Shantih Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 (edited) I get the point that you're trying to make but I can't agree with anything you've posted. :) Movies are not ideal when it comes to character development; they can't be too subtle about it because they have to wrap everything up in two hours. A book can go on about it for hundreds of pages (if not thousands). CRPGs are all about character development. What is levelling up if not a way to develop your character? In SKyrim your character's actions have a direct consequence on the way he or she is evolving and that is the gaming side of character development. So IMO the gaming can work with the story rather than being at odds with it. You've mentioned Dragon Age Origins and the various origins are very good examples of what a decent exposition should be about. The tutorial in Fallout 3 was all about making you care for your character and creating ties with some NPCs. Some games don't force your hand. FNV allows you to determine what your character's past is without forcing you to comply with one background. The Vault dwelling part of Fallout 3 was a severe limitation if you wanted a more "exotic" character and the Courier in FNV can be whatever you want him or her to be. So spending an hour going through a tutorial should be enough in most cases to get a feel of the character. Skyrim doesn't really does that and the tutorial is all about action rather than character development and that's a reason why it's lacking. It's not that we don't really know why the Dragonborn is sent to the block, it's that it is never brought into question or that the PC can't choose that he or she got a raw deal or that the character was actually guilty of some crime. Both options would have allowed some character development. Nothing in Skyrim is preventing you from deciding that your character was framed or wrongfully accused but nothing will support that in game and you will have to fill in the gaps yourself. Watching a movie repeatedly is not unheard of and there are books that are so compelling that some people end up reading them over and over. Many people have said that after finishing reading the Lord of the Rings they simply had to start reading it again. How many people are fans of big movies like Star Wars and watch them over and over again? The big difference between watching the same movie and playing the same videogame is that the game is much longer and in the case of CRPG the game will probably be different when it is replayed. So I would argue that (good) videogames have more "replayability" because of that. It took me three years of (exclusively) playing Fallout 2 to go through every possible choices in this game and see everything the game had to offer. Especially when it comes to big games that allow you to explore many different options and not necessarily go through the same quests. Of course if you replay a game in the same way every time then you can forget about replayability. As far as "sad" moments there is not such a huge difference between movies and videogames. Plot twists may be a better example for you. A plot twist can only surprise you once and after that replaying the game is like watching the Sixth Sense a second time and piecing things together (which can be fun). Sadness or emotional moments in movies and games probably work in the same way. Knowing that this particular scene is going to happen doesn't necessarily lessen its impact if you relate to the characters and what is happening on the screen. Skipping through cutscenes or dialogues in a videogame to get to the action is no different than fast forwarding through a chatty scene to get to the action sequence in a blockbuster. Don't assume everyone is doing it. Some of us may actually prefer the "chatty" scenes to the action sequences. Good movies are not just about action sequences. The lengthy scenes that build up tension and allow for character development are important for us to care whether or not the good guy will defeat the villains and ruin their nefarious plots. In fact the problem with many movies today is that they focus on action and overlook the importance of exposition and character development. The same applies to videogames. By ignoring the story and choosing not to get involved in it you end up playing an adventure game rather than a CRPG, it's all about action and that's pretty much it. Like I said in my previous post, there is nothing wrong about playing the game this way but you are certainly missing out on what makes a CRPG a more entertaining game (at least for some of us) and you may as well be playing GTA or an FPS (I have nothing against these games by the way but I personally prefer CRPGs for the roleplaying element). Edited January 5, 2012 by Shantih Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marharth Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 Totally agree! This and movies. f***ing crazy people wanting their movies to have story. Go read a book if you want story! Hell how am I supposed to re-watch my movies if I have to sit through all the boring story and dialog? Skip right to the action and the big explosions! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abaris Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 (edited) Todd Howard said in an interview that they would never be able to make a Main Quest that's as compelling as the open vista of a wide, explorable world. I wholeheartedly agree. You agree - that kind of sums it up. It is your opinion. For me it's a rather sad statement because he admits that they lack in the writing department. Other games have shown how to present a compelling story. And in the case of RPGs, as has been said, a compelling story is a necessity. An open world is just that, a void, empty, waiting to fill it with some life. You also can't say video games. When it comes to shooters, you may have a point. People don't play shooters to experience a story, but if you introduce a mindless number crunching killing machine to the open vista, as Howard says, you're down to a window dressed Castle Wolfenstein. And that's probably not what the general Elder Scroll audience expects. Skyrim, as Howard obviously admits, lacks in the story telling department. But that doesn't mean, it can't work with games. It can. There have been pretty recent examples. Another element that well written games offer is choice. Choices are the forks in the storyline. Again, examples have shown it can be done. Howard just admits that his team isn't up to scratch in that department. Edited January 5, 2012 by abaris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shantih Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 (edited) Abaris makes some good points. It's clear after playing Fallout New Vegas that the good people at Bethesda have a lot to learn when it comes to writing and storytelling. That is no news and it's true that they could do a lot better. It seems to me that admitting to this is a confession that they lack ambition in that respect and that they'd rather stick to the good old formula instead of taking risks and challenging the player base with something different. I haven't played many shooters but most of them have some basic backstory and characters that you follow throughout entire campaigns. That doesn't make them RPGs but it may help getting interested in the action. Edited January 5, 2012 by Shantih Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abaris Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 I haven't played many shooters but most of them have some basic backstory and characters that you follow throughout entire campaigns. That doesn't make them RPGs but it may help getting interested in the action. I don't know where to put the Mass Effect series. Basically it's shooter meets RPG. But there's a story, with fleshed out characters and the element of choice. So it would be an example for a well written game. It's probably easier to write a story if you can follow one overall arc, but that doesn't mean - as FNV has shown - that the story automatically has to take the backseat when you set it into the grand open. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calyps Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 What is up with all these people who complain that people complain? Bethesda are not the best writers in the RPGing business and it's perfectly valid to point out their shortcomings so maybe they can do better next time. And writing is writing. In books and on cereal boxes. If it's bad it's tedious and embarrassing, if it's good it's a pleasure. Saying video gamers should suck it up and accept shitty writing is the worst kind of "shut up and eat your shoe leather" status quo defending BS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InAComaDial999 Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 Let's assume that a game does manage to develop a good story (by your own standards) that makes you care about certain NPC's. For me, Dragon Age did this. ... Especially in Bethesda games, the world is where the action is, not the Quests. You are absolutely right, but that's because DA and Skyrim are fundamentally different types of games; this is why the premise of your original post is fundamentally wrong. Games like Dragon Age and Mass Effect have epic high-fantasy type storylines, and are not at all open worlds. Regardless of how you play them or the choices you make, they tell basically the same story every time, perhaps from a different point of view or with certain key characters changing. The point of the game is the story, your character is the vehicle through which you experience it. The TES games are completely different from this; they are sandbox games that happen to feature a largely optional "main quest". You can do whatever you want, the point is to play with the world. You can't really compare the two experiences, they aren't designed for remotely the same thing. I personally love the DA and Mass Effect type games, but I basically play through them once and don't play them again for months, if ever. I have a single character that I've played through both Mass Effect games, and I won't play the first game again until I've completed the entire trilogy with this character. On the other hand, I replayed Morrowind, Oblivion, and now Skyrim all the time, constantly creating new characters and rarely doing the same thing twice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abaris Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 And writing is writing. In books and on cereal boxes. If it's bad it's tedious and embarrassing, if it's good it's a pleasure. Saying video gamers should suck it up and accept shitty writing is the worst kind of "shut up and eat your shoe leather" status quo defending BS. Even more so since nobody expects Pulitzer material from a game story. It will always be save the world in one way or the other. But if you're part of that story you expect at least to be drawn in with fleshed out interesting characters on the way. You certainly don't expect to be chased from tedious fight to tedious fight whilst everyone treats you like the wayward village idiot from start to finish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azaltan Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 ''Todd Howard said in an interview that they would never be able to make a Main Quest that's as compelling as the open vista of a wide, explorable world'' So huge explorable map is their excuse for shallow 6th grade writing.. I wonder what is his excuse for shitty animations and pathetic AI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CalibanX Posted January 5, 2012 Author Share Posted January 5, 2012 (edited) I've played Fallout 3 and New Vegas too and the writing in those games is not any big departure from the writing in Skyrim. They are all exactly the sort of thing you find in video games. If you expect more time spent on story in a Bethesda game you are going to be disappointed. They make big world games, not big story games. Video games that try to have a more lengthy story are all linear games with little replay value. And even in those games, the "story" you receive is nothing special if one has read books before. If you really think video games are great examples of writing, you really need to read some more. It's silly to get all bent out of shape about the supposed inferiority of the writing in Skyrim. It's not as if Oblivion or Fallout were some magnum opus. The writing is sufficient for the needs of an open world video game. "Leveling up" is not in any way equivalent to character development in a story. Leveling is a game mechanic that has nothing to do with writing. The same goes for what NPCs say to you in passing. If your complaint is that the members of Guilds don't recognize your status the fault there is not "writing" but game design. I very much get the impression that many commenters are lumping a lot of design complaints in with the Quest Story complaints. They are completely different things. Edited January 5, 2012 by CalibanX Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts