Lachdonin Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 Yeah. They don't even give you the option of LIEING about it. I mean, really. I can lie about killing Cicero, why not Paarthunax? Its not like the Blades have ever seen him before, so even if he DOES decide to leave his perch on the Throat of the World, what are the chances they'd be able to recognise him? The conversation system in Skyrim shows the same flaws as in Oblivion, and its represented here very clearly. I myself have said that its a limit with the concept of voice acting and not Bethesda's fault at writing, but with Biowares promise tha DA3 is going to be open world, and their prenchant for extremely well done (though still, IMO, lacking) conversation systems, we'll see if that remains true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eltucu Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 The conversation system could be used right how it is now. Fallout New Vegas showed that open world and lots of diferent ways to act can go along pretty nicely, or more preciely, that Beth's way of doing RPG actually have room for every stuff that has been scrapped by the "its an open world, you cant have everything!" excuse. Everything that could bork a quest in Skyrim or Oblivion is dealt nice and clean in New Vegas. Want to kill the guy that gave you the main quest? Go ahead. Want to kill the main man right away? Just do it. Want to kill the main antagonist, you can too! You can kill everyone and finish the game, you can kill no one and finish the game. You can refuse to do what you've been told to do and finish the game or you can play pupet and ride along the other characters and finish the game anyway. I think that Beth doesnt care really. They could improve a lot by just using what they have, but i saw them stomp on the same rocks 3 games already lol Its almost like they think they have the golden formula and that nothing could be approached differently. That said, FONV lost that exploration spark that FO3 has but it showed a lot of improvement on the Achille's heels of Beth. Still, what im trying to say is that the conversation system appears to be limited cuz Beth has made limited choises, not cuz the system itself doesnt allows for them. I really tought that the idea that NV improved a lot of the weak stuff of Beth was going to be more widespread and that Beth would eventually catch up with that. The Civil War its pretty nice but still it isnt what it could have been, you chose Stormcloacks or Empire, but at the end you always have to say Yes to everything, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lachdonin Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 The conversation system could be used right how it is now. Fallout New Vegas showed that open world and lots of diferent ways to act can go along pretty nicely, or more preciely, that Beth's way of doing RPG actually have room for every stuff that has been scrapped by the "its an open world, you cant have everything!" excuse. Everything that could bork a quest in Skyrim or Oblivion is dealt nice and clean in New Vegas. Want to kill the guy that gave you the main quest? Go ahead. Want to kill the main man right away? Just do it. Want to kill the main antagonist, you can too! You can kill everyone and finish the game, you can kill no one and finish the game. You can refuse to do what you've been told to do and finish the game or you can play pupet and ride along the other characters and finish the game anyway. I think that Beth doesnt care really. They could improve a lot by just using what they have, but i saw them stomp on the same rocks 3 games already lol Its almost like they think they have the golden formula and that nothing could be approached differently. That said, FONV lost that exploration spark that FO3 has but it showed a lot of improvement on the Achille's heels of Beth. Still, what im trying to say is that the conversation system appears to be limited cuz Beth has made limited choises, not cuz the system itself doesnt allows for them. I really tought that the idea that NV improved a lot of the weak stuff of Beth was going to be more widespread and that Beth would eventually catch up with that. The Civil War its pretty nice but still it isnt what it could have been, you chose Stormcloacks or Empire, but at the end you always have to say Yes to everything, The problem with comparing the degree of impact in Skyrim with that of New Vegas is that in New Vegas, your actions there don't really have that dramatic an impact on the world at large. The next game could be set in France for all we know, and nothing you did in New Vegas will even be heard of over there. Meanwhile, the decision of whether or not Skyrim succeeds from the Empire is something which WILL be notable no matter where on Tamriel the next game is. Too much choice also runs directly counter to the cardinal theme of TES games, that being destiny. Still, you are right that New Vegas did show that you could pack in a lot of conversation, picking up the slack that Bethesda has let go since Oblivion. Its a touch of irony, i suppose, that it remains the only Fallout game i haven't beaten. It was just... Eh... I have to say, i even prefered Tactics to New Vegas... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spiritshadowx Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 I'm glad I wasn't the only one who thought he was too cute to kill. That crazy guy was like "OMG YOU GOTTA KILL THAT DRAGON HE IS EBIL" and I was like "lol no" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffboon97 Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 Awww! i am now in the quest! 1 Word I WON"T KILL HIM! He is so "cute" that i want to hug him so badly. Hahahah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eltucu Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 The problem with comparing the degree of impact in Skyrim with that of New Vegas is that in New Vegas, your actions there don't really have that dramatic an impact on the world at large. The next game could be set in France for all we know, and nothing you did in New Vegas will even be heard of over there.Considering that the settlement of New Vegas has everything to do with how FO1 and FO2 ended im not so sure that you're right. Meanwhile, the decision of whether or not Skyrim succeeds from the Empire is something which WILL be notable no matter where on Tamriel the next game is. Too much choice also runs directly counter to the cardinal theme of TES games, that being destiny. So what is your idea? I dont see a problem. Establish an ending as cannon, or every ending as cannon, they already did that with daggerfal, they could do it again. They could just write stuff that could end differently, obviously this stuff is going to fail horribly with things that have been writed to be definitive and conclusive (Morrowinds ending, Oblivions ending, etc), but if they wanted to write stuff differently, they could do that perfectly. Besides, Skyrim's ending already stablish three branchs of possible endings. Pretty opposite between themselves (empire, stormcloacks or just peace treaty and we'll se later what we can do) So i dun think that adding a fourth or fifth option would to that much harm. (skyrim ruled by the thalmor ending, player high king ending, etc), just put some pants on and say "this is cannon, that isnt cannon" and that would be enough. Beths messy lore is interesting, but i think they're blurring too much the line between lazy writing and maintaining their interesting style. Still, you are right that New Vegas did show that you could pack in a lot of conversation, picking up the slack that Bethesda has let go since Oblivion. Its a touch of irony, i suppose, that it remains the only Fallout game i haven't beaten. It was just... Eh... I have to say, i even prefered Tactics to New Vegas... Never played tactics nor FO1 or FO2 (but i read the history, thats why i know how they ended, arroyo, destruction of the oil rig, frank morrigan, and those Ban Vuren concept papers n art, bout the "proto legion" , BOOMB, etc) but i suppose that you're saying that its bad? If found it full with rich characters, lots of choises (im a fan of those, not a small portion of why i like The Witcher series so much), loved every major character of every faction, every one behaved like reasonable humans, hell, friggin raul, friggin caesar! and well, lot of stuff that goes right into what i would expect form a nice rpg. It was... Boring after a while sadly. Once you ran out of "histories to complete" it was the time to a. start a new character or b. wait for new dlc. Dead Money hooked me up, the next one killed any interest that i had in lots of the legion backstory and the third one, well, nice but too deatached, i dunno. Thats where i stopped. So yeah, im not so sure if an all NV styled Skyrim would be that good, but i'd be damned if it wasnt a step in the right (left actually :P ) direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClayboTGW Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 I keep him alive as long as I need shout locations then I kill him so I can get the +25% dragon melee resistance from esbern thou the quest is a bit bugged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
franklouuu Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 Yeah. They don't even give you the option of LIEING about it. I mean, really. I can lie about killing Cicero, why not Paarthunax? Its not like the Blades have ever seen him before, so even if he DOES decide to leave his perch on the Throat of the World, what are the chances they'd be able to recognise him? The conversation system in Skyrim shows the same flaws as in Oblivion, and its represented here very clearly. I myself have said that its a limit with the concept of voice acting and not Bethesda's fault at writing, but with Biowares promise tha DA3 is going to be open world, and their prenchant for extremely well done (though still, IMO, lacking) conversation systems, we'll see if that remains true. At least we should be able to send paarthunax to the future, so blades wouldn't notice the difference I really hate blade's "eye for an eye" morality Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcadiast Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 Yeah. They don't even give you the option of LIEING about it I already requested a mod for this. At first I wanted to request a mod where I stick Delphine up Esberns Bottom but than feared he might enjoy it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lachdonin Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 The problem with comparing the degree of impact in Skyrim with that of New Vegas is that in New Vegas, your actions there don't really have that dramatic an impact on the world at large. The next game could be set in France for all we know, and nothing you did in New Vegas will even be heard of over there.Considering that the settlement of New Vegas has everything to do with how FO1 and FO2 ended im not so sure that you're right. The issue isn't so much that the outcomes in FO1 and 2 didn't affect the world, its more in that only one outcome became canon. This is something of a running theme with FO games, though it may change, we don't really know. TES games, however, skirt by the issue by giving you the illusion of choice, but really only giving you a single outcome. The exception, of course, is Daggerfall, and the creation of the 'Warp In the West' and the associated Dragon Break was nothing short of genious, but if they were to have a Dragon Break every time there was a choice in the game, it would seem like time was unraveling. On Dragon Break is awesome. Two, eh. Three is too much, and more is just absurd. The Civil War is pushing it, and Beth is going to have to decide who wins, one way or another, and is going to piss off those who sided with the others. Its a dangerous line. The same can be said for Paarthunax and the Blades. If Paarth dies, his supporters will be upset. If he doesn't, the Blades dies out, and ceases to become a storytelling resource (And they've pretty much always been at the core of the stories). When dealing with continious story telling, too much choice isn't nessessarily a good thing. I do agree though, the range of voice acting and conversational choice in NV was vastly superior to Skyrim. Even if they just put in conversational choices which are for flavor, rather than trying to throw quest info at you, it would be an improvement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts