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

[Dukkah]

 

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.

 

Do you mean your dad leaving the Vault? I think everyone got that :tongue:

 

Joking aside though, I recall having to go to Megaton and being able to hack that Irish guy's cpu, kill him or do his quest, but they were three different routs to the same end. In that respect, one could argue that Beth just cleaned up what was a closet linear story. They just brought it out in the open.

 

Not to say I support linear story in my RPGs, of course...

[CalibanX]

F3 and NV both were good games, essentially cut from the same Bethesda cloth. Personally, I found absolutely nothing particularly interesting in any of the NPC's or quests in NV. In fact, I quickly grew bored of it. It has no where near the amount of quests that Skyrim has. This is an especially relevant point given how often there are threads complaining about how short the Guild quest lines in Skyrim are. NV had NO Guild quests at all. What it did have that resonated well with players was not better writing in terms of story or quests, but rather they implemented an intuitively appealing Reputation system with lots of different factions. Skyrim has more quest-related and exploring content than F3 or NV, and yes, it would be cool if the Reputation/Faction system of NV could be ported over to Skyrim, but I think it's almost adolescent to think that NV or some other video game represents some kind of excellence in literature in it's main quest or side quest scenarios compared to Skyrim.

[Iv000]

I agree with you CalibanX on most points.

But, you mentioned Dragon Age with its mountains of dialogue and that it can become boring. Well, I kind of disagree. Dragon Age's dialogues do become boring (personal opinion), but in a few other titles I found myself actually listening to the dialogue.

If dialogue and storytelling is done well enough, it can enhance the gaming experience, immersing you into the world. Examples being the Mass Effect series and the Assassin's Creed series.

I don't know if I'm the only one, but I played through Assassin's Creed 2 about 12 times, and it never became boring. The dialogue and the storytelling are really well done, so well that they don't become repetitive.

Same with the Mass Effect series. Which I think has the best storytelling and dialogue ever made. It's actually the opposite of what you said, the action/gameplay parts become boring and I just want to rush through them to get to the dialogue/story parts.

[CalibanX]

I agree with you CalibanX on most points.

But, you mentioned Dragon Age with its mountains of dialogue and that it can become boring. Well, I kind of disagree. Dragon Age's dialogues do become boring (personal opinion), but in a few other titles I found myself actually listening to the dialogue.

If dialogue and storytelling is done well enough, it can enhance the gaming experience, immersing you into the world. Examples being the Mass Effect series and the Assassin's Creed series.

I don't know if I'm the only one, but I played through Assassin's Creed 2 about 12 times, and it never became boring. The dialogue and the storytelling are really well done, so well that they don't become repetitive.

Same with the Mass Effect series. Which I think has the best storytelling and dialogue ever made. It's actually the opposite of what you said, the action/gameplay parts become boring and I just want to rush through them to get to the dialogue/story parts.

 

I agree about Mass Effect too. I found the action parts so boring that I wasn't able to finish the game. The dialogue/story parts of that game were more interesting to me than the action parts were. Of course, the Mass Effect and Dragon Age games are not open-world games, so, there's that. I haven't played Assassin's Creed so I can't comment on that. I don't usually play any game that doesn't give me the freedom to make my own character and playstyle. I'm too spoiled.

[abaris]

F3 and NV both were good games, essentially cut from the same Bethesda cloth. Personally, I found absolutely nothing particularly interesting in any of the NPC's or quests in NV. In fact, I quickly grew bored of it. It has no where near the amount of quests that Skyrim has.

 

Which, as I said in the beginning, is your opinion. Obviously you are not into story-playing and want more action. Perfectly all right, but don't present it as a general truth. It isn't.

 

I'm still not bored with FNV. I'm still discovering something new. I had my fun with Skyrim, but there I really got bored, since there's always more of the same. Crawl into cave, kill some Draugr, kill a Dragon on the way and that's about it.

 

Yes, that's my opinion. It's a good game, took up some of my time and certainly was worth it's money. But it isn't Bethesda's gift to humanity. Certainly not when it comes to storytelling, as Howard openly admits, although he kind of hides his words behind the "grand vista" PR veil. Truth is, it is quantity before quality. An endless stream of quests, which are actually just a handful in a hamster wheel.

[CalibanX]

F3 and NV both were good games, essentially cut from the same Bethesda cloth. Personally, I found absolutely nothing particularly interesting in any of the NPC's or quests in NV. In fact, I quickly grew bored of it. It has no where near the amount of quests that Skyrim has.

 

Which, as I said in the beginning, is your opinion. Obviously you are not into story-playing and want more action. Perfectly all right, but don't present it as a general truth. It isn't.

 

I'm still not bored with FNV. I'm still discovering something new. I had my fun with Skyrim, but there I really got bored, since there's always more of the same. Crawl into cave, kill some Draugr, kill a Dragon on the way and that's about it.

 

Yes, that's my opinion. It's a good game, took up some of my time and certainly was worth it's money. But it isn't Bethesda's gift to humanity. Certainly not when it comes to storytelling, as Howard openly admits, although he kind of hides his words behind the "grand vista" PR veil. Truth is, it is quantity before quality. An endless stream of quests, which are actually just a handful in a hamster wheel.

 

Did i say I was "not into story playing and want more action"? I didn't. As I've said from the beginning, the stories one typically finds in all video games are of the relative depth and narrative quality that one finds in video games. Which is to say, they are all pretty lame when compared with the story-telling you get in other mediums. I then said, that I didn't necessarily even think this was a bad thing as video games strengths are things like fighting, sneaking, exploring, etc and that these are the activities that one spends the overwhelming amount of their time doing anyway. And I'm cool with that.

 

However, I am curious as to these amazing stories and tons of unique encounters you're encountering in New Vegas? Care to elaborate? When I played, it was mostly a lot of shooting at "bandits" with a few monsters and robots thrown in. I fail to see how the enemies in NV are so captivating and varied compared with Skyrim.

[Rennn]

...so it makes little sense to complain about them.

 

Every quest in every video game ever made is merely something you would expect to find in a video game. If you want a great story with depth and detail go read a book. Video games are not naturally conducive to great story-telling. Comparing one video games' Main Quest to another is like arguing about which fastfood franchise makes a better chicken nugget. It's kinda stupid.

 

Even if you find a game whose Main Quest appeals to you, how many times are you going to replay it without skipping over vast chunks of dialogue in order to get to the last dialogue line that bestows the quests? Even in linear, "story-driven" games that put a lot of material into companion backstories and lots of dialogue like Dragon Age did; how fresh is all that material on the second play-through? Or the third? Or the fourth?

 

My point, is that video games don't need great stories to be enjoyably re-playable. In fact, they can be a cumbersome hindrance after the first play-through. All quests, weather they are Main Quests, Guild Quests or Side Quests are nothing more than flavorful window-dressing that launches you into another combat (or stealth) scenario.

 

Recently, I played two long quests in Skyrim. One was a "chapter" in the Companions Quest Line, the other, a Side Quest I got from a Wizard in Markarth. Was one quest better or more fun to play based on one of them having a more involved "story" than the other? No. They did not. Both quests, like 90% of all quests in all video games, are spent fighting past a gauntlet of enemies and/or to acquire some object or defeat a boss. The exact reasons for doing all of this fighting is not what makes or breaks a quest, but weather or not the combat/stealth/magic scenarios are challenging, visually appealing and just plain fun to do. I had a blast doing both quests. The particular, narrative details of any quest, in any video game are, almost always, entirely irrelevant. And there's nothing necessarily wrong with that. Again, if you want a compelling, complex story to sink your teeth into, go read a book. Books and other media can provide this. Video games; not so much.

 

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.

 

Disagree with most of this, but agree with the final line.

Look at some of the mod quests. Certain ones play out with more story than some books. Or look at Mass Effect; the story itself is a bit trite, but the characters are firmly a cut above 90% of books.

This is coming from a person who loves books. (how fresh is a book's story on a second reading, anyway? Not very)

 

TV is more of a limited medium than anything, at this point. It has zero advantages over either books or games. There was a time when it was superior to games, but not anymore.

Edited January 5, 2012 by Rennn

[CalibanX]

"Look at some of the mod quests. Certain ones play out with more story than some books. Or look at Mass Effect; the story itself is a bit trite, but the characters are firmly a cut above 90% of books.

This is coming from a person who loves books."

 

90%? Perhaps you're not reading the right books? ;)

Edited January 5, 2012 by CalibanX

[Dukkah]

Yes, that's my opinion. It's a good game, took up some of my time and certainly was worth it's money. But it isn't Bethesda's gift to humanity. Certainly not when it comes to storytelling, as Howard openly admits, although he kind of hides his words behind the "grand vista" PR veil. Truth is, it is quantity before quality. An endless stream of quests, which are actually just a handful in a hamster wheel.

 

I agree that the writing isn't the strongest, but I still don't think it's any worse than previous titles; just more disbursed throughout the world.

 

For instance, the Mage's guild line in Oblivion could be reduced to the guild's xenophobic purging of necromancers, causing them to rally around the King of Worms.

 

On the other hand, the College in Skyrim uncovers a strange artifact and finds itself caught between the powerful forces who have their eyes on it.

 

We've heard both stories before, but the main difference is length/content, which would seem to me to be more of a technical difference (the College not being treated like a faction as the Mages Guild was, probably due to time constraints).

 

So we miss the depth not because the writing got worse, but because of deeper, more structural changes to the gameplay itself.

[abaris]

 

I agree that the writing isn't the strongest, but I still don't think it's any worse than previous titles; just more disbursed throughout the world.

 

 

No, it isn't worse than any previous Elder Scroll game. Well, maybe Morrowind, but that's only because the concept was new back then. But one should expect some kind of evolution. At least when it comes to make a world recognize the player for what they are or aren't. That's all I ask from a game. Not being treated like the wayward village idiot from start to finish.

 

And as I said, there are indication, Howard and his team had plans. They didn't carry them out for whatever reason, probably because Zenimax looked at their wristwatch and gave the developer's backsides a good kicking towards the release door. For me there's no other explanation why the companion system is worse than in previous Bethesda titles and marriage is just being introduced to make some money and fiddle with some stats. Both parts are obviously skeletons and I'm thinking, they didn't want to leave it at that.