You’re just a an unimportant piece of some game *Contains major spoile

[AnimeOtaku102]

I don't agree that you have to find out the political results of the Dragonborn's actions or deal directly with the Thalmor for good writing, but I won't disagree that the writing in Skyrim was a bit too railroaded (particularly Forsworn Conspiracy, Dark Brotherhood side jobs, and three sets of quest items that require joining the College of Winterhold to get rid of) - and I'm saying this as a person who never particularly liked Bethesda's writing, so my expectations are pretty low to start with. I would love to see them bring in other developers like Obsidian (who have a reputation of being ambitious in writing but a bit weak in coding) to handle all the writing, but I'm not going to hold my breath for that.

 

On a related note I hear a lot of people praise Morrowind for its writing, but it's actually one of the few games by Bethesda I haven't played. I've played Arena (can't even remember the plot anymore), Daggerfall (literally incomprehensible, the narrator's voice sounded like Peanut's teacher's voice on three separate systems), Battlespire (not really much of a story to speak of), Oblivion (bland and straightforward, not bad, but not a page-turner either), Fallout 3 (hated how it butchered Fallout lore, pacing and motivations were terrible), and now Skyrim (bit more dynamic than Oblivion, but too much railroading and faction plots are far less interesting, except Thieves' Guild); so maybe they did better with Morrowind, Redguard, and the one or two Terminator games I skipped out on.

[sajuukkhar9000]

None of those quests were railroaded because you don't have to do them, ever. Being railraoded is being forced to do something, Skyrim forces you to do nothing.

[Niborino9409]

(Forgot where the delete button is) Edited January 14, 2013 by Niborino9409

[CursedEagle]

Will there ever be a new high king of Skyrim?

Can you join/destroy the Thalmor?

Will Whiterun, Winterhold etc. ever be built up after the civil war?

I'd like to somewhat answer these questions, whether or not i get them right wouldn't matter.

Will there ever be a new high king? Possibly so, We might find out in the next Elder scrolls game when the NPC's and the general story thrives around it, and the new high king could be mentioned.

Can you join/Destroy the Thalmor? No, you couldn't join it in the game as far as i am aware of and i don't think you destroy it either.

As for the last question, it might take a while for Winterhold and Whiterun to be rebuild to its former glory, but who knows, this game didn't do it!

Skyrim's story was not really railroaded, and you could pretty much do what you want and WHEN you wanted it, so thats wonderful, i play the series since Daggerfall and i think the series hasn't lost its glory by a tiny bit.

[Hyacathusarullistad]

Will there ever be a new high king of Skyrim?

Of course there will be. Both Ulfric and Tullius make it clear that the Moot will not be called until the remnants of the civil war have been cleaned up. Which means eliminating what remains of the other side. The game's narrative implies, as realism would determine, that this is not a simple nor instantaneous process. There will still be rebels loyal to the now martyred Ulfric who wish to push the Empire out of Skyrim; or the Empire will always be looking to regain control of Skyrim, the province from which its founder first came. Things like this take time, which even the war's greatest hero really can't do much to change.

 

Can you join/destroy the Thalmor?

Honestly? No. And I say this is a good thing, personally. The Thalmor are simply representatives of the Aldmeri Dominion, a large and incredibly powerful government that's been in conflict with the Empire for a very long time. They're an adversary that I think any reasonable player would have been upset] to be able to completely destroy or, on the other side, aide them in the complete obliteration of the Empire. Being able to do either would have made them seem like much less of a threat than they really should have been.

 

Will Whiterun, Winterhold etc. ever be built up after the civil war?

Whiterun? Most definitely, I'd say. But a civil war, particularly one as bitter as the one seen in Skyrim, has lasting repercussions on a country, and sometimes reconstruction isn't as quick and easy as we might wish. And as for Winterhold, I personally believe that the hold will die, its lands divided into the Pale and Eastmarch, and the College will become a remote centre of magical learning made all the more enigmatic by being so remotely located compared to the rest of the province.

 

I personally don't have a problem with not being recognised or lauded when I wander across the province. I think what many players forget is that Skyrim is not a world where a hero's visage is plastered all over billboards and plasma screens. This is a world where news of one's deeds may travel far and wide, but even the province's greatest hero wouldn't necessarily be recognised on the spot by the common rabble. Why should the woman who works for the Jarl of Falkreath cleaning his bedsheets recognise a man who slew a creature she's believed all her life to be nothing but myth in a realm she may not even believe is real? Also, when a faction's main quest is over, why should its members not get back to their normal lives? I find it obnoxious that while I finished the College of Winterhold's quest in my first ~30 hours of gameplay, the faction members still great me as if it happened yesterday even once I'm into ~60-70 hours. I don't think people like Vipir or Rune, incidental background characters, should have any real knowledge of what happened with Mercer and the Nightingales; I kind of like the idea that all they'll know is rumour and conjecture spread amongst the lesser members. It would make it seem so much less special being a Nightingale if the entire Cistern knew about it. And why should I, once becoming the Harbinger of the companions, worry about finding a way to free the souls of people I never even knew from Hircine's hunting ground? No thanks, one trip into Sovngarde per playthrough is enough for me. I'll get to it when I die; until then I have other s*** to do.

 

Sometimes being able to use your imagination, and build the story yourself, is so much more satisfying than being spoon fed the solutions through forced dialogue, gimmicky cutscenes, and the like. It helps make it more personal, and therefore more real. That's how I feel about it, at least.

[suger88]

Its like this. Skyrim is a big card board box. Inside are thousands of tiny boxes, each filled with tiny little tacks. As the MC, you have access to the large box and any subsequent box.

(in case you're wondering, the boxes inside the large box represent factions, guilds, quest lines etc)

As the MC, you are able to make impressions on each tack, on each box, even able to totally alter the fundamental dynamics of each box. Albeit in a very restricted manner. The boxes start at a corner and give you an option, interact or not. Choosing to interact will open perhaps two, maybe three more sides but usually only one. In the moment, this system seems to be dynamic and free flowing but upon zooming out a tiny bit, you notice that the paths chosen are actually linear than in reality, you have only traveled on a path that you thought was your own but was in fact, inevitable. You finish that small box and zoom out. You realize that you have made no imprint on the total system, that Skyrim, the large box remains unchanged because that small box you have just traversed in a restricted was has, in reality, no affiliation with the other boxes, let alone the largest, that it is totally alienated and that even inside that small box, you have achieved very little.

 

The quests, the moments, world events, everything is only contained within itself. Even that containment is often restricted in a linear way.

 

Take the MQ for example. The only options you are given are(that are dynamic)

Kill Paarthanaux

Don't Kill Him

 

Other that have no gameplay change are travel with Actor XYZ or don't.

 

Boxes are just containers for smaller containers like Skyrim is a medium for thousands of smaller, unconnected mediums.

 

A very easy, yet perfectly accurate, way to put it. Brilliant.

[screendrop]

Its like this. Skyrim is a big card board box. Inside are thousands of tiny boxes, each filled with tiny little tacks. As the MC, you have access to the large box and any subsequent box.

(in case you're wondering, the boxes inside the large box represent factions, guilds, quest lines etc)

As the MC, you are able to make impressions on each tack, on each box, even able to totally alter the fundamental dynamics of each box. Albeit in a very restricted manner. The boxes start at a corner and give you an option, interact or not. Choosing to interact will open perhaps two, maybe three more sides but usually only one. In the moment, this system seems to be dynamic and free flowing but upon zooming out a tiny bit, you notice that the paths chosen are actually linear than in reality, you have only traveled on a path that you thought was your own but was in fact, inevitable. You finish that small box and zoom out. You realize that you have made no imprint on the total system, that Skyrim, the large box remains unchanged because that small box you have just traversed in a restricted was has, in reality, no affiliation with the other boxes, let alone the largest, that it is totally alienated and that even inside that small box, you have achieved very little.

 

The quests, the moments, world events, everything is only contained within itself. Even that containment is often restricted in a linear way.

 

Take the MQ for example. The only options you are given are(that are dynamic)

Kill Paarthanaux

Don't Kill Him

 

Other that have no gameplay change are travel with Actor XYZ or don't.

 

Boxes are just containers for smaller containers like Skyrim is a medium for thousands of smaller, unconnected mediums.

 

A very easy, yet perfectly accurate, way to put it. Brilliant.

Why thanks you :D

[AnimeOtaku102]

None of those quests were railroaded because you don't have to do them, ever. Being railraoded is being forced to do something, Skyrim forces you to do nothing.

Two problems with that statement:

1) By that argument absolutely no entertainment media in existence is railroaded because you can simply choose not to partake in it. Is a book railroaded? Nope, didn't have to read it. Is that tour railroaded? Nope, don't have to ride it. So on and so forth.

2) The scope of your argument is off. I'm complaining about the individual quests in Skyrim being railroaded (which I can understand how I may have been misunderstood), not the whole game being railroaded; you appear to be defending the overall game not being railroaded, which is not false, but not against the point I was trying to make.

 

Edit: To make a short story long, the major complaint I have is that most of the quests are single-solution deals with maybe the option to choose between two alternate conclusions (Madanach vs. Thonar, murder Erandur vs. let him banish the staff, spare Cicero vs. take his stylish jester outfit, etc.). There is no diplomatic solution, saboteur solution, or really any alternate solution more complicated than "sword, arrow, magic, or don't bother doing it at all". This is fine for an action or adventure game, but given Skyrim is marketed under the role-playing genre it's terribly light on the roles you can assume. God forbid you ever want to try to roleplay the "I never killed anyone who didn't deserve it" type of hitman joining the Dark Brotherhood, because they just have you go full psycho on beggars and other nobodies if you want to advance that faction plot at all, for example.

 

To be fair, all video games are railroaded to some degree. It's the inevitable nature of scripted interactions. The thing is offering distinct alternate solutions to the presented problems goes a long way to creating an illusion of player agency, but Skyrim doesn't really try this with most of its quests - which is really disappointing given how dynamic the civil war quests were originally supposed to be and how the quest progress flags can support as many alternate solutions as scripters have time to make.

Edited January 15, 2013 by Anime_Otaku102

[sajuukkhar9000]

snip

1. False, because other forms of media, such as books, movies, and TV shows, are linear, and only have one path, you can either watch/read it, or not. Where as in Skyrim, doing a quest or not still allows you to play the game. Not reading a book, or watching a TV show, just means you are doing nothing with that form of media, whereas Skyrim lets you adventure off into countless caves, ruins, and cities at your leisure. You can still play Skyrim while ignoring all the quests, you cannot still read a book when not reading it.

 

2. No, I was not referring to the game as a whole, I was referring to quests, none of them, outside of the Helgen opening, are railroaded onto you, becuase you can choose not to do them, and despite not doing them, the game still continues.

 

Edit: To make a short story long, the major complaint I have is that most of the quests are single-solution deals with maybe the option to choose between two alternate conclusions (Madanach vs. Thonar, murder Erandur vs. let him banish the staff, spare Cicero vs. take his stylish jester outfit, etc.). There is no diplomatic solution, saboteur solution, or really any alternate solution more complicated than "sword, arrow, magic, or don't bother doing it at all". This is fine for an action or adventure game, but given Skyrim is marketed under the role-playing genre it's terribly light on the roles you can assume. God forbid you ever want to try to roleplay the "I never killed anyone who didn't deserve it" type of hitman joining the Dark Brotherhood, because they just have you go full psycho on beggars and other nobodies if you want to advance that faction plot at all, for example.

But here is the thing, ever since Morrowind came out, the series has been branded NOT as a RPG, but as an action-adventure, open-world, RPG. Ever since the game that defined TES as something other then just another D&D fantasy RPG came out, aka Morrowind, the series has NEVER been market as a "many choices" game, it has always been marketed as a "explore a world/hiking sim" game.

 

Also, the Dark Brotherhood is a guild of assassins who kill ANYONE, and everyone, they are hired to. Asking for a "I dont kill anyone who doesn't deserve it" play-style is contradictory to the entire stated purpose of the guild itself. Which is a no-morals, kill anyone we are asked to as long as they have the coin, type assassin guild. I dont play a racing game that says its about racing high performance sports cars and then complain that I cant race a monster truck, because the game was never designed for that.

 

You are asking for choices that logically shouldn't exist in the context of not only specific guilds, but the game world itself.

Edited January 15, 2013 by sajuukkhar9000

[HeyYou]

snip

1. False, because other forms of media, such as books, movies, and TV shows, are linear, and only have one path, you can either watch/read it, or not. Where as in Skyrim, doing a quest or not still allows you to play the game. Not reading a book, or watching a TV show, just means you are doing nothing with that form of media, whereas Skyrim lets you adventure off into countless caves, ruins, and cities at your leisure. You can still play Skyrim while ignoring all the quests, you cannot still read a book when not reading it.

 

2. No, I was not referring to the game as a whole, I was referring to quests, none of them, outside of the Helgen opening, are railroaded onto you, becuase you can choose not to do them, and despite not doing them, the game still continues.

 

Edit: To make a short story long, the major complaint I have is that most of the quests are single-solution deals with maybe the option to choose between two alternate conclusions (Madanach vs. Thonar, murder Erandur vs. let him banish the staff, spare Cicero vs. take his stylish jester outfit, etc.). There is no diplomatic solution, saboteur solution, or really any alternate solution more complicated than "sword, arrow, magic, or don't bother doing it at all". This is fine for an action or adventure game, but given Skyrim is marketed under the role-playing genre it's terribly light on the roles you can assume. God forbid you ever want to try to roleplay the "I never killed anyone who didn't deserve it" type of hitman joining the Dark Brotherhood, because they just have you go full psycho on beggars and other nobodies if you want to advance that faction plot at all, for example.

But here is the thing, ever since Morrowind came out, the series has been branded NOT as a RPG, but as an action-adventure, open-world, RPG. Ever since the game that defined TES as something other then just another D&D fantasy RPG came out, aka Morrowind, the series has NEVER been market as a "many choices" game, it has always been marketed as a "explore a world/hiking sim" game.

 

Also, the Dark Brotherhood is a guild of assassins who kill ANYONE, and everyone, they are hired to. Asking for a "I dont kill anyone who doesn't deserve it" play-style is contradictory to the entire stated purpose of the guild itself. Which is a no-morals, kill anyone we are asked to as long as they have the coin, type assassin guild. I dont play a racing game that says its about racing high performance sports cars and then complain that I cant race a monster truck, because the game was never designed for that.

 

I disagree with your premise that the game doesn't railroad you. There ARE quests that CANNOT be completed, unless you join some other unrelated faction. (the Galdur Amulet for instance. UNLESS you join the mages guild, you cannot complete this quest) The game is set up in such a way that in order to complete the bulk of the quests, you need to join every faction/guild. Otherwise, you end up with a load of quest items in your inventory, that you can't get rid of. I have no interest in doing the bards college, yet I HAVE TO, if I want to get rid of some various items in my inventory, there is no option to "abandon this quest". Or simply not take the quest at all. Basically, the game is geared toward "completionists", those that want to do EVERY quest in a game. Some of the GLARING differences I see between Morrowind, and Skyrim....

 

In morrowind, you could actually fail EVERY quest. (but then, the world would end....)

There was no such thing as a quest marker. The game did not lead you by the nose to each and every objective.

Quest items weren't permanently stuck in your inventory.... you could sell them, drop them, whathaveyou, but then, if you didn't have the item any more, you couldn't complete the quest either. :)

Joining one faction, would preclude the possibility of joining some others. (you could only be a member of one house. Or, if you played it right, you could be an honorary member of a second.)

 

In my opinion, Morrowind was a MUCH better game, even given the era in which it was produced. Since then, Beth has taken the tack of "Let everyone be everything to every one." The games have become more and more simplified, with fewer and fewer real choices that make any real difference in the game world.

 

I chalk it up to "We are more interested in profits, than actually producing a great RPG."