People said the same thing when NMA spoke out against Fallout 3. "Jumping to conclusions" was probably one of the most cited responses. Bethesda getting people to write 10 page books doesn't exactly speak to their writing abilities. Any hack writer can fill 10 pages with throwaway lore that gets ignored a few games down the line. It gives the illusion of a real world at least. Sure, they care about world building in the most superficial way. They should considering the genre is built upon it. You say they do better with TES and my response is REALLY!? Since Morrowind that entire series has declined backwards until it barely resembles a RPG. Their games earned the Hiking Simulator moniker.
I have no doubt that Bethesda tries to write an interesting story, with compelling characters and dialog, but I rarely see that in their current titles. Oblivion was the start of their regression. There was a clear drop in quality, with most people claiming voice acting played a large part, which I believe is correct to a certain extent. The other reason being they "casualized" the series to appeal to a larger group of people. Branching quests just isn't their strong suit.
Pete Hines represents his company and the games they produce. When he says in numerous interviews that "Dialog isn't a battle they want to fight." then it gives an impression, which is further strengthened the more interviews they give - not just Hines - that dialog is secondary to the world building. The dialog should enhance the world not be limited by it. Now the dialog is limited to a wheel like in a Mass Effect, Deus Ex, or to a lesser extent, Heavy Rain. So we have dialog written by a developer known for sub-par writing that is actually going to be spoken aloud at all times. As if seeing it written out wasn't bad enough - now the player will sound like an idiot like all the NPC's.
There are a couple of articles I don't feel like digging up that basically says the quest designers for many of these games are limited by silly rules like "The NPC can't steal from the player" or "The quest outcome should be obvious to the player when picking it." I won't even get into that can of worms. Too much shit to dig through. It boils down to the people working on the game being limited by the higher ups.
I dislike the notion that cinematic action games have better writing than RPG's which should focus on story first. The Last of Us does have strong writing (personally I think the actual game is overrated although it is good) BUT it doesn't offer choice. It doesn't allow you to poke around the world and learn more. It's all scripted, holding your hand along the way, telling you not to touch things or they will break - like an over bearing mother. I understand the point he tried to make by saying "We can't compete with a game that is structured like an interactive movie", or "We want you to be able to interact with NPC's more realistically." , or "I get tired of reading the same shit over and over." If it was just this one interview it would be one thing, but we have years and years of information to work off of here. This isn't some isolated, misconstrued statement we are basing this off of.
I always hear the excuse that open world games are harder to do when it comes to stories since the player can interact with NPC's at different points, in different ways that might not be intended, but other RPG's have done it well, so a competent developer should be more than capable. How does CD Projekt handle it so well while Bethesda fumbles around like a drunk in the dark?
We can sit here and debate all day when it comes down to us not having enough information to properly critique it, but that doesn't stop us from using what little information we have gathered on Fallout 4 - as well as the people involved - to make an informed opinion on the end result. I don't know if that covered all of it, but it's a start.
1. I used the books as an example of Bethesda caring about writing. It doesn't mean the books are great. I was actually just playing Skyrim and read one of the books and it was less than intriguing. The plot went no where. However, the fact that the books are in Skyrim still means Bethesda tries.
2. You're still jumping to conclusions. It's a pretty accurate criticism.
3. I thought the story in Skyrim was better than the story in Fallout 3. Whether or not the series has declined and whether or not the series is good at all, my point is that they handle TES better than Fallout in my opinion. The side quests were more intriguing in Skyrim, the combat was more fun, and I wasn't ranting about lore inconsistencies for most of it. Plus, Skyrim is a more serious world, so they don't have to deal with humor.
4. So you agree with me: Besthesda tries to write compelling stories, even though they don't always succeed. The fact that they try means that they care.
5. I actually found that article; I'm on my phone so here's the bare link (
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/bethesda-softworks-pete-hines-interview?page=2). The quote, taken in context, states that Bethesda didn't have the time or resources to build a new dialogue system for Fallout 3 - from what he's saying, similar to the one in Mass Effect - and instead opted for the traditional written dialogue (I guess Bethesda had the time and resources to make a new system for Fallout 4). He said NOTHING about the quality of the writing or the importance of dialogue in that quote. This is why context matters.
6. Although Pete Hines is a representative of Bethesda, it is ridiculous to assume that everyone in the company shares his opinion on every topic. I am sure the writers (of which he is not) value dialogue because that is their job, and I am sure each writer has different influences. No one person determines the opinions or tastes or values of an entire group, so the fact that Pete Hines likes Naughty Dog and skips through dialogue does not mean everyone at Bethesda agrees. Please don't overgeneralize.
7. Based on that conversation with Three Dog NMA often quotes as the worst of Bethesda's writing, they didn't need spoken dialogue to make the PC look stupid (ironically, with an Intelligence check). However, while I certainly prefer seeing all of what I'm going to say to the dialogue wheel, that mechanic alone does not inherently make for poor writing. You can't see all of what you're going to say, but if your character says something intelligent or funny, is that not a well-written statement?
8. Well you misconstrued his previous statement, and when I googled that quote, that was the only article that came up (unless you'd like to cite more). Maybe you're just being overreactive? I never said cinematic RPG's have better writing than games that put story first (although I think many modern RPG's still do that, whether or not the story ends up great). The Last of Us also isn't an RPG or an open-world game; you can stray a bit off the beaten path (I feel like there were notes or something in the game, but I don't really remember) and plan your approach, but it's supposed to be mostly linear. Doesn't mean the story isn't good. It'd be different if The Last of Us was a WRPG with a linear story; then there'd be problems.
9. I don't necessarily think though that having 100% spoken dialogue means the story or writing automatically suffer. I would agree, however, that it does take some control out of the player's hands since you can't see all of what your character is going to say, and you have to rely on the brief prompts to see what best matches what you want to say.
10. I never made the excuse that since open world games have more variables, their writing has to suffer. CD Projekt probably has better writers, but they're also working off of a book that was written before the game was made, which makes their job infinitely easier since there's a ton written for them already. Bethesda may have a template, but they're working more from scratch. A better comparison would be New Vegas, which was a Bethesda-style Fallout game with far superior writing to Fallout 3 (and better almost everything else). And again, it was better because Obsidian has better writers who get Fallout more. If Bethesda incurred more criticism from the press and sales dropped because of their poor writing, it might encourage them to hire new writers (or get Obsidian to do the work for them). But most people seem to think Bethesda writes well. Anyway, that's the reason: it's the staff.
11. We don't have enough information to critique everything (especially the story, which is being kept tightly under wraps), but obviously I enjoy speculative discussion. What I don't enjoy, however, are arguments based on misconstrued quotes and overgeneralizations (which you were doing). Personally, I'm cautiously optimistic about Fallout 4. I don't think Fallout 4 will be better than 1, 2, or New Vegas, but I think it will be a step up from 3. I think Bethesda cares about story, and Fallout 4's story looks more original than Fallout 3's. I think Bethesda doesn't have the best track record for writing, but I think they have had more time with the Fallout franchise and might actually get it a little better than they did with Fallout 3. Hell, they got the memo that a post-apocalyptic world doesn't have to be colored dull gray and brown, why couldn't they get that Fallout should be funny? You're obviously entitled to your opinion, pessimistic or not, but at least give Bethesda some credit (and I stress the word "some" because I know they have messed up too).
