All video-game Quests are obligatory & irrelevent...

[abaris]

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.

 

Yet it is.

 

The main difference being an interactive environment. Like I said, nobody expects Pulitzer material in video games, but you can expect a reacting world. If you are still everybody's moron after having killed scores of dragons, after you have made boss of the uptenth guild, there's something seriously lacking in the writing department.

 

That is the difference to FNV and even Fallout 3.

 

In Skyrim you're totally detached from the world. You're a ghost moving through a static world where NPCs still ramble about the future exploits of long dead characters and guards go out of their way to insult you - even though you're supposed to be a person of regard in that region.

 

It even goes down to the companion level. If you compare the New Vegas companions with the Skyrim material, can you honestly say they are on par?

 

That is bad writing and blaming it on an open world is just an excuse. Not a very good one I might say.

Edited January 5, 2012 by abaris

[Shantih]

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.

 

If you can't tell the difference between the writing in FNV and the writing in Skyrim, Fallout 3 or other games by Bethesda then this discussion is utterly pointless. :facepalm:

 

You should play some good old games like Arcanum, Planescape Torment or the original Fallout. Then you'll get an idea of what good writing in a videogame looks like. Games with good writing and stories are not necessarily linear...

 

By the way don't get your knickers in a twist but the part about reading books is simply ludicrous. :happy:

[CalibanX]

Again, the fact that NPCs don't acknowledge your actions is design, not writing. The writing in video games is the stories that introduce Quests to you. The fact that you don't have a Reputation system in Skyrim as you did in NV is not narrative writing, that's game design. I too, would love to see more world interaction with the player in regards to your actions. But that has nothing to do with writing.

[CalibanX]

I haven't seen any evidence provided that shows any "superiority" of writing from another open world video game. Aside from issues of personal taste, I just see a lot of complaining about which brand of chicken nugget is superior. The story in NV is fine for a b-movie sci-fi revenge movie. The story in Skyrim is fine for a b-movie barbarian movie. What makes or breaks these games isn't the writing, it's game design choices.

[FordPerfect]

Has anyone here ever made a lengthy quest where every decision made by the player shunted the plot down a different path? With every decision the work involved increases exponentially and not necessarily quadratically either (who likes a constant A or B quest, "yes" or "no").

 

Say X is a juncture in a quest that requires a decision and X_n is one possible course of action.

 

First you can go one of two ways:

 

X₁ or X₂

 

Next for X₁ you can go one of three ways and for X₂ you can go one of four ways:

 

[X₁A or X₁B or X₁C] or [X₂A or X₂B or X₂C or X₂D]

 

Next for X₁A you can go one of two ways, for X₁B you can go one of three ways and for X₁C you can go one of four ways. Also for X₂A you can go one of three ways, for X₂B you can go one of two ways, for X₂C you can go one of four ways and for X₂D you can go one of three ways:

 

[X₁A₁ or X₁A₂] or [X₁B₁ or X₁B₂ or X₁B₃] or [X₁C₁ or X₁C₂ or X₁C₃ or X₁C₄] or [X₂A₁ or X₂A₂ or X₂A₃] or [X₂B₁ or X₂B₂] or [X₂C₁ or X₂C₂ or X₂C₃ or X₂C₄] or [X₂D₁ or X₂D₂ or X₂D₃]

 

or as a tree:

X₁ or X₂

[X₁A or X₁B or X₁C] or [X₂A or X₂B or X₂C or X₂D]

[X₁A₁ or X₁A₂] or [X₁B₁ or X₁B₂ or X₁B₃] or [X₁C₁ or X₁C₂ or X₁C₃ or X₁C₄] or [X₂A₁ or X₂A₂ or X₂A₃] or [X₂B₁ or X₂B₂] or [X₂C₁ or X₂C₂ or X₂C₃ or X₂C₄] or [X₂D₁ or X₂D₂ or X₂D₃]

 

So for a short quest involving 3 decisions each with multiple paths you've got a quest with 30 times the content of a linear quest but which will only show the same amount of it as a linear quest on a single playthrough. 30 times the content means 30 times the work required means 30 times the time required means 30 times the price. So if every quest in Skyrim was similar to my example it would be released in 2156, it would cost $1800 (not accounting for inflation or the destruction of civilization), and it would require the same time to complete every quest as it does now.

 

Just sayin'.. :turned:

 

ETA: There's no replacing a game master - at least not until we get a half-decent AI. :psyduck:

Edited January 5, 2012 by FordPerfect

[Dukkah]

I haven't seen any evidence provided that shows any "superiority" of writing from another open world video game. Aside from issues of personal taste, I just see a lot of complaining about which brand of chicken nugget is superior. The story in NV is fine for a b-movie sci-fi revenge movie. The story in Skyrim is fine for a b-movie barbarian movie. What makes or breaks these games isn't the writing, it's game design choices.

 

I agree, but I think this is Beth in transition. With the emphasis they've put on the Radiant Ai, it seems to me like they were/are trying to create such an integrated world. It's primitive, but they appear to be moving toward giving the Ai more say in how things change, to make the games more tailored toward the players. Thus, instead of a karma system where everyone somehow knows you're a saint or satan, each NPC has his or her opinion of you, if they know you at all.

[Dukkah]

ETA: There's no replacing a game master - at least not until we get a half-decent AI. :psyduck:

 

Yeah, and I think it is this sort of complexity that Beth is aiming for with the Radiant system. If not in this iteration, then with increasing precision in later titles.

[abaris]

Thus, instead of a karma system where everyone somehow knows you're a saint or satan, each NPC has his or her opinion of you, if they know you at all.

 

Yes, each one of them treats you like the new stable hand.

 

Fact is, they stepped back from what they already had with Fallout 3 and what they could witness with Fallout New Vegas. The writing - it's not design, since the designers keep to the book - is inferior to the two previous titles (developed or published by Bethesda).

 

They made a huge step backwards considering the companion system. They already had a working one with Fallout 3 and an even better one with Fallout New Vegas. But then the companions were "humans", reacting to the PC, having a backstory, whereas in Skyrim they are just cardboards with a very limited set of options. And besides, someone wrote them too. They don't just pop out of the designer's heads although one could argue they possibly did in Skyrim.

 

Howard is making excuses against his better judgement and he has my understanding, since everyone knowing a little bit about design and/or writing can easily see that he didn't want to leave it at the half baked attempt that is Skyrim's writing. There are certain indications that there were great plans that never came to fruition because someone, probably their owners kicked them towards release.

 

Finally, game development is very much like a movie or tv production. There are a lot of writers involved, supervised by the head writer tying up the lose ends and setting the general course. Designers just follow the book and the director - Which is where Howard comes in.

[Dukkah]

Thus, instead of a karma system where everyone somehow knows you're a saint or satan, each NPC has his or her opinion of you, if they know you at all.

 

Yes, each one of them treats you like the new stable hand.

 

Fact is, they stepped back from what they already had with Fallout 3 and what they could witness with Fallout New Vegas. The writing - it's not design, since the designers keep to the book - is inferior to the two previous titles (developed or published by Bethesda).

 

They made a huge step backwards considering the companion system. They already had a working one with Fallout 3 and an even better one with Fallout New Vegas. But then the companions were "humans", reacting to the PC, having a backstory, whereas in Skyrim they are just cardboards with a very limited set of options. And besides, someone wrote them too. They don't just pop out of the designer's heads although one could argue they possibly did in Skyrim.

 

Certainly. I've had more than one guard refer to me as the new Companion whose job could only be to fetch mead, though I'm the freakin' Harbinger. :pinch:

 

Still, I can't say it's in the writing. I mean, companions had a bit more to say in NV, but I remember getting bored with them pretty soon as well. Though I liked that they would give you stuff to do in their own quest lines; I like the few NPC followers in Skyrim that have quests as well. But NV was Obsidian, so can we really say the writing got worse when we're talking about two different teams? I'd say Skyrim is an improvement over Fallout 3 in companions having some story, though I admit that it's been a good while since I've played FO3.

 

Howard is making excuses against his better judgement and he has my understanding, since everyone knowing a little bit about design and/or writing can easily see that he didn't want to leave it at the half baked attempt that is Skyrim's writing. There are certain indications that there were great plans that never came to fruition because someone, probably their owners kicked them towards release.

 

Finally, game development is very much like a movie or tv production. There are a lot of writers involved, supervised by the head writer tying up the lose ends and setting the general course. Designers just follow the book and the director - Which is where Howard comes in.

 

Won't argue that the game wasn't rushed. But I'm suspicious whenever a dev snags a snazzy date like 11/11/11. It says to me the release will be pushed forward or delayed, and with the glitches and suspiciously cloudy map, I think we can conclude it wasn't delayed. :biggrin:

[abaris]

 

I'd say Skyrim is an improvement over Fallout 3 in companions having some story, though I admit that it's been a good while since I've played FO3.

 

 

Then play it again. I guess you won't talk about an improvement when you've seen what has already been in place. And look especially at how many different ways there are to even start the main quest.

Edited January 5, 2012 by abaris