To start off the TES series has been about as much an RPG as GTA/Saints Row have been shooters. All of those are open world games with either RPG or Shooter elements. In fact both Rockstar and Bethesda are applauded for the same things, both create beautiful world (Skyrim and Red Dead Redemption come to mind), but outside of that both handle things differently. In a way the TES franchise has been shackled by what it is and that is an open world game.

If the TES franchise focused on a more linear experience then many problems people happen would be reduced. Bugs would ultimately be reduced, more memorable characters be allowed to exists, game elements could be fleshed out and deepened, and the story could be improved. Prioritizing would be a lot simpler with the reduced number of priorities, and ultimately we'd have a much tighter, stronger, and focused experience.

However that would come at the cost of having a much smaller, linear world. Having an open world game means that you have to lose some of that tone and prioritizing becomes key. The question becomes "How many people will actually experience this" whether that this is a quest, story, character, or weapon, you have to ask yourself how many people will actually see it.

This "open world" game becomes so constricting that the name becomes semi ironic. I can adventure around this huge world but what was the cost? The cost was having a more focused game.

If they turn TES into a linear RPG like Dragon Age, I'll [censored] a brick, [censored] that. I'd rather have an opne world that has a few bugs, beautfiul world, then a linear story and a couple more memorable charcters. SKyrim was linear enough.

Well, well I think there should room for a heavier story type of experience, as far as the scripting and characters go. Just not at the sacrifice to the open world/emergent storytelling as well. Rockstar pulls both off pretty well, especially with Red Dead. Bethesda just does the open world well (really well). But since they do write stories too, might as well do it right. There are ways from keeping it seperate from what people expect from TES, where none of the typical experience is lost.

This topic sounds like an oxymoron to me. For instance, a firefighter is called a firefighter because he/she fights fires. It is their genre. Therefore, in the words of the OP, a firefighter is shackled to their genre. Why should a firefighter be given arrest powers, a patrol car, and a gun when they are not police officers?

THIS! If anything Skyrim is already too linear.
You don't need to sacrafice or compromise the entire point of TES just to make better characters. You can have a massive open world game and have all of the above improved.

how can TES be shackled down by a genre that consists of so few games? open world rpgs are few and far between.

Linear with quest choices yes, linear overall... depends on what you compare it to. Compared to modern games it's not very linear at all, compared to previous TES games it's only slightly more linear.


Red Dead was a great game with a somewhat boring story. What it did well was represent that era of time, not overly accurately, but well enough to make it interesting. Granted it suffered from the standard Rockstar stereotyping but it played well and had the best fictional world I've ever seen.

As a comparison of developers I think both suffer from their formulaic story telling. Rockstar is generally based on revenge and Bethesda is based upon saving the world. That said I think Rockstar does a good job of actually getting the player to want to get revenge, while saving the world in a Bethesda game is just a means to an end.


Genres are arbitrary classifications that really have no set definition, a job title has an actual definition and is much less flexible, especially when looking at jobs sponsored by the government. However if someone was complaining about the firefighter not arresting someone then you could bring up the job title as a way of explaining why he cannot arrest someone.

As for the oxymoron in a way you're some what right. A genre is a a constraining classification it itself, if anything I'm being somewhat redundant. However the problem is that the problems normally expressed on the forums are increased by nature of it being an open world game, and a change of genre, or limiting of the open worldness could in some way alleviate them.

Because it also encompasses other genres?

well, of course it's a means to an end. It's not the point of the game

GTA's an action game, it's not a shooter.


You're saying that the steak would taste better if it was a crab cake. They're two totally different things. TES is about open world exploration-- that's what makes these games. Memorable characters are a problem due to poor writing, demand of full voice acting, and an 11/11/11 deadline. An open world doesn't restrict good NPC's.


No, no, no. Skyrim's beauty is in the small things. Those little, tiny things you stumble on while traveling across the map. A little while ago I found a GIANT carcass of some huge mud crab. It was epic. Again, NO.


Worst post of the decade. If you want a linear game, buy a linear game. TES would be totally destroyed if even a fraction of this ideology was adapted. I hope you're trolling.

But it's the basis for the story, it's your motivation if you will. If the story, or more specifically saving the world, isn't the point of the game then is it fair to criticize Skyrim for its "bad" story?

Actually making TES more linear would cause more problems, unless you go the route that Reckoning went but that too would cause more problems. Skyrim's problem isn't a genre problem, the problem with Skyrim is bad writing and bad design decisions.

I never said GTA was a shooter, I said it was about as much a shooter as TES is an RPG. Even then GTA relies heavily on shooting mechanics, which can be avoided... which is why it isn't a full blown shooter.

Yes it does and for two reasons. 1: You could write the most interesting NPC in the world and no one would see him. 2: You will most likely see a NPC once a day at max. In comparison many games have you forge a companionship with a companion over the course of the game. Agro (the horse in Shadow of the Colossus) was with me the whole game until the last colossi and it svcked when he died. He never said anything to me but having this companion in a barren world was what forged that "bond".

You can still have subtle beauty in a linear game.

I'm not a good troll so no I'm not trolling you. I'm also not asking for Skyrim to be a linear game. I'm just providing a reason for why the TES franchise has always been subpar in many ways.


Lets use subjective words to prove a point! In fact explain to me how the writing is bad and how the game design decisions were bad?.. outside of it not being Morrowind/Oblivion. Because Jersey Shore season 1 was 10X's better than Season 3 but you don't see me comparing.

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 won't refute any of your points, but many people (myself included) play TES games because they're open world. The sense of exploration is what appeals. There are plenty of excellent linear RPG's available, and Bethesda would have to go head to head with companies like BioWare if they went that route. Let's face it, Bethesda's never had the most solid writing. They would doom themselves with this kind of competition.

I think if there were better writers and we dropped this ridiculous NEED for 100% voice acting we'd be able to have more memorable NPC's.

I just think they should cut back on the content and radiant quests and stuff, and then put more time into the memorable characters/quests.

Way to many quests that are just boring. Length padding is all that it is.

Your character holds no weight, and in a way that makes sense. However the problem arises in that even grand actions (like completing the MQ, or the civil war) are equally as weightless. In many ways games have never gotten to the point where they could simulate anything past an end.


In Dragon Age you're allowed to shape the world, granted you can only shape it ways defined by the creator, but you can shape it none the less. You could say it is the size of the mold that allows this, or you could say it's the effectiveness of the creator but either way the conclusion is the same. In Dragon Age the world is what you make it, in Skyim the world is how you perceive it.

If that is what attracts then is it okay then then criticize Bethesda for having unmemorable characters, or "bad" writing? If that doesn't seem to be the focus, nor what appeals to the audience is it nothing more than nit picking to bring up those criticisms?

I'm also not sure how better writing would make character more memorable.

Considering that the open world game is what allows bethesda to show how games can exposit fantasy better than any other medium (through use of self-motivated exploration and the in-game books) I'd say this is already having problems. Also, the entire point is that it's an open world game. Turning the main TES series into a linear game is like a McDonalds Salad, completely missing the point. So basically, your thread completely misses the point of the series.

I always criticize this game for it's unremarkable NPC's, terrible dialogue, lack of choices and conseqeucnes, and so on. To me, it all boils down to two things: Writing, and demand of voice acting (which limits potential dialogue trees).

In my opinion, video game characters are only as memorable as their dialogue and back story. So yes, writing is exactly what makes characters more memorable.

Mass Effect has voice acting yet they full off memorable characters.

You also didn't answer my other question which is if it was unfair to criticize the game for its... everything you said if the appeal is the open world? I won't even get into the rest of your post as I'm more curious about the last question I posed.


In a sense you missed the point of my thread. I'm not gonna sit here and defend the idea that Skyrim should be reduced to a linear game. I'm more interested in seeing if criticizing the game for something it isn't is valid. In a sense TES is an open world game that features a story, so is it right to criticize them for creating the most interesting characters? Or for not creating the most epic of stories if that's not their forte?

Again, the point wasn't to defend a point of view that asks for the series as a whole to change, but to show that what makes the game so appealing is what creates these limitations.

Mass Effect is also linear. I'm talking about preserving an open world game with memorable characters. You can't compare the amount of NPC's from Mass Effect to the amount of NPC's in Skyrim. Also, BioWare. Let's not set the bar so high it's unfair. BioWare has some of the best writing in gaming... well, ever.

I honestly don't understand your question at all. It's okay to criticize the game for anything you want, it's all fair game.

Your first sentence answers why memorable characters/good writing is so hard to create in a open world game.

Your second sentence answers my question and also allows me to say that criticism is fine, however like opinions some criticism is valid, while other criticisms is not. Mass Effect may have good characters in your eyes but the world is linear/boring and dialogue is too game like.

Those aren't really fair criticisms because Mass Effect isn't known, or isn't played because of its open non linear world and the dialogue is generally considered very good. The dialogue options are basically a mix between Good, neutral, and bad and the characters reactions is always scripted. The path is so tree like and unorganic that it becomes very much a I want to be a bad guy or a good guy. However even with that I see how much better Bioware does this system than any other game out there and their characters always feel fleshed out with interesting motivations and conviction.

What was the point of that? I was nitpicking, finding areas to criticize when they're not a key component, nor would they affect my overall experience. In some cases I no longer looked at it as its own game but looked at it through the lens of Skyrim, or any TES game.

I finally get this post, sorry it took so long. Next time, just say it

Here's what I've deciphered this to mean: "Skyrim is an open world game. It's about exploration, therefore it's unfair to criticize secondary elements such as writing, dialogue, and characters." (correct me if I'm wrong)

I think that's a cop out. I'm so sick and tired of people saying "it's fine that X is totally deficient, because it's an open world game so they can't do Y." With Bethesda's budget and the amount of time they had (and could have had) for working on this game there's no excuse for it's piss poor dialogue, bland combat, repetitive uninteresting quests, and mediocre story. I'd like to type more, but I'm off to bed.

How dare you say a company with pillows stuffed full of cash make a in depth game.Do you not know it's impossible to make a open world engaging and somewhat deep.

oh what other genre's? as far as i know skyrim and the TES series in general is an open world rpg granted theres is much emphasis on the combat in skyrim but in the end its an open world rpg with much of its emphasis on exploration and quests.