In defense of shallow writing (Skyrim and FO3)

[joffrey]

So this was posted in one of the news threads, but I didn't know if it was relevant there and didn't want to derail the thread.

I think it is justified to bash "Fallout 3 lovers" because there is no way you can think that it had a better story than 1, 2, or NV

So as someone that dislikes Skyrim and FO3, let me try to play devils advocate:

One of the main criticisms I hear about Skyrim and FO3 is that they are both "shallow." However, as has been said before, I don't think FO3 and Skyrim are actually RPGs, they are sandbox games. As such, what constitutes good writing and what the consumers demand are going to be different between the genres. I think the average sandbox fan doesn't actually want a story in the RPG sense.

Where I think the story is, in Skyrim especially but also 3, is in sandbox exploration. I can remember walking around skyrim, and to a lesser extent 3 and having interesting things happen. In skyrim you come across some sacrificial mound and a wizard attacks you, and your imagination fills in the blanks: "oh man that wizard was getting ready to summon satan and he needed fresh blood so he's going to try and kill me" or something. And to a lesser extent that happened to me in 3, I would be walking around and come across two Super Mutants chilling in a burned out trailer, and can just imagine them playing cards or something before they saw me and the reptilian portions of their brain kick in and they go crazy and try and kill me. This is something I don't think is done as well in FONV. Sure there are raider ambushes and whatnot, but for all the criticism about the unrealistic "what do they eat" world of FO3, I do think in this sense the world feels more alive.

As someone who likes 1, 2, and NV, let me play the devils advocate and offer a criticism of this style of game:

They are linear. Despite the fact that they are open world games, there really is a path dictated for you. You go to klamath find out you're sposed to go to the den which takes you to Vault city, you use the computer where you find out you're supposed to go wherever. And I can imagine this is unappealing to people who really just want to explore. I don't agree with the criticism about the deathclaw wall in NV, but NV really isn't a game designed for exploring imo. You can really only go south, and then if you're not following the story the monsters can still be quite tough. I think NV is a great game, but I understand why people dislike it in favor of 3 -- it's not a great sandbox game.

But while I don't like Skyrim or 3, I get why people do. I had a friend who was a smart guy and had good taste in art, and he really liked coming home after work and playing Skyrim. I remember him literally saying once, "God I love sandbox games." He doesn't want to come home and read a book, he wants to wander around a world as a big bad ass and make up his own story. Some people want to come home and read shakespeare, and some people want to come home and watch monday night football. Does football have a worse story than shakespeare? I get where people are coming from, I just don't know if you can really compare them since they're so inherently different.

 

[Deleted member 53669]

Skyrim, and Fallout 3, are basically just game engines with intent of the PC community modding them to fit their tastes, and also balanced so the casual console market can enjoy them.

I will say they are much easier to play that most RPGs, however they lack depth.

Which is fine, because we are comparing these games to older RPGS. Compared to other games on the market in their category, they are alot more in depth than say Dark Souls or Dragon Age/Mass Effect.

I am currently modding the hell out of Skyrim. I enjoyed the game much more than Oblivion, however I can't stand to play the game Vanilla at this point. It is more of a beta than a finished product.


Morrowind and Daggerfall are the games we compare Skyrim to more than anything, and replaying those games I can understand what Bethesda were trying to accomplish. However, they are probably not going to go back to a more traditional RPG experience at this point due to them being a AAA company that has to shit something out every 2 years or their corporate masters will start chopping heads.

I do however like the progression that TES series seems to be going towards. They understand what made Morrowind so good, and are trying their best to replicate that experience while giving us something new that also takes advantage of new technology, better hashed out mechanics, and a wider audience.

Fallout 3 on the other-hand, that game was not theirs to begin with. So Fallout 3, while an enjoyable experience in some ways, was not enjoyable in the same ways that made the original series enjoyable. It was a loss mainly for the fans of the original, which were a niche group. The mainstream market did not care because they were not players of the original fallout games.

New Vegas was enjoyable due to the fact that it restored the element of story scripting-branched complexity that the original games had. The thing is though, while extremely enjoyable, Fallout 3, and Fallout New Vegas, are at their core a tricked out modded-up version of Oblivion.

Sad but true.

Fallout 4 should be better if it is being made on its own engine and the developement cycle is longer than 2 years. If not, then we are in for a meh experience and a few "who the fuck thought that was a good idea?" moments.

 

[TorontoReign]

You said what I was too lazy to type out so +1 for reasons.

 

[Walpknut]

 

[ramessesjones]

My issue with Fallout 3's writing isn't the storytelling, it's the supporting writing. I don't really want a game to force feed me a story, I want it to give my the tools to create my own story. Fallout 3 fails in the this regard, because of the wild inconsistencies in the setting, the general badness of certain part of the setting and poor dialogue options that make basically NPC you come across as either a completely empty, useless or nonsensical. The writing of Fallout 3 fails even within the context of an open world game, nevermind a fully realized RPG.

 

[aenemic]

Compared to other games on the market in their category, they are alot more in depth than say Dark Souls or Dragon Age/Mass Effect.

Not sure I agree on that. I guess it's somewhat a matter of opinion, or rather what sort of depth you value. But I'd say both the Dragon Age and Mass Effect series have way more depth when it comes to writing and choice and how you can affect the plot. Especially Mass Effect. I can definitely give TES some credit in the choice and consequence department in the sense that you can choose freely where to go, what quests to do and even if you want to skip the main story and focus on other stuff. But the way the games try to make you feel like you're shaping the world around you, I still feel more of that in Dragon Age and Mass Effect. I guess because most of it is scripted, in comparison to generic comments from passers-by that quickly feel tacked on. Even if the outcome often is binary, or hell even the same no matter what you do, the games at least tell you a story from that point onward that makes you feel like your decisions matter.

As for Dark Souls, it's in my opinion on a whole other level of story telling. You'd have to search hard for another game with that kind of in-depth story telling. It's one of the main reasons people love the game(s). And the combat system has more depth than all the TES and Fallouts combined.

But someone else may very well feel that the ability to pick flowers and join every guild in the game offers more depth of their taste.

 

[naossano]

As someone who likes 1, 2, and NV, let me play the devils advocate and offer a criticism of this style of game:

They are linear. Despite the fact that they are open world games, there really is a path dictated for you. You go to klamath find out you're sposed to go to the den which takes you to Vault city, you use the computer where you find out you're supposed to go wherever. And I can imagine this is unappealing to people who really just want to explore. I don't agree with the criticism about the deathclaw wall in NV, but NV really isn't a game designed for exploring imo. You can really only go south, and then if you're not following the story the monsters can still be quite tough. I think NV is a great game, but I understand why people dislike it in favor of 3 -- it's not a great sandbox game.

I might be overcome by lazyness, considering this was discussed many times, but it is simply not possible to agree with that part.
First, Fo1, and especially Fo2 & FoNV are amongs the most non-linear games that were ever released. Sure there are some goals, and hand placed location, but, the way you fit into that story is entirelly up to you, so is the fate of entire communities and your relationship with them. Which is the total opposite of Fallout 3 in which your own agency is constantly denied, by the gameworld who always return to status quo, and the characters who still proceed with their linear quest-line no matter your previous actions. You are stuck in what you were supposed to do and fail to create new meaningfull stories through your actions.

On the matter of exploration, i consent that the term could be read in various ways, but IMO, there is nothing to explore if you are thrown into miles and miles of generic nothingness. On the other hand, living world, with many characters, plots and subtle details is a more fertile ground for exploration, even if the map is smaller. IMO, there is much more exploration in Vizima itself (The Witcher) or New Reno itself (Fallout 2) than in the whole Capital Wasteland. Sure, you can walk for hundreds of hours, but there is nothing original to be seen after a while. Time wasting replace exploration, in those situations, IMO.

 

[Makta]

On the matter of exploration, i consent that the term could be read in various ways, but IMO, there is nothing to explore if you are thrown into miles and miles of generic nothingness. On the other hand, living world, with many characters, plots and subtle details is a more fertile ground for exploration, even if the map is smaller. IMO, there is much more exploration in Vizima itself (The Witcher) or New Reno itself (Fallout 2) than in the whole Capital Wasteland. Sure, you can walk for hundreds of hours, but there is nothing original to be seen after a while. Time wasting replace exploration, in those situations, IMO.

I had far more fun exploring F3 than NV.. NV really had no interessting area besides maybe searchlight.

Thankfully F1 2 and tactics had some fun things to look up.

 

[naossano]

No interesting area beside Searchlight ? That place is barelly more than a ghoul hunting ground. There is a billion more things to see and do in Freeside or The Strip.

 

[woo1108]

One of the main criticisms I hear about Skyrim and FO3 is that they are both "shallow." However, as has been said before, I don't think FO3 and Skyrim are actually RPGs, they are sandbox games.[/spoiler]

You got a good point.
both failout 3 and scream are not rpg
but they can't be a sandbox

To be sand box, the game need living world.
think about Mount and blade, Sims, Simcity or Minecraft.
they have living world which endlessly creating goals for you.
but I don't think both failout 3 and scream(lol) have living world.
their goals are fixed, places are fixed and only poor ramdom encounters are working.
but I don't think random encounter of scream or failout 3 are good enough to scream or failout3 to be a sandbox

I think both scream and failout 3 are openworlded linear hack-and-slasher.
Lacking of both RPG and sandbox elements, what left for them are linear story, poor action and interactive "shows" which make you feel like doing something but actually repeating poor dungeon crawling.
but while oblivion and failout 3 have some decent show, scream's shows are terrible.

As such, what constitutes good writing and what the consumers demand are going to be different between the genres. I think the average sandbox fan doesn't actually want a story in the RPG sense.

True.

not many people know what is RPG and how to enjoy it.
they enjoy scream and failout 3 because they looks more like GTA than good old RPGs.

Where I think the story is, in Skyrim especially but also 3, is in sandbox exploration
I can remember walking around skyrim, and to a lesser extent 3 and having interesting things happen.

I can't agree with you.
I visted almost every place of scream recently but none of them are wortyh explored.
all the dungeons which is main part of exploration of screa are all same: linear corridor+same puzzle+ meaningless slautering and mindless loots.
stories of scream looks interesting at first.
but in the end, they all have same end: just go to dungeon, kill all enemy, grab some shit and come back.

exploration mean something if situations and places are feel unique and meaningful.
but all the situations lead you to boring linear corridor and repeating slautering and lootong mindless enemies.
then, what is the point of exploration in scream?

As someone who likes 1, 2, and NV, let me play the devils advocate and offer a criticism of this style of game:

They are linear. Despite the fact that they are open world games, there really is a path dictated for you.

True.
but both scream and failout 3 can't avoid that kind of criticism thanks to quest marker.


I recently wasted my precious 140 for scream.
it was fun for 10 hour and then, it became torment.
simply, there is no game in scream.
all the quests and dungeons are just poor show to make me waste time.

I visited almost every places in scream and I can't remember single place that make me impressed. they are all same. same linear corrido, same enemy, same pattern of quest and same loots. it make me sick

the biggest flaw of scream is, there is no game at all.
it's like watching someone's disintergrated body.
there are organs, fleshs, bloods and bones but they are not living.
they are not connected.

Good rpgs are like beauty.
they have flesh, bone, blood, and organs.
further more, they are alive.
I mean thier storys are

Good sands box doesn't need story.
because it's players job to make thier own story.
what they do is just providing living world to interact.

but for scream and failout 3, they are dead.
nothing is living. worlds are lacking of meaningful interaction and stories are lead to nothing. it was waste of time for me to play it.

just compare to Morrowind.
technically, Morrowind isn't good game compare to newer games.
but the world of Morrwind is alive because of world connection among quests.

how about Wasteland2?
despite full of flaws, it has one great point: it is hard to seperate which is side, which is sub and which is main quest in WL2.
thanks to this, all the situations and choices are alive in WL2.

how about M&B?
other characters do they own job.
the world is alive and provides interaction to player to create their own
minor goals.

but in scream, there's nothing in scream.
quests are seperated each other and lead to nothing.
because of this, playing scream is meaningless.
the world is dead. it only provide you ramdom quest for killing random enemy for small amount of gold.
excpet that, not much meaningful random features in scream.
it's not RPG nor sandbox.
it's just empty hull of rpg.

 

[BigBoss]

On the matter of exploration, i consent that the term could be read in various ways, but IMO, there is nothing to explore if you are thrown into miles and miles of generic nothingness. On the other hand, living world, with many characters, plots and subtle details is a more fertile ground for exploration, even if the map is smaller. IMO, there is much more exploration in Vizima itself (The Witcher) or New Reno itself (Fallout 2) than in the whole Capital Wasteland. Sure, you can walk for hundreds of hours, but there is nothing original to be seen after a while. Time wasting replace exploration, in those situations, IMO.

I had far more fun exploring F3 than NV.. NV really had no interessting area besides maybe searchlight.

Thankfully F1 2 and tactics had some fun things to look up.

What about Big Mountain or the Sierra Madre?

Also, I thought you were dead.

 

[Walpknut]

I wonder, if New Vegas had no interesting areas despite having much more settlements and a better thought out world, what did Fallout 3 had? All those empty buildings were interesting? Were the Metro Tunnels? The expanses of empty field with holes in the universe where companions fall through?

 

[Nightingale]

About the games: i liked them all, because of the fun, the beauty and the sheer jawdropping amazments!

Fallout 3 i was against at first, but when i played it.... oh wow! it wasn't a fallout in my eyes, but it was AMAZING! NV made me sad by bugs, but other then them it was wonderful too