Bethseda: why can't they make good stories?

[SpellAndShield]

I haven't even finished playing FONV and I am just thinking meh; you do some killing, some quests and well, that's about it. Compare that to Dragon Age or Mass Effect. I suppose the trade off is that you have a massive world to explore but honestly I would take some more story and interesting characters in exchange for less world.

Anyone else feel this way by chance?

[brokenergy]

Open worlds limit story telling. You get caught up with exploring that you forget the main quest and that's the problem with open worlds. My point is that BioWare and Bethseda are different gaming companies with different RPG philosophies. I'm a bit tired but I'll explain later.

[SpellAndShield]

Open worlds limit story telling. You get caught up with exploring that you forget the main quest and that's the problem with open worlds. My point is that BioWare and Bethseda are different gaming companies with different RPG philosophies. I'm a bit tired but I'll explain later.

 

OK. Looking forward...

[SpellAndShield]

Open worlds limit story telling. You get caught up with exploring that you forget the main quest and that's the problem with open worlds. My point is that BioWare and Bethseda are different gaming companies with different RPG philosophies. I'm a bit tired but I'll explain later.

 

 

Sorry, I gave up. I'll sell my copy on e-bay maybe. I just couldn't get into it (FONV). I think I will reinstall Dragon Age....at least the story is interesting and I want to test out some of these new class mods.

[Povuholo]

Obsidian made New Vegas, not Bethesda. ;)

[Kazakovich]

Well, to sort of help Brokenergy out here, I'll give my thoughts on the matter.

 

Since the examples are there, let's take Oblivion and Dragon Age. I don't actually own Dragon Age, and have only played it for about fifteen minutes, so my take on the game could very well be rather unfair, but one thing I noticed straight away is that there's a lot less of exploring to be had. At least compared to the average Bethesda game, where you're almost immediately let loose into an enormous world which you can head out in and explore to your hearts content. Dragon Age, and the average Bioware-game hav a huge advantage in that their worlds are often constructed on the grid of the story. They've been built with the story in mind.

 

Furthermore, Bioware are famous for their good writing. It's their main talent. Bethesda's main talent are making worlds. Both of them stick to what they're good at, which is just fine.

Open world gameplay, as Brokenergy said, got some disadvantages in the story department. You see, stories are always linear by their nature. Thus it's hard to knit them together with a non-linear setting. Not to mention; since they're so different by their nature, it's hard to directly compare Bioware-games with Bethesda-games, other than that they often use the same sort of setting.

 

Furthermore, I don't think Bethesda put as much weight on the main storyline as Bioware. They're more concerned with keeping the exploring and dungeon-diving stimulating, which does place the story in the back seat a fair bit. But it's up to the individual player what they make of that.

Bioware, on the other hand, focus much more on getting their story across, and design gameplay and their worlds accordingly. Writing an exiting story is their bread and butter, and they understand that. Once more, it's up to the individual what they make of it. Everyone got a different idea on what's the most important components of a game.

 

Well, this post of mine turned into a complete mess, but I hope it's readable, at least. Brokenergy could probably explain what I mean a lot better. :laugh:

 

Oh, and as a post scriptum; Bethesda didn't make Fallout: New Vegas, Obsidian did. They're quite innocent reguarding the storyline for once. :happy:

[SpellAndShield]

Obsidian made New Vegas, not Bethesda. ;)

 

 

I know but the concept is the same (at least here).

[SpellAndShield]

Well, to sort of help Brokenergy out here, I'll give my thoughts on the matter.

 

Since the examples are there, let's take Oblivion and Dragon Age. I don't actually own Dragon Age, and have only played it for about fifteen minutes, so my take on the game could very well be rather unfair, but one thing I noticed straight away is that there's a lot less of exploring to be had. At least compared to the average Bethesda game, where you're almost immediately let loose into an enormous world which you can head out in and explore to your hearts content. Dragon Age, and the average Bioware-game hav a huge advantage in that their worlds are often constructed on the grid of the story. They've been built with the story in mind.

 

Furthermore, Bioware are famous for their good writing. It's their main talent. Bethesda's main talent are making worlds. Both of them stick to what they're good at, which is just fine.

Open world gameplay, as Brokenergy said, got some disadvantages in the story department. You see, stories are always linear by their nature. Thus it's hard to knit them together with a non-linear setting. Not to mention; since they're so different by their nature, it's hard to directly compare Bioware-games with Bethesda-games, other than that they often use the same sort of setting.

 

Furthermore, I don't think Bethesda put as much weight on the main storyline as Bioware. They're more concerned with keeping the exploring and dungeon-diving stimulating, which does place the story in the back seat a fair bit. But it's up to the individual player what they make of that.

Bioware, on the other hand, focus much more on getting their story across, and design gameplay and their worlds accordingly. Writing an exiting story is their bread and butter, and they understand that. Once more, it's up to the individual what they make of it. Everyone got a different idea on what's the most important components of a game.

 

Well, this post of mine turned into a complete mess, but I hope it's readable, at least. Brokenergy could probably explain what I mean a lot better. :laugh:

 

Oh, and as a post scriptum; Bethesda didn't make Fallout: New Vegas, Obsidian did. They're quite innocent reguarding the storyline for once. :happy:

 

Don't worry, I understand exactly what both you and Broke mean. As a person though, I would rather have a great story with a robust combat system than wandering around aimlessly from one cave to the next without any real point. Just my personal preference...

[brokenergy]

Back!

 

Thanks Kaza for your in site. I played both so I know a little more but I know what you mean. BioWare gives the illusion of freedom by compensating actual freedom while Bethseda does the opposite by giving you actual freedom but lowers the urgency of the story. Both have advantages and disadvantages but this depends of which side you see it. Personally I like BioWare more because more importance to the story but it doesn't mean I like Bethseda less. But like I said before that they both have different philosophies about RPG and RPG's are murky business to deal with because there isn't a one size fits all approach.

[Amoramor]

I know, Oblivion's story and character advancement system sucked, but all the freedom to do anything you want made up for it. Likewise, Bioware prefers story and roleplaying aspects over freedom. Jumping for instance, is something that I have always wanted to do in Bioware's games.

 

If Bethesda's open worlds and flexibility were combined with Bioware's stories and roleplaying elements into a single game, we'd have the perfect roleplaying game (in my opinion).

 

I have to admit though, that even Bioware's stories aren't always that good.