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

[Syco21]

Ya know, I'm thinking that a return to text based conversations would do these games a world of good. Or atleast some sort of blend, whereby the most important characters can have voice actors and the rest use text.

[redhorizon09]

 

Problem is factions DIDN'T have consequences beyond replacing the NPCs at one location with either Legion or NCR replacements, or having one or two dialog changes.

 

EXACTLY the same thing that happens in Skyrim's towns/Forts/Jarls.

 

That's where you're wrong. In Skyrim, there are almost no consequences no matter what faction(s) you join or side with. For example, I can side with the Imperials, but the Companions will still take me under their wing. Heck, I can still gain whatever abilities this faction provides, and become its leader even though they're clearly for the Stormcloaks. In New Vegas, Veronica will not join you if you're on bad terms with the BoS; she's also not the only companion you can lose based on your faction choices. Depending on which factions you side with in New Vegas, you also gain certain unique equipment like the NCR radio.

 

Factions you didn't side with are also hostile upon you entering their territories or if they see you anywhere else. For Skyrim, the only factions I've seen that are usually immediately hostile toward me are the Thalmore (based on how far you went in the main quest) and the Forsworn. In addition, there are certain merchant NPCs in New Vegas who will not do business with you depending on your faction choice, which renders you unable to obtain certain gear and benefits. I would have loved to see this sort of choices and consquences in Skyrim.

[sajuukkhar9000]

As I mentioned before, reading a book about Cairo or Tokyo is never like asking the inhabitants of the city and getting answers from them. If asking people who live in the city isn't helping you, then you're obviously asking the wrong people. This is how things work in real life. If a game developer is producing a game where you cannot get familiar with the cities of the map or know the lore while playing and having conversations with the NPCs, and your only option is buying a novel based on the world, then the game developer is obviously ****ing up, being lazy, or simply not caring about the story of the game at all. If NPCs are saying "untrue" things, then again, the developers are ****ing up. If the NPCs are not engaging in conversations with me that are as good as the in-game books to understand the world, then again...the developers are ****ing up. It doesn't take a genius to understand all this, and your counter-arguments sound like nothing other than marketing material for game books or some sort of a delusional, self-righteous concept that lore is exclusive to books, and is never in conversations about the world. If that's your dogma to feel smarter and better about yourself reading game books, be my guest, friend; it's fine.

Asking a person who lives in Cairo or Tokyo will only give you a biased view on the city making it out to be better or worse then it actually is. The only real things you can learn from people in the city is how biased one way or the other they are, and the locations of places. The true history of a city is probably found elsewhere from people in another town without said biased who have not had the history of said city warped by cultural propaganda. Devs doing this to NPCs in game is not "lazy" or "f***ing up" it is making it realistic.

 

It has nothing to do with being delusional or self-righteous, it simply has to do with how people act IRL and how game devs mimic the real life actions of people in game characters.

Sins of a Solar Empire is such a niche in the strategy genre; it isn't as popular as your average RTS, like Warcraft III or Company of Heroes. Have the sense to use typical examples when trying to make generalized statements, please. I made a generalized statement about FPS and RTS games. You dubbed my statement ignorant; what is your reason? "There's this one-in-a-million RTS game that is actually genuinely complicated". Great. So now because we have a few exceptions, the exceptions suddenly define the whole genre? If your line of thought isn't the actual ignorance, I don't know what is. Exceptions don't define genres; only typical examples can define a genre. It isn't rocket science.

Fine then if Sins is to "niche" for you then play Warcraft 3 or Starcraft online. The online components of those games is FAR from "trial and error", going against people who have dedicated their lives to playing the games with such tactics doesn't work.

Yeah, and do those instances or books tell you that every single mage walking that fictional world can do these things? And there are no instances or tales at all of warriors doing miraculous things and causing much havoc and destruction? Don't answer; rhetorical questions.

No, however you are always something along the lines of The Dovahkiin, The Nerevarine, The Prisoner, the hero chosen by fate, YOU should by lore standards be able to achieve such feats of magic.

 

As for your rhetorical question yes there have been, Pelinal Whitestreak was known to be able to shape the land around him during his murderous rampages and he was not a mage.

You're still insisting on clinging to game books to justify lore discrepancy, and still insisting that lore is exclusive to "books", especially books outside the game. Dude, feel free to give yourself privileges and adopt dogmas, but the rest of the world doesn't work that way. Lots of people do not care about game books! And that's not because they can't read or aren't into reading; I, for example, love reading; I just don't read game books, I read other stuff. I also like to "know the story" and "understand the world" through my interaction with that world and its inhabitants, not through books, and that's a perfectly valid approach to things. I'd love to understand a theory or a field of science from books, but to understand a world and know a story? I'd definitely prefer to visit that world, look at it, listen to it, interact with it, and so on. If such activities are not enlightening me with the world's lore, then there's something very wrong with that game or interactive entertainment production. So no matter how many times you keep referring to books, people like me will continue to believe that a "game's" lore is what we learn about while playing the damn game, not while reading a damn book about the game! And if this is not working, or if sequel 3 of the game is contradicting with things in sequel 2 without a logical explanation, then the developers are ****ing up. It's as simple as that.

What those people care or don't care about does not change anything, It just makes them ignorant of the world around them.

 

Secondly much like the real world a vast majority of knowledge comes from books, you arent going to overhear a casual conversation IRL about the details of the American Civil War, you wont hear talk of how The roman Empires legal policies are still found in our governments today, you wont hear conversations about how Pagan Gods were adapted into being in our modern religious, most of that is solely found in books. The ES series is no different, you will never know any large part of its history without reading, exactly like you wont learn much of the real worlds history without reading. Expecting game devs to create NPCs that just blather on about every little part of the game world is unrealistic.

I never said I have "enough important things", never gave myself extra importance with a comment like that. So learn to read, please, before trying to suggest someone's not important. I said I had "better things to do", and better here =/= important; better can mean more fun or more interesting, which is a subjective opinion. And thanks for the stating the obvious about lore being dictated by the series owner; where exactly have I ever suggested that lore is dictated by gamers? I have no idea. You think that saying that lore is what we learn while playing a game means that we determine it? How exactly is that even a half-intelligent conclusion or understanding for the statement? Man, you really need help in communication and argumentation. Starting with Rulebook for Arguments by Anthony Weston may help.

Importance, much like the word better, is purely subjective, things that people find better are generally more important to them, thus the equating of importance to better is valid.

 

Beyond that I made none of the implications you seem to think I did, I find that it is YOU who needs help in communication as you seem to love pulling thing out of nothingness to support your baseless arguments, and seem to lack understanding of the meaning of words.

Yes, maybe no other developer would've done a better job, but that doesn't mean that it was a job well done. And I actually welcome change, so changing things in a sequel is never a problem for me, as long as the developer does it intelligently and justifies it one way or another, and makes at least some effort to have it make sense. But I would've preferred the Fallout world to remain "dead", because at least it was dead in practice, but its memories remained and I sometimes even talked to other gamers about things in the early Fallout games. I still maintain that Fallout deserved better, and I wasn't bothered with the changes in Fallout 3; what bothered me was that the world lost its spirit, and instead of breathing the scent of Fallout I or II while playing Fallout 3, I was breathing the scent of Oblivion, and I just couldn't take it. As shocking as this may sound, I think that Borderlands reminds me more of Fallout than Fallout 3 does! And I know that Borderlands is completely different from Fallout, but I'm just saying that if Fallout was to be turned into a first/third-person shooter, then the "feel" or "spirit" of Borderlands was more compatible with Fallout than Fallout 3 was; I would've wanted them to just implement the RPG rules and storytelling of Fallout with the spirit and gameplay of Borderlands, perhaps even including the art-style, to produce a Fallout 3. Which proves my point that I don't mind changes to sequels; just do it right and stick to the series' or world's spirit and feel.

The "spirit" of the Fallout series is something that the Devs get to choose, not you. Fallout 3 is no more or less accurate to the "spirit" of Fallout 1 and 2 because Bethesda, the now owners, chose it to be so.

 

Beyond that I did enjoy borderlands but I don't see how it even remotely resembles the first two fallout games or how its mechanics would have been good for it. Fallout 1 and 2 were heavily stat based while borderlands had none.

Good. At least you're talking about the "game" here, rather than some vague books that 90% of the people who played the game never heard of. Yeah, if the lore is what the owner / developer chooses to make happen in the game (which is obvious), then great. Now let's hope that the lore showcased in the game stays consistent throughout its sequels, regardless to whatever the heck books say.

The lore in the ES games is BASED off of the books and outside documents, not caring about the books is not caring about the game itself.

 

Also due to graphical/hardware limitations of the time each ES game will be different from each other and have many added/removed features from the sequels. Expecting them to be consistent is foolish as hardware changes weekly and with it so does what can and cannot be put in the games. Asking for a consistent ES series is asking for stagnation as it would totally ignore the advancements in technology made between now and the next game.

 

Beyond that due to the ever changing nature of the ES series the book are the only think we can really go on because the Devs will always be trying to bring the gameplay as close to the books because the books are the real lore.

Edited January 16, 2012 by sajuukkhar9000

[sajuukkhar9000]

Ya know, I'm thinking that a return to text based conversations would do these games a world of good. Or atleast some sort of blend, whereby the most important characters can have voice actors and the rest use text.

Yes, lets set back all of gaming 10 years for nostalgia reasons.

 

That's where you're wrong. In Skyrim, there are almost no consequences no matter what faction(s) you join or side with. For example, I can side with the Imperials, but the Companions will still take me under their wing. Heck, I can still gain whatever abilities this faction provides, and become its leader even though they're clearly for the Stormcloaks. In New Vegas, Veronica will not join you if you're on bad terms with the BoS; she's also not the only companion you can lose based on your faction choices. Depending on which factions you side with in New Vegas, you also gain certain unique equipment like the NCR radio.

 

Factions you didn't side with are also hostile upon you entering their territories or if they see you anywhere else. For Skyrim, the only factions I've seen that are usually immediately hostile toward me are the Thalmore (based on how far you went in the main quest) and the Forsworn. In addition, there are certain merchant NPCs in New Vegas who will not do business with you depending on your faction choice, which renders you unable to obtain certain gear and benefits. I would have loved to see this sort of choices and consquences in Skyrim.

In New Vegas the followers, Bortherhood, Kings, Enclave remnants etc. etc. would still be your friends regardless of if you chose NCR or Legion. Also several followers in Skyrim can only be gained by doing one option in a quest while another can only be obtained by doing the other side of the quest. You get special Legate armor in Skyrim for joining the Legion.

 

Having merchants not trade with you would be illogical as the normal citizens of skyrim don't care about the war, in fact the most commonly said NPC conversation is "I don't care who wins I just want the war to be over". What you suggest goes against the lore.

Edited January 16, 2012 by sajuukkhar9000

[redhorizon09]

That's where you're wrong. In Skyrim, there are almost no consequences no matter what faction(s) you join or side with. For example, I can side with the Imperials, but the Companions will still take me under their wing. Heck, I can still gain whatever abilities this faction provides, and become its leader even though they're clearly for the Stormcloaks. In New Vegas, Veronica will not join you if you're on bad terms with the BoS; she's also not the only companion you can lose based on your faction choices. Depending on which factions you side with in New Vegas, you also gain certain unique equipment like the NCR radio.

 

Factions you didn't side with are also hostile upon you entering their territories or if they see you anywhere else. For Skyrim, the only factions I've seen that are usually immediately hostile toward me are the Thalmore (based on how far you went in the main quest) and the Forsworn. In addition, there are certain merchant NPCs in New Vegas who will not do business with you depending on your faction choice, which renders you unable to obtain certain gear and benefits. I would have loved to see this sort of choices and consquences in Skyrim.

In New Vegas the followers, Bortherhood, Kings, Enclave remnants etc. etc. would still be your friends regardless of if you chose NCR or Legion. Also several followers in Skyrim can only be gained by doing one option in a quest while another can only be obtained by doing the other side of the quest. You get special Legate armor in Skyrim for joining the Legion.

 

Having merchants not trade with you would be illogical as the normal citizens of skyrim don't care about the war, in fact the most commonly said NPC conversation is "I don't care who wins I just want the war to be over". What you suggest goes against the lore.

 

How would that be against lore? I don't understand your point there. Did I say all merchants? No. I said certain merchants, and these are not "normal citizens" so don't try and twist my words; these are merchants belonging to certain factions and carry certain equipment that you can only get from them. If certain groups particularly hate a certain faction and want that faction to disappear, why would they willingly provide support to someone who is revered with the faction(s) they hate? The only faction I've seen in Skyrim with choices and consequences is between the Blades and the Greybeards. Bethesda did an excellent job at implementing the hatred between these two factions. It's just too bad that more wasn't added to these factions, but I'm assuming future DLC content will probably change this problem.

 

Once again you're completely wrong about New Vegas companions. Cass and Boone will not join you if you're on bad terms with the NCR. You seem to have failed to understand my point about factions and choices and consequences. I wasn't just talking about the NCR and the Legion. I mentioned other factions too. Even then, if you side with the Legion and are on bad terms with the BoS, it won't be possible for you to gain power armor training. Hence my point again about the importance of choices and consequences with factions missing from most of Skyrim.

[sajuukkhar9000]

How would that be against lore? I don't understand your point there. Did I say all merchants? No. I said certain merchants, and these are not "normal citizens" so don't try and twist my words; these are merchants belonging to certain factions and carry certain equipment that you can only get from them. If certain groups particularly hate a certain faction and want that faction to disappear, why would they willingly provide support to someone who is revered with the faction(s) they hate? The only faction I've seen in Skyrim with choices and consequences is between the Blades and the Greybeards. Bethesda did an excellent job at implementing the hatred between these two factions. It's just too bad that more wasn't added to these factions, but I'm assuming future DLC content will probably change this problem.

 

Once again you're completely wrong about New Vegas companions. Cass and Boone will not join you if you're on bad terms with the NCR. You seem to have failed to understand my point about factions and choices and consequences. I wasn't just talking about the NCR and the Legion. I mentioned other factions too. Even then, if you side with the Legion and are on bad terms with the BoS, it won't be possible for you to gain power armor training. Hence my point again about the importance of choices and consequences with factions missing from most of Skyrim.

Like I said in my post, the common people care not about which side of the war you are on, they just want it to end. Making them get peeved off for joining one side is illogical.

 

Also all merchants in the game are normal people, made exactly that way so so you wouldn't be denied content, the only exception are the merchant quartermasters found in the Stormcloak and Legion camps who DO REFUSE to trade you things depending on which side you are on.

 

 

The Blades/Greybeards hatred was terrible, suddenly and out of nowhere Esbern is like "ohh yeah we know who leads the greyebards sure he helped you STOP ALDUIN FROM DESTROYING THE WORLD but we want him dead", and "ohh yeah also ignore that THE DRAGONBORN EMPERORS OF TAMRIEL knew Parthanumbrex was alive and let him live, because we totally NEVER SERVED THE EMPERORS", and "ohh yeah FORGET THAT THE BLADES SERVE THE DRAGONBORN becuase we are going to kick you out OF YOUR OWN FING FORT if you dont side with us".

 

It was piss poor, it went against all the lore, and frankly it was insultingly bad. it is the perfect example of why these "one side or the other" things don't work. I almost s*** myself in disbelief on how badly Esbern throws all established lore out the window in that dispute.

 

 

-Cass, Boone, and Veronica's "we don't like you so we are leaving" BS was widely criticized on the Fallout forums are being poorly done, probably it was removed, thank god.

-You can get power armor training from Arcade Ganon's quest.

-Most of the supposed "missed items from merchants" could be bought before you ticked them off thus making it irrelevant that you lost said merchants

Edited January 16, 2012 by sajuukkhar9000

[faifh]

Ya know, I'm thinking that a return to text based conversations would do these games a world of good. Or atleast some sort of blend, whereby the most important characters can have voice actors and the rest use text.

 

Maybe one day speech synthesis will get so good, it doesn't sound awfully robotic anymore.

[CalibanX]

If there are real choices in a game that have real consequences you will be forced to choose an option that will render a different option impossible. Doing so does not "deny content" it creates a reason for further replays with different characters choosing different outcomes.

 

Every faction need not feed into the Imperial vs Stormcloak story line. Vigilantes of Stendarr for instance, would have concerns far removed from the civil war, so would the Thieves Guild or any number of other possible factions. By giving the player the option to join various factions (and become the enemy of others) you provide reasons for a more tangibly defined social identity in the game world. What other games were able to do or not do with factions isn't directly relevant to their possible implementation into Skyrim through mods or DLC. If one doesn't like factions, that's fine. Others do and interested in speculating about how they might work in Skyrim.

[redhorizon09]

 

It was piss poor, it went against all the lore, and frankly it was insultingly bad. it is the perfect example of why these "one side or the other" things don't work. I almost s*** myself in disbelief on how badly Esbern throws all established lore out the window in that dispute.

 

 

-Cass, Boone, and Veronica's "we don't like you so we are leaving" BS was widely criticized on the Fallout forums are being poorly done, probably it was removed, thank god.

-You can get power armor training from Arcade Ganon's quest.

-Most of the supposed "missed items from merchants" could be bought before you ticked them off thus making it irrelevant that you lost said merchants

 

Once again, I separated general merchants from merchants who are obviously in favor of or support one faction. How does any of this have anything to do with going against lore? I don't understand your point. And Cass, Boone, and Veronica were highly criticized? No and just no... Furthermore, OOO was a highly acclaimed mod for Oblivion. It was so revered that PC Gamer magazine included it as a special pack-in for Oblivion back in the day. It had choices and consequences to which tons of TES fans loved among all other content the mod contained. The mod was legendary. Obsidian seemed to have learned from this and implemented such an idea into Fallout New Vegas and wow, the game became a huge hit.

[sajuukkhar9000]

If there are real choices in a game that have real consequences you will be forced to choose an option that will render a different option impossible. Doing so does not "deny content" it creates a reason for further replays with different characters choosing different outcomes.

 

Every faction need not feed into the Imperial vs Stormcloak story line. Vigilantes of Stendarr for instance, would have concerns far removed from the civil war, so would the Thieves Guild or any number of other possible factions. By giving the player the option to join various factions (and become the enemy of others) you provide reasons for a more tangibly defined social identity in the game world. What other games were able to do or not do with factions isn't directly relevant to their possible implementation into Skyrim through mods or DLC. If one doesn't like factions, that's fine. Others do and interested in speculating about how they might work in Skyrim.

And as I have been pointing out the factions that exist in the game really don't have much reasons to deny you access to them because you joined another factions.

 

-The Dark Brotherhood and the Thieves Guild have a understanding when it comes to killing guild members and the DB obviously uses the thieves guild as a supplier for some items.

-The College of Winterhold relies on Enthir to get them items, and he get many of his items from The Thieves guild.

-The Companions obviously have no reason to care about the DB, TG, or College.

 

The DB, TG, and College are all interconnected to an extent via illegal item trade, and smaller factions like The vigilant are so narrow focused they have no reasons to interfere with the other organizations.

 

Bethesda did a great job at making logical reasons as to why no one is attacking each other.

 

Once again, I separated general merchants from merchants who are obviously in favor of or support one faction. How does any of this have anything to do with going against lore? I don't understand your point. And Cass, Boone, and Veronica were highly criticized? No and just no... Furthermore, OOO was a highly acclaimed mod for Oblivion. It was so revered that PC Gamer magazine included it as a special pack-in for Oblivion back in the day. It had choices and consequences to which tons of TES fans loved among all other content the mod contained. The mod was legendary. Obsidian seemed to have learned from this and implemented such an idea into Fallout New Vegas and wow, the game became a huge hit.

ONCE AGAIN since you fail to read what I type, I did mention how there are certain faction based merchants in the camps that don't sell to you based on what side you are on.

 

Secondly I never said Cass, Boone, and Veronica were criticized I said their "we don't like you so we are leaving BS" was. There is a large diffrence between the dialog and the entire person, please dont make s*** up next time. Really it is pathetic the levels you are going to.

 

Thirdly OOO may have been big but most of its "choice" and "consequence" was limited and poorly implicated, people didn't get OOO for "choice" or "consequence" they got it for the fact it made the game harder and added new items, the choice/consequence part of it hardly factored into most of the people getting it.

Edited January 16, 2012 by sajuukkhar9000