Criticism, praise and hopes for Bethesda's next games after Skyrim

[RokHere]

Bioware's storytelling works because their games are more confined and linear, yes you can run off and do side things, but compared to the ES series Bioware's games are considerably more focused.

 

The main drawing point, and one of the most loved features, of the ES series is that you can run off and do anything whenever but the ES biggest draw is also the cause of its biggest flaw. When you have such levels of "do whatever whenever" the game devs have to make things more generalized to accommodate all the possible times in which you could do something and as such the stories seem considerably more bland in comparison.

 

I do wish the stories were better, but if doing so requires that the game have less free-roam, I would rather have the lesser story then the lesser free-roam. Bioware's methods are good for Bioware, and Bethesda's methods are good for Bethesda. I really don't think they should be more like each other.

 

You can't make up for free roaming exploration outside of games, you can however make up good story outside games.

 

Beyond that I find the Cryengine and Frostbyte to be ugly graphics engines, I would rather ES be on SOURCE then those.

 

Regarding the "it's this way because of that" or "it's either this or that" argument, I believe those are rumors propagated by lazy developers who want to justify their laziness, or justify what they're doing by those rumors and excuses when the real reason was simply budget. I see absolutely nothing to stand in the way of creating a world like Skyrim with BioWare's characters, conversations, and voice acting. In fact, while Dragon Age 1 may not be a perfect example of the possibility, it's still a pretty good one. Yes, it was not an open world that you're free to roam however you like, but it was pretty damn close to that, and its storytelling was epic....characters and conversations were awesome. I'm sure we can have the best of both worlds. Bethesda doesn't have to compromise its strengths when copying the strengths of other companies, and BioWare wouldn't have to compromise its strengths when copying the strengths of other companies.

 

Now regarding your game-engine comment, I don't know what to say. Are you trying to actually suggest that SOURCE....Valve's 7-years-old engine is better than CryEngine 3.0 or Forstbite 2.0?!!!!!!! Holy crap...hehehe...I don't know what to say. Have you even watched Battlefield 3's trailer that was produced purely from in-game footage? It looked like a freaking cinematic trailer, but it was fully gameplay. And Crysis 1, produced 4 years ago, can still look awesome today. CryEngine was the best graphics engine years ago without any other engine even coming near enough to be a real rival...it put everyone else to shame years ago; it revolutionized graphics in the gaming world and raised the standards so high, everyone else had to spread rumors and desperately find fault in it and the only thing they could say was..."It's difficult to develop for." And today, I don't see any competition for CryEngine 3.0 other than Frostbite 2.0. Bringing Valve's Source into this bunch sounds downright laughable; I really did laugh...it's absurd, I won't even get into an argument of comparison, because it would mean I'm taking the comparison seriously, and I never would! And frankly, with so much foliage in Bethesda's open worlds, there is absolutely no rival for CryEngine 3.0 for them; it's the best engine on earth for big worlds, rich with foliage, which would still run on humble PCs, and all other engines are years behind in this specific aspect. Frostbite 2.0 is competing with some nice perks like lighting, destructability, but it's nowhere near CryEngine when it comes to foliage, like jungles, tundras, etc., especially in big, open worlds.

[sajuukkhar9000]

DA1 really isn't that great of an example IMO, its the exact same as Mass Effect 1. It is mostly constrained and linear, that is why its story works. Most of everything in that game happens in a linear fashion, the diffrent areas you go to have leveled enemies in an attempt to get you to do them in a specific order. DA1 is a FAR FAR cry from the ES level of free-romaning.

 

Looking at Fallout New Vegas, what happens when you get The followers, The BoS, The NCR, The Kings etc etc. all on your side? Do they start commingling with each other? Do the NCR chill in the Follower's fort? Do the Kings and the NCR go out for beers? No they just stay in their own little bubbles until the final battle arrives. The amount of scripting that would need to be done to cover all the possible levels of interaction is mind boggling it has to stop somewhere.

 

 

 

As for graphics engines Frostbite and CryEngine only provide graphics, they have no style to them just stark realism. Style > graphics IMO. I would rather have Borderlands graphics then Battlefield 3's graphics because its actually interesting to look at. Battlefield 3 is just dull and bland, sure it all high textured but that doesn't mean its fun to look at.

Edited January 17, 2012 by sajuukkhar9000

[Syco21]

Bioware games aren't linear, but they are a lot smaller in scale than TES games. TES games are far more linear than Bioware games. But to give them branching story lines like Bioware does for their games would be a massive undertaking.

 

It'd also require a lot more space. Just look at Mass Effect 2, it requires 2 discs but isn't anywhere near the size or scope of Skyrim. It shouldn't be too hard to make consequences for decisions made in the civil war. It would be a "If Y then X, else B" kind of situation. Nut there could be budgetary, time and space concerns if they did that. This is why I'd be willing to accept text. If my choice is a world with more consequences for your choice and having every last bit of dialogue voiced, then I'd take the former if integrated well.

[Syco21]

Looking at Fallout New Vegas, what happens when you get The followers, The BoS, The NCR, The Kings etc etc. all on your side? Do they start commingling with each other? Do the NCR chill in the Follower's fort? Do the Kings and the NCR go out for beers? No they just stay in their own little bubbles until the final battle arrives. The amount of scripting that would need to be done to cover all the possible levels of interaction is mind boggling it has to stop somewhere.

It makes since for the different factions not to commingle. But what doesn't make sense, is for them to be fine with your given massive support to their sworn enemies unless there is a specific reason. IE you went out as a diplomat to negotiate a temporary truce in order to deal with the greater threat facing all of their factions.

 

If you give a great deal of help to NCR, then the Legion should be hostile towards you. And they are, if you continue providing assistance to the NCR, then a Legionnaire will warn you that your continued support for the NCR will mark you as an enemy of the Legion. This makes sense and should be applied to Skyrim.

[sajuukkhar9000]

It makes since for the different factions not to commingle. But what doesn't make sense, is for them to be fine with your given massive support to their sworn enemies unless there is a specific reason. IE you went out as a diplomat to negotiate a temporary truce in order to deal with the greater threat facing all of their factions.

 

If you give a great deal of help to NCR, then the Legion should be hostile towards you. And they are, if you continue providing assistance to the NCR, then a Legionnaire will warn you that your continued support for the NCR will mark you as an enemy of the Legion. This makes sense and should be applied to Skyrim.

 

You're saying it makes sense that allies don't commingle? Isn't the point of allies to team up/join forces/be friends to take out a common enemy.

 

 

Also as long as you have provided some assistance to The Legion, I don't think they should turn hostile against you, until the point you actually start murdering their guys and someone is left alive to witness it. In Skyrim this is easily explained by you having murdered everyone at the enemy forts thus the should have zero knowledge that you did it. I never understood how in New Vegas if I killed EVERY Legion member in a camp that the rest of The Legion somehow knew it was me. It was so illogically implemented in New Vegas.

 

The Stormcloaks should have no idea that I just helped The Empire take over their forts because everyone there is dead. All they should know is that I support The Empire, which several people do in Stormcloak cities and don't get killed or attacked because of it.

Edited January 17, 2012 by sajuukkhar9000

[sajuukkhar9000]

ugh double post Edited January 17, 2012 by sajuukkhar9000

[RokHere]

DA1 really isn't that great of an example IMO, its the exact same as Mass Effect 1. It is mostly constrained and linear, that is why its story works. Most of everything in that game happens in a linear fashion, the diffrent areas you go to have leveled enemies in an attempt to get you to do them in a specific order. DA1 is a FAR FAR cry from the ES level of free-romaning.

 

As for graphics engines Frostbite and CryEngine only provide graphics, they have no style to them just stark realism. Style > graphics IMO. I would rather have Borderlands graphics then Battlefield 3's graphics because its actually interesting to look at. Battlefield 3 is just dull and bland, sure it all high textured but that doesn't mean its fun to look at.

 

I must agree with others on the point that BioWare's games are not that linear, or as linear as some people make it sound like. And let me demonstrate why: maybe DA1 isn't a great example, but imagine Mass Effect 2 with the ability to actually travel from planet to planet by actually driving the Normandy in space, and encountering other ships occasionally or smaller planets that can be explored, and that are rich with creatures, bases to raid, etc. It would then be very comparable to Skyrim, and no one would say it is that linear. Because just like you can ignore the main quest and just explore smaller cities and do quests in them in Skyrim, Mass Effect 2 also allows you to ignore the main quest line for a while and do side quests, retrieving objects from planets and helping teammates, and so on. Yes, there are as many quests in ME2 as there are in Skyrim, but then the issue here isn't a linear vs. radial quest system, but a quantity issue. In ME2 you do have the freedom to do this quest first, or that quest first. To explore this planet first, or that one first. And just like some planets don't feel that big because you only get to visit on single base and it's small, some towns in Skyrim are also very small with only a 2 houses or so, 1 inn, and 1 shop. So there is a valid argument that BioWare's games aren't necessarily or exactly linear, but they simply rely on depth and quality of individual elements, rather than inundating the player with almost countless options and a rich world. Both are valid directions and have their fan bases. For me personally, I confess that Bethesda has never convinced me to "beat" or finish any of its games...ever! I did play some of its games for dozens of hours, not just 20-40, like Morrowind and Oblivion, but for some reason, it got so tedious, and I always just stopped my first playthrough mid-way, and went back to start a new game with a new class and race, and then I couldn't finish that second playthrough either, and I always hated that. On the other hand, I've finished ME1 and ME2 several times both, and finished DA1 once, and finished DA2 perhaps 3 times. For some reason, BioWare's style keeps me interested and motivates me to keep going and to know how things will end. And when I have already finished it, I go again for a different experience with a different class; I'm not sure why I go again; maybe their combat feels more fun to me than Bethesda's combat, and maybe I keep loving the excellent voice acting and great storytelling so I'm willing to see the same story unfold in front of me again, and maybe it's a mix of both. With that said, Skyrim is leagues ahead of Morrowind and Oblivion and so far it is engaging me a lot more than the older games, but I also found myself breaking my first playthrough to try a different class. I think that I will finish Skyrim at least once, and that would be the first time ever for a Bethesda game; with that said, I still have healthy apprecation and respect for the company, and feel passionate about what they do well, I just would like to see them do other elements well too so gamers of my type can be sucked into their games just like we get sucked into BioWare's games. I also want Bethesda to keep using better voice actors, and to improve some of their animations...particularly the part of their animations where the limbs of any creatures or NPC touch the ground for walking, it bothers me soooooooo much and really puts me off to see the feet of characters "moonwalking" or "sliding" on the ground, with no feeling of friction at all of the sole against the ground, as if they're literally skating on ice or something...this really puts me off and just compromises my immersion in the wonderful looking world over and over again. I want to feel that the inhabitants of Bethesda's worlds are actually stepping on something, and their feet are touching the ground. =)

 

Commenting on your second point, of course style will trump technical excellence of graphics most of the time. However, that's not an engine issue, dude; that's an art direction, style, and palette issue! I mean, a company can license Crytek's CryEngine 3.0, for example, and decide to produce a game with the same artistic style of Borderlands, and imagine what they can do with it...imagine seeing your Borderlands 3 protagonist walking through a tundra area, and the tall, thick blades of grass are richly sliding past your screen as a creature is slowly emerging from a cloud of dust ahead of you. CryEngine 3.0 can be used to produce an exact copy of Borderlands, but with far more richness and possibilities, especially in terms of foliage or areas like jungles and tundras; but they do cities just as awesomely, of course, and this was shown in Crysis 2's NYC. So yeah, whether it's Borderlands (and by the way, Borderlands used Unreal anyway, not Source) or Left 4 Dead (which used Source), the way those games look is independent of those engines, and it is only a matter of art direction. Battlefield 3 has its appeal in terms of realism. I wouldn't say that Borderlands or Borderlands 2 is / was better than Battlefield 3, or that BF3 is better; they both have their times and places. BF3 is a much more realistic type of game, so if it lacks the visual "wow" or pretty factor, that's not an engine issue and it wouldn't be an art direction issue either, but simply because real-life war isn't exactly cute or pretty anyway, and it doesn't happen in very "interesting" looking places. But yeah, use Frostbite 2.0 or preferably CryEngine 3.0 in Borderlands, with proper art direction and attention to detail, and we can probably be mind-blown with a cinematic gameplay experience through and through, as if we're watching a Pixar movie, but not really watching it, we're actually playing it.

[RokHere]

The Stormcloaks should have no idea that I just helped The Empire take over their forts because everyone there is dead. All they should know is that I support The Empire, which several people do in Stormcloak cities and don't get killed or attacked because of it.

This may sound logical at first impression, but with reference to a certain feel about how things work in Skyrim from actually playing the game, you get the impression that the Stormcloaks most definitely must soon enough find out that it's you. Why? Two reasons: 1. spies who are naturally everywhere in Skyrim, and 2. You being a central character in the world, it seems that everyone hears almost everything about you eventually, if you join the Companions, guards at the other end of the world find out next day, if you become their leader, ditto. So you really think that you can eradicate all Stormcloaks' forts and jeopardize their whole existence without them catching up to your identity soon enough even if you're thorough with your cleansing of those forts or bases? Fat chance. As long as you tell the Legion or anyone that you've accomplished the missions, word must eventually travel in a world like Skyrim. This is that impression that we get while playing the game and listening to random comments from city guards and other NPCs. As I mentioned before, I was literally shocked when I found out that joining the Legion won't have consequences in Stormcloaks' cities, because I was under the impression all along that I would, and was delaying the decision because of that!

[sajuukkhar9000]

Mass Effect 2 has nowhere near the same amount of quests as Skyrim.

 

Beyond that I can only ever finished Bioware games once, Mass Effect 1 and Dragon Age 1 are a chore to get through especially considering it's 70% talking, and I have heard the exact same lines repeated over and over in these drawn out conversations. Conversations in games are good, but when I have to make popcorn just to get through some of them due to the length I think there is a problem.

 

Mass Effect 2 was better, in that I have actually played through it twice, because the combat didn't blow as hard as ME1, though I think they made it to Gears of War like and removed to many of the RPG elements, and Dragon Age 2..... was just terrible, the fan outcry about it was almost a deathblow to Bioware.

 

Comparatively I have finished Morrowind 7 times, Oblivion 7 or 8 times, and I am waiting for the CK to come out so modders can fix Skyrim's quest bugs before I go for playthrough 3. Bethesda games appeal to me more, they have sufficient dialog as to portray a story moderately well, with extra outside-game material reinforcing the story, but they don't try so hard to explain every little tiny detail that the conversations gets drawn out to 30 minute endeavors like Mass Effect.

 

Also I don't know what you are talking about when you describe their walking, it sounds like you have a bug or something because the walking in Skyrim is nothing like that for me.

 

 

 

The thing is though game engines are built to fulfill a certain style, the CryEngine or Frostbite wont ever be able to do Borderlands like graphics because they weren't made for it. It doesn't fall within the design specifications of said engine. You cant just do any style with any engine, you have to build your engine around your style.

 

Secondly I never said Borderlands used source, that is a random thing to say.

 

and we can probably be mind-blown with a cinematic gameplay experience through and through, as if we're watching a Pixar movie, but not really watching it, we're actually playing it.

Making games "cinematic" is the single greatest threat to gaming ever. Games are not movies, they shouldn't be "cinematic" because cinematic means scripted events that take control away from the player like CoD or battlefield's atrocious use of them. At that point they are no longer games they are interactive movies which is NOT what games are.

 

One of the main reasons I love Valve is because they refuse to take control away from the player beyond the very opening cut-scene, and one instance in Episode 2 you ALWAYS have control of Gordon. If game devs take control away from you they have failed.

Edited January 17, 2012 by sajuukkhar9000

[RokHere]

Mass Effect 2 has nowhere near the same amount of quests as Skyrim.

Yes, that was a typo; I meant to say that maybe ME2 does not have as many quests as Skyrim, so it's a quantity issue, not linear vs. radial.

 

...and Dragon Age 2..... was just terrible, the fan outcry about it was almost a deathblow to Bioware.

I personally enjoyed DA2 more than DA1. It was very difficult for me to beat or finish DA1, but easy and smooth to beat DA2, and I enjoyed the combat of DA2 more. And this can't be just because of an assumption that I'm an "action game" type of guy rather than a hardcore RPG kind of gamer, because I still consider Fallout I and II, which were not even real-time but turn-based, all-time favorites of mine and classics. I loved them and enjoyed them a lot. So there must be another secret as to why I get sucked into BioWare's games more than Bethesda's, and why I enjoyed DA2 more than DA1. Perhaps it is a "big picture vs. details" kind of thing, or a "micromanagement vs. don't bother me with details" kind of thing. From the arguments on forums back in the day, I noticed that lots of people actually loved the complexity of DA1 and ME1, and hated the simplicity of DA2 and ME2, while I felt completely the opposite way; lots of people actually wanted to micromanage their protagonists and their companions' gear upgrades in ME2 and DA2 just as they used to do in DA1 and ME2; heck, some even wanted to micromanage or "have control" over the freaking ammo types and bullet types!! I was like, "What the hell?!!!!!!" This is a nightmare for me, and I don't want to be bothered with such minute details; I'm not interested in micromanagement. I'm quite happy with automated upgrading of most things, and just a little bit of control over the type of weapons I use and general category of armor (light or heavy), and that's about it...let me jump into the fray and start to actually use those weapons in the fight. I have little time to spend in micromanaging in a game really; there's enough of that in real life. That's just how I think about it, and that's partially why I appreciated many of the changes in DA2 and ME2. But maybe others actually enjoy the same exact things that I dread. The solution, in my opinion, is to allow the players that level of micromanagement, but to also give players like me the option to simply just have those things automated. And don't get me wrong; I never ever allow ME2 or DA2 to automatically level up my character, I hate that. I definitely want to have control over what kinds of powers I give to my character, but also choose ammo type? Hell no, thanks.

 

but they don't try so hard to explain every little tiny detail that the conversations gets drawn out to 30 minute endeavors like Mass Effect.

Strange, I never felt that way in ME2. I never felt that any of the conversation were that long. In fact, you can totally just skip the whole conversation by going for the options on the right side? The options on the left side are what keep the conversation going. The game that actually did make me feel that way you describe was The Witcher 2! Oh my God, that game started with such long, long conversations, and right off the bat, before I could even start killing one single enemy! And some of the accents used in those long conversations weren't even the most pleasant to listen to, so I was like, "Oh man, when is this ever gonna end?? Why do you have to take so long right in the beginning of the story, and telling me something that I have absolutely no idea about...I don't even know what this dude with a weird accent is talking about!"

 

Also I don't know what you are talking about when you describe their walking, it sounds like you have a bug or something because the walking in Skyrim is nothing like that for me.

Please pay close attention to as many walking NPCs as possible, especially right at the moment when the foot behind touches the ground, you'll see the foot or shoe touching the ground, stopping, then literally sliding backwards (moonwalking style). Also pay attention to your own feet in third-person view on irregular surfaces in dungeons, for example, and you may be able to find a good distance between your shoes and the ground, as if your character is floating. I can try and screenshot the latter if I am bothered, or Fraps the moonwalking if I'm crazy enough just to prove my point. If anyone can second what I'm describing, I'd be grateful...at least so I can be sure whether I have a bug or not!

 

The thing is though game engines are built to fulfill a certain style, the CryEngine or Frostbite wont ever be able to do Borderlands like graphics because they weren't made for it. It doesn't fall within the design specifications of said engine. You cant just do any style with any engine, you have to build your engine around your style.

Not true, and the proof is: the same engine (Unreal) that produced Borderlands was the one that produced Gears of War! Enough said.

 

Secondly I never said Borderlands used source, that is a random thing to say.

Yeah, you didn't say so directly, but you did mention Source immediately followed by using Borderlands as an example when referring to style > graphics. And I didn't say you were wrong; just pointed out that Borderlands used Unreal, not Source, in an "anyway" fashion.

 

Making games "cinematic" is the single greatest threat to gaming ever. Games are not movies, they shouldn't be "cinematic" because cinematic means scripted events that take control away from the player like CoD or battlefield's atrocious use of them.

 

At that point they are no longer games they are interactive movies which is NOT what games are.

That's if you understand "cinematic" in a comprehensive or thorough fashion; cinematic is almost always used in the gaming industry to refer specifically to the quality of graphics, not the gameplay. Make a game cinematic has nothing to do with gameplay, but it means make it wow us with its graphics and visuals.

 

One of the main reasons I love Valve is because they refuse to take control away from the player beyond the very ope

ning cut-scene, and one instance in Episode 2 you ALWAYS have control of Gordon.

Yeah, heard it all before, nice and all, but alas...Gordon is mute. The poor retard. :( I mean, that girl smiles at him like an angel, asks questions, makes comments, and he just stands there like a statue.

 

If you "pretend" that you replied by saying something in your mind, then really, why don't you also pretend that whatever is happening in the cut-scene is really happening to you. See, "taking control away" from the player was an expression invented by Valve to glamorize their game (a game that didn't really need any extra glamor or glorifying because it was a good game anyway for that matter?) with some sort of concept of "control" that is, in reality and essence, empty, misleading, and useless? I mean, there is a cut-scene sort of event in the game, ok...and I can actually move around while it's happening...errmm...ok? I can move around, look around....so?? ......? See, so nothing. So what if I can move around while a cut-scene type of event is happening? "I'm in control"? Really? And what am I effectively doing with that control? Moving around? Looking at the cute event from a slightly different angle? Come on, let's get serious.

 

And let me use a specific example to demonstrate my point. In Mass Effect 2's last scene of escape, when Shepard runs then leaps heroically to try to grasp the edge of the Normandy in the last second, all in slow motion; yes, it would've been nice if there was a "jump" button or mechanic in the game to begin with so that we'd make that jump ourselves, but even then, if we do jump and fly to the Normandy that way, would you rather be looking at a very redundant scene of yourself dashing forward with the camera still behind your shoulders, or would you rather the camera did switch to the side to show that jump in slow motion like we'd see in the movies? 90% of the people will definitely choose to watch "themselves" through the eye of a side camera, making that epic jump in slow motion. And in order to that, you will have to switch the camera angle or switch to a different camera momentarily. Valve would like to have you believe that they "took control away from you", but the reality is that you still have control, you can simply just skip the scene if you really want to (and I'm aware that BioWare forbids skipping many scenes, but I'm just saying that's how it works in several others games, you press Esc or another button and skip the scene). And the reality is that they're not taking control away from you, but showing you the fruit of your heroic deeds. Moreover, how the hell can you see the facial expressions of anger or threatening or confidence on your protagonist's face without switching to a different camera? And even though Gordon is mute, he is not faceless; Valve does portray Gordon's face very prominently, yet surprise surprise, they conveniently never show you the face in-game, all under the pretense that they "don't want to take control away from you"...really? So I'm not just mute in-game, but I also can't even see my own facial expressions? Effectively making me a voiceless AND faceless entity? And then they pretend it's for my immersion and that it's because I'm Gordon? Really??! Well, if I am Gordon, then WTF is my face not on the game box?!!!!!! I can just go on and on about how Valve contradicts itself and markets their attempts with such misleading labels like "take away control" or "keep control", and it's all hogwash. Let's just agree that Half-Life was an awesome game, a classic in its own right, Half-Life II was a worthy sequel, and leave it at that, because there was absolutely nothing good about making my protagonist voiceless and faceless in-game, claiming it's because it's me, then actually giving the protagonist a face outside the game...a face that is not mine, I hasten to add. If you can pretend that Gordon is you while Gordon is mute in Half-Life, and you can also pretend that Gordon does reply to people and make funny comments when he is actually and clearly mute in-game, then I don't see why I can't pretend that Shepard is me, and that that smile of his in-game is actually me smiling , and that that angry tone is me being badass and putting the bad guy in his place. I think the latter makes much more sense to me and is perfectly immersive, while the former makes me feel that something is wrong and something is missing.