I keep hearing about "no impact on the game" "nothing changes" " no circumstances" etc. Could someone explain this a little better? What circumstances do you want? Forests burned down? Dragons to stop attacking? NPC's already make 100 comments on quests you've completed as is. It's tiring.

Open world does not mean you can't have a deep meaningful story. I give Fallout 3 as a great example.

This.

invisible walls, unless, overtly so, is NOT a good argument to rest on.

we're talking minute degrees. not, mass effect vs new vegas. new vegas wins by default.

IMO characters would be more memorable by simply fleshing them out. Adding underlying plots within the guilds to give the illusion of NPC having their own goals and objectives. Where they are controlling things in the realm of Skyrim the player is not.

ironically, i just got into the bugged bard college questline. it's pathetic.

however, i'll take the bugged bard line in the skyrim world over the mass effect bioware stuff everyday.

mass effect dialogue is good. next.

Skyrim is actually pretty linar when you think about it.

No, I haven't played those games. Certainly the world is a major character. But the stories are also an important part of the world. They help to define the setting. If they're lacking, so is the world. As for the world itself telling a story, it really doesn't. It's like a hot bimbo. She looks really good, but that's really all she has going for her. The world in Skyrim is much the same. It looks beautiful, but that's about it. There are some occasions where you see hints of a story in the world, but they're really not any deeper than the NPCs. You look around the world and you see towers, crypts, ruins, forts, etc. They give a suggestion of a long and rich history, but when you stop and think about it, it often starts to fall apart. Why did someone build a tower there? There's no reason at all. Why did someone build their family crypt out in the middle of nowhere? There's no reason given. They did a lot better with the forts this time around than they did in Oblivion, but there are still a number of them in totally random locations. The history presented by the world is little more than skin deep.

Even when the world could tell a great story, it fails to do so. A perfect example is the Great Collapse. You have this interesting story about the Sea of Ghosts rising up and battering the cliffs with tremendous force, destroying a once great city. When you look at it in the game world, though, you have a few stock buildings with a few stock abandoned houses and a college atop a column of stone. There's not even the slightest hint of the once great city. The world utterly fails to tell the story.

The best you can really hope for is, as others have said, to make up your own story in the world. But that is, ultimately, an insignificant activity because it has no real impact on anything and the world does not respond to it.

actually, depending, on how you think about it, it is the most wide open game world ever created.

and, the actual conclusion of your post is? ...

I'll give a few examples:

-If we choose to complete the Dark Brotherhood line, our actions at the end are entirely ignored, even if done before the Civil War line; what should have happened is that the result of said actions was applied to the CW quests, thus drastically altering their progression.

-Upon completion of the MQ, nobody really gives a damn, and the Dragons keep right on coming; what should have happened is that the random Dragon attacks entirely ceased, and your reputation is set such that when you speak, people listen.

-If you ally with the Forsworn during a certain quest, nothing really changes aside from a few dead perma-bodies (both sides) lying in the streets of Markarth; what should have happened is a drastic shift in your standing with the Forsworn, even to the point where those associated with the folks you freed were allies. Also, an equal shift in Markarth's opinion of you, to the point where every time you set foot in the place it starts a massive fight as all the guards try to bust you for treason (yes, I'm aware of the rep glitch, that doesn't count as it's unintended).

-Joining a given guild has no consequences as far as obtaining membership, let alone advancement, in another; what should have happened is that joining some guilds either locks out joining others or severely crimps advancement possibilities, as they have oppositional goals and either wouldn't want someone they consider a traitor in their midst or would be highly suspicious of them and wouldn't let them advance to the point where they could do something drastic.

Those are just the most glaring cases; there's a large number of more subtle instances that could be similarly treated, although some are more excusable due to being isolated from the group(s) they'd affect.

This has nothing to do with expanding the content but making the best of it. Quality over quantity. I don't think EVERY NPC has to have a purpose. The ones there are however need to be more meaningful, and again not all have to be this way. You can still have generic quests thrown in there with forgettable NPCs to help fill the game, but the game is seriously lacking substance. Guilds are a perfect example. What ever happened to Guild ranks? Where did factions go? Having an impact and seeing your impact in the game world is as important to immersion as it is gamplay. Without it, there is a whole lot of nothing to do and no reason to do it. To me, this is what happens to most sandbox games. It is all filler and no meat. To me, the best steaks are marbled. In game terms, that means a blend of the go here kill that or gather that missions from random NPCs with radiant AI as well as the super unique story line quests. This isn't much to ask.

edit: not correct

I totally agree. As I posted somewhere here yesterday, it wants to be sandbox/open world, but at the same time it forces you into story lines, and I just don't think the mash-up is that great. I think it's quite telling that there are so many posts discussing the avoidance of the main quests; almost as if people are trying to justify not being all that enthralled with the actual story elements.

I don't agree with people who say "But there's so much else you can do!" I don't want a game that I have to subvert in order to get any enjoyment out of it. Running around aimlessly just because I can is not, to me, a game. To me, an old game like "Arcanum" is much better, more fun, and a heck of a lot more interesting and unique. "Skyrim" tries to be too many things at once and comes off as a jack of all trades rather than a master of any.

....Which is why they should scrap having a main storyline altogether and focus on the open-world.

The open-world has always been one of the most appealing things about the series, while the storylines have generally been criticized or avoided entirely. If one needs to go, it's fairly obvious which one.

just delegate properly.

i don't know the business of videogames, at all.

with mark cuban money i know i'd develop a game you all like. at least, the people that mattered and a bit of the casuals, lol.

we're NOT talking complex problems or solutions.

No impacts on the game: If I become guild master of the thieve's guild, I'm still greeted with "So you're Brynjolf's new whelp, eh?" If I'm Archmage of the College, guards will still tell me to "go cast your fancy magic someplace else." If I murder every person in Riverwood and dedicate my life to making the world terrible, I'll be treated the same as if I've given my gold to charity and spent my entire life rooting out evil in Skyrim to make it a better place. You say NPC's each make 100 comments on completed quests... really? I doubt it.

Nothing changes: This complaint I've seen in regard to completing guild quest lines. The guilds remain the same, and nothing changes after you've reached the top.

No consequences: If I choose intimidate, and threaten to cut someone's head off, they'll continue on as though it's all good. Every dialogue option I select leads to the same end. It's shallow.

This is why I asked if you had played any of those games. In a way you're asking the game to hold your hand, to explain to you why they're there as if they need a reason to be there. You're looking at the game through the lens of a society that requires a reason for everything. Unfortunately the reasons we give are generally arbitrary which would go against the ambiguity that the series clings to.

As for your bimbo anology I find it somewhat funny. You're using this stereotype to show how one dimensional they're. That stereotype is based upon subjective qualities (such as looks, intelligence, etc) that create this person. However is it any different than a girl, or guy, who is incredibly bright but not a looker, or lacks social skills? They too are one dimensional and may not appeal to a wide audience.

I won't go any farther as it becomes overly subjective and really won't end without using bias. I will say that many beautiful people, guy or girl, are actually very intellectual. They just don't have to be to have success in our society.

I agree to about your critiques of changes on a micro scale (that being how people treat you) but at the macro scale I think it becomes hard to balance changes within the game world itself and how much influence you as a character have.

As for the bold piece that criticism is applicable to any game.

I agree, Bethesda chooses to scale enemies somewhat which allows you to visit any zone. In KoA you CAN visit any zone, but you would be ripped apart in a higher level zone if you're not careful. I do not see how this has ANYTHING to do with Bethesda's inability to add meaningful dialogue, fluid combat, and a solid story. You're basically saying that these other games can do it because they don't have scaling enemies.


Again, you're way off the mark. The driving force in MMO's is end game content: instances (flashpoints in Old Republic) and raids (operations in Old Republic). ToR has an abundance of end game content, tons of loot, while still maintaining excellent dialogue and story line. ToR fails in other regards, mostly in its lack of innovation but that's neither here nor there. They're alive and well, successful, with subscriptions growing. They broke the MMO mold.


This is entirely your opinion, as the alignment / choices system in ToR is praised by players and reviews alike. I'm not going to get into opinions.



I didn't hit any invisible walls in KoA-- just couldn't fall off cliffs. Again, I don't see the logic. Because you can jump off cliffs in Skyrim it makes sense that their story, dialogue, NPC depth, and combat are all shallow and bland.


KoA's combat is flashier, it's more fluid-- it just LOOKS better. In Skyrim, enemies (and my own character) barely react to being hit. The combat hasn't changed much since Morrowind, other than the slow-mo up close cut scenes, and the fact that they fixed the back peddling exploits.



Remember, we're talking about NPC dialogue and questing-- which is a HUGE part of the game. With branching dialogue options and consequences, a powerful driving story for a main quest, better written guild quest lines... how on earth can you assume "no one will see it"? Especially considering the amount of "books" in the game that feature full stories. What about combat? Also a HUGE part of the game. Would no one see it?


Moral choices take you out of the experience? You think ONE dialogue option to select and ONE way of completing a quest somehow immerses you more deeply than multiple options with consequences to your actions? You have an interesting taste in gaming...


Again, this isn't good writing. This is laziness. Forcing someone into completing a quest in only ONE way (House of Horrors, for example) is laziness.


I love Bethesda, I love Skyrim, I want nothing more than to see TES grow and get better. Your ideology to just "accept" shortcomings is, to me, totally unacceptable. Thankfully there are plenty of people who can and will criticize a game so that future installments will improve.

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.

A: 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. I disagree, but that's neither here not there.

B: How can you possibly trick yourself into actually thinking Skyrim lets you play the game "your way" when you are forced to select ONE dialogue option or forced into completing most quests in ONE particular way.

now your talking detail, risky.

we all know i can play however i want in skyrim. yes, within skyrim's parameters. that's an absolutely ridiculous ideal.

anyways, the options of skyrim are much more than any other game on the market. period. blank.

next.

I guess that's your opinion-- because I can walk around pretty far I have more "options." I'm sorry but I don't think multiple ways of responding to an NPC or two ways of completing a quest is somehow outside the realm of possibility with today's technology.

I don't even have to do quest to play Skyrim. I could make a hunter, live in the forest hunting, and selling my animal harvest to a merchant in town. I could play as a thief who runs around stealing from houses, and likes to sneak out of town at night and try to steal from local bandits without being caught. I could play a merchant who never fights, with a body guard, wandering around collecting ore to make into armor to sell, ingredients to make into pots to sell and become filthy rich. I could play Skyrim without touching a single quest and enjoy it far more then I could Dragon Age. How many RGP's do you know of that let you play with that much freedom? My merchant/thief idea, impossible in most RPG's even KoA besides NwN which is the closest example of game that offers somewhat of the freedom TES does.

To me RPG's are like larping, but in a game. It's about the effort I put into the game that rewards me with what I enjoy about the game. Not by what cool or flashy lights they add, or having this epic story. I would rather have that free world with no quests, then a linear game with no freedom.