog options being shallow right? In most cases, there is only one choice the player has - complete the quest or not. In instances where you can choose different ways to complete the quest, it often has little if any impact on the game climate. I'm sorry, but if I want to roleplay an Evil character, it should be way more than just me choosing to do "bad" quests or killing NPCs. I should have a progression path for that. Skyrim has no faction system or reputation system. The game climate is static (read linear) and not dynamic.

Exactly. I mean its the world of tamriel i fell in love with and like.
No other games then the TES games have tamriel in it.

I play the Elder Scrolls games because of what they are, not because of what other people claim them to be. Leave the titles and labels out of the mix and you'll have a better gaming experience.


This, essentially.

You do not need to make Skyrim linear in order for it to be better. Companions CAN have the same depth as Liara. You can increase the attachment to the main character and relationships to the NPCs. This has nothing to do with making the game more linear, it has a lot to do with giving the player more options. If I had multiple ways to completing quests, factions, each companion had a lot more dialog options and reacted to the task at hand differently and better than currently, if there was a reputation/alignment system, Skyrim could be everything ME is in that regard AND THEN SOME. The problem is it is just a pretty environment with no substance. You don't have to sacrifice the environment and openness of the game to give it substance.

Are you kidding me? The open world nature of TES games is the only reason I play them. They can cut out attributes and spellcrafting and classes and all the good spells from prior games and I will complain until the cows come home, but I will still buy their games and play them.

The MOMENT they stop making open world games in favor of some DAO style linearity is the moment I would stop playing their games and do something else. Fortunately, that is never going to happen. Lots of folks like the open world. But if you want a more focused fantasy world experience, why don't you just play Dragon Age? I mean it is a great game if you like that sort of thing. Personally I do not like that linear style of game, but since we already have a good company (Bioware) producing a good series of linear fantasy games, why on earth would Bethesda ever want to give up their award winning and best selling franchise (what $650 million in Skyrim sales and counting) to produce a linear style of game like Dragon Age?

I think New Vegas proved that you can have a great story, good writing and good characters within an Open World Setting.

A good linear game is worth a good 20-30 hours on a single playthough, more if you replay it at different difficulty levels and go for the "extras" such as trophies/achievements etc.

There are linear games with "open world" aspects like the Assassin's Creed series where you can go 40-60 hours if you divert from the main story.

You start going into 100+ hours when you have a full "open-sandbox" game like the GTA series, though I didn't really "sandbox play" with the GTA IV games nearly as much as I did with the GTA III games like GTA3, GTAVC and GTASA.

The "open world" aspects of the TES series and the Fallout 3/FONV games where you can build your own character, completely ignore the main quest and still wind up with hundreds of things to do and 200+ hours of gameplay is the soul of the TES (and the FO3 and later) games. Sure, I don't mind a "grand" main quest with an epic story behind it, and I'd love to see technology eventually catch up with the "storytelling" part of the game were the choices you make makes changes to the sandbox "world" you are playing in, but until then, I really don't mind the limitation of the "open world" gaming genre.

The single-player "open world" RPG genre and the TES series will always have it's fans, and despite the nitpicking of certain parts of the fan base, Bethesda does a really good job of making an open world game.

Doing quests is only a minor part of the game for a lot if TES fans. It is about exploring, wandering the land, catching butterflies, admiring the view, making stuff, buying your house and decorating it (darned house cluttering bug) and developing your character.

Do, I wish quests had more options for how you complete them? Sure, but I spend less than 20% of my time in Skyrim doing quests. So the linear nature of the quests is not the end of the world and having the choice of if and when to do a quest is huge because there is a whole wide world out there beyond just the quests.

Contrast that with a game like Dragon Age where there is no world at all, except during the quests.

Or alternatively, at the cost of a smaller profit margin. That's the true driving force behind releasing a game with bugs and features that could have been drastically better. Sure, the developers might want to take the extra time, but the owners of the company want a higher profit margin, so the budget is only enough to make a game that is good enough to convince people to buy the next game in the series.

Yes, I'm aware of that. I love to explore, too. It's one of the reasons I don't fast travel. However, I tend to place the choice to explore and pick flowers into the category of "doesn't really matter." It certainly is fun and enjoyable, but it really doesn't have any impact on anything. And while you can choose to ignore a major part of the game, that doesn't make that part any less flawed. You're just turning a blind eye to it.

If you are wanting a game that is a merger of Skyrim and ME then yeah, that would be great. But there are 10 races you can play in Skyrim in addition to both sixes. There are 20 times more NPC's you can talke to in Skyrim than you can in ME. And if you wanted deep relationship possibilities with each and every one of them just because it CAN BE DONE, then you will grow old and die before anyone could finish it.

I will agree with you that it would be great, but at the same time realism kicks in along with the fact that I would like to play the game before my grandchildren get here.

absolutely.

newvegas is one of the greatest games, ever. (consoles)

and, i love it when devs take risks. it can lead to gameplay advancement.

the arguments against it are so invalid it makes me, literally, sit here at my screen and tell you guys/girls to go blank-off, lol.

yes, i can go to this mountain top and stare in skyrim, but, can't get over this pile of rubble. big freakin deal!

Yeah, I an not saying the quests could not use improvement. But not at the cost of loosing "the world." In a linear game like Dragon Age, there is no "world" at all, there's just quests and a facade of a world that you experience while you are doing those quests.

I'm curious if you've ever played Shadow of the Colossus, Limbo, or more recently Dear Esther? If you have what are your thoughts on them? I understand that you may not find exploring, or picking flowers to be a big piece of the game but as a mechanic exploration and story telling via visuals is hugely successful.

The games I listed (plus you could include Flower or Audiosurf) are all games that do a great job of creating immersion, or telling a story visually rather than in dialogue. In the TES franchise the world is arguably the biggest character, and the most important, in the whole series. People may not remember the people but they sure as heck remember the world and in that sense I think the TES series shines and does what it's supposed to do.

I'd take TES' "subpar" over many games' supposed superior story any day. These games are about my story first and foremost. The more a developer takes over the story reins, the less I get to shape things the way I want them. That's already every game ever made these days. Leave the one good sandbox RPG series to do what it does best.

yes.

and, perfect it.

For the first point my point about the MMO was to reflect upon KoA and its MMO like world. The way that "zones" are set up sort of kills the world for me. What I mean by zones it that there are clearly areas that are designed for level 1-5, 6-10, 11-15...etc. The mobs in the zone basically stand around waiting for you to kill them, they have no life, and no purpose outside of for you to farm them. Bethesda is one of the few developers I've seen who create an open world game that doesn't rely on such a mechanic.

Overall my MMO statement was nothing more than a overreaction, a fallacy if you will. As for The Old Republic I haven't played it so take what I say with a grain of salt. Ultimately that approach to an MMO fails because once you're done with the story, which would be the main driving force, you're done with the game. From what I've read, and from what I've heard most people quit after they complete their characters story because it's kind of like retirement at that point.

That isn't to say that the story isn't good it's just that the main reason to play is the story which really defeats the purpose of an MMO. Also the raid structure totally fails when you incorporate story and the choice system. It was a great idea, implemented well within the context of an RPG but fails at the MMORPG part.

KoA is much, much more constrained. I've played maybe an hour of it and the world felt much shallower than that of Skyrims. Invisible walls, places I couldn't go, etc. Yes it's an open world, but not to the extent that Skyrim's is.

As for the combat... I dunno why people say all Skyrim consists of is "click, click, click" because that's EVERY game! Name me a game (not kinect) where I'm not clicking a mouse or pushing a button to attack. As for Kingdoms yes it has better combat but it is just click, click, click and ultimately it looks flashier but becomes a button masher because that's far more effective. Yes you have a dodge mechanic and it works, however you spend your time clicking at an opponent... such is the life of a video gamer.

To me it is again the problem with an open world game. The bards college could have had some of the BEST writing in the game but nobody would ever see it. The story could have some of the BEST writing in the world and nobody would ever see it. You said it yourself the appeal is exploration and in that sense Skyrim is unmatched. It honestly becomes a question of "is it worth it to spend time, money, and effort to create awesome dialogue that only half of the gamers will see it?". I understand that's a question of any game, but in a game like Skyrim where you can go anywhere it becomes a bigger question.

That being said I do agree that more choices and less character ambiguity would be great however I hate moral systems. They're simplistic gimmicks that add very little to the game. They take me out of the experience and are poorly implemented. Bioware does it the best, but that's like saying Microsoft has the best motion controller.

I will say that the Daedric quests are easily on par with Bioware games in terms of weight. You really feel like the princes have complete, and total control over you and in many cases you're tricked into doing their bidding. Many of those quests will always be the pinnacle of story telling in Skyrim and much of the TES series.


I could name at least three things that every game does poorly, and those 3 things will always be huge game mechanics. I'm not saying that makes it right, I'm just saying that's how life is.