Bethesda CAN right good characters and stories. They proved this to me with 3 things. The Pitt DLC in F3, Serana in Skyrim, and the Civil War story arc in Skyrim. These proved to me that Bethesda CAN write engaging characters and complex stories that make you think. However, the fact remains that their batting average is way off.

I think the games are so big and open that:

1. You can create a rather disjointed flow of the story for yourself by doing so much stuff. Or you can b line the story and keep it tight.

2. There is a mix of great to decent writing in there and with so much on offer some people may find one side or the other sticking out more.

Bethesda Game Studios approach to gaming is magnificent though and makes up for any deficiencies in writing. Player freedom is so in the forefront of their design and is much appreciated.

The Civil War quest in The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim was not written very well. There's a lot that was never concluded, like the election of a High King or High Queen.

Hmm. I think New Vegas is incredibly consistent with it's world building. We're told that the NCR is utterly outmatched by Caesar's Legion, for instance. As we progress through the Mojave we see this first hand. Caesar's Legion has breached the Colorado - Cottonwood Cove and Nelson are overrun, Camp Searchlight is irradiated and Nipton's citizens crucified. It's very explicit actually - maybe too explicit. Not very subtle, but I appreciate the fidelity.

See, there's a fluency to the Mojave - a pervasive feeling of dread. You are on the front line of a conflict, the consequences of which are all around to see. It feels like a legitimate world with many differing players and factions trying to influence the outcome. You'd be hard pressed to find anything as complex in Fallout 3.

So I would say that, while New Vegas is far from Shakespearean, it [censored] all over Fallout 3 in terms of its writing and is a better game for it. But that's just me. Opinions!

100% and I swear I am in the same boat as you. To each their own, sadly some people think their opinions are the overwhelming majority and thus are correct and everyone else is wrong.

I found the NV story line slightly more engaging than F3. Not enough to say Bethesda isn't any good at writing.
I felt Skyrim was an excellent canvas with which to write my own story. I put it as an equal to Morrowind in that regard.

I agree. Though, I'd have to point out that between Obsidian and Bethesda, they both have probably had their geniuses come and go.

Unfortunately, Obsidian recently seems to have lost something/someones along the way, as their games (like pillars) though 'fun' feel less immersive - like there's something missing.

If I were to tag anything upon Obsidian that may convey my feelings toward how I see some of there ideas, that it generally feels more trendy, than substantive.

Bethesda games tend toward archtypical characters rooted to something deeper (anachronisms for example) thus carry more meaning innately. A lot of high fantasy games tend to neglect connecting elements of what feels real (or capitalize on them) due to, what I suspect, is a lack a firm understanding of reality/fundamentals themselves (not just literary theory).

I for one never really got bothered so much by the way Beth told stories. For me, it is the journey of your gameplay in the world; the "story" you're creating for yourself by living another life is how I see Beth games. I highly doubt that those people who play 400+hrs even 1000hrs in either of the TES games, are playing it because of the story/writing. In fact, in terms of the story, it is a known fact that many including myself don't even touch the main quest after quite awhile because we are busy exploring the world, doing our own things. One of the reasons I didn't like Skyrim was not because it had bad writing/story but because I found the gameplay shallow overall. But even this, of course, is a matter of opinion.

When it comes to Bethesda's writing, I can say that I love it because of how completely and utterly they managed to [censored] over basically every idiotic trope, of not only fantasy RPG, but of RPGs in general. And its not even once or twice a game, its literally systemic [censored]ting over the concepts of destiny, prophecy, chosen ones, gods, "the all knowing X", and basically any sort of concept that attempts to limit the idea of absolute freedom of choice of people.

On the other hand, the problem with their writing is that they take is to such absurd levels of meta that you basically don't ever really learn any of it unless you spend untold hours reading through every book, and then either being able to connect the vague dots, or have someone else tell you how the dots connect, thus turning everything into what seem like yet another cliche storyline about those concepts.

They never really do anything with the points they are making to ever actually MAKE the points even remotely apparent. Its interesting as all hell when you know whats actually going on in TES, and really changes how you see how [censored] goes down, but it doesn't really end up mattering because 99% of the people who play the game have no idea it exists.

Anyone arguing that Bethesda writing is bad because of cliches needs to rethink their logic. Bethesda's writing in Fallout 3 is pretty bad but it's certainly not because of cliches.

I have to disagree. I think anything that can really make players think about a choice should be considered good game writing. Debates on Stormcloaks vs Imperials are long and continue to this very day. It's along the same vein as the conflict Fallout NV, which has also sparked countless debates on which side is truly best.

Again, if you can give a player a choice, and set it up to make them REALLY think about it, then I think you've done good.

So no conclusion to who really is the High King or High Queen or no dragon rising up to be the new Alduin and raising a army of dragons or Parthurnaax raising a army to defend the world from destruction is good writing? Or no battle being taken to the High Elves in Summerset Isles?

To me, the sub stories and environmental story telling are what make the "stories" in Bethesda games. I have little issue with their overarching story arcs. They are completely serviceable as a backdrops for the immense numbers of hours I spend in their worlds doing the seemingly infinitesimal number of things there are to do.

The storytelling is just one aspect of the entire Beth experience, and its always good enough in my view, because the other stuff (particularly the worlds themselves) are spectacular.

Do other developers do better stories? Sure, but even that's a subjective thing based on preferences and perspectives. However ones sees it, those other developers can't do what Bethesda does, nor glue you to their worlds quite like they do.

Subjective is subjective, and preferences are preferences. Feel free to yell your hearts out about how great other developers stories are, or how your literary expertise needs to be hired out to Bethesda since they're in such obvious need of it.

Go ahead, please, you're quite free to bang your heads...the wall's right over there.

CD Projekt RED has obviously glued me to the world and universe of The Witcher. It has a lot of interesting stories to be told.

That's awesome!

I absolutely hate that 'rule'; and the terrible side-effects that come of its blind use as a matter of policy.

Fallout [the original of course] was impactful because of its writing; and that includes its descriptions of the gameworld. FO3's isolated mini-vignettes are no substitute for superbly descriptive story telling. On the contrary, that's what you do when you don't have superbly descriptive story telling.

When I compare a book like 'Halo:The Flood' to 'Worm Ouroboros'; the first thing that comes to mind is the bland matter-of-fact play-by-play description of the events in the Halo novel... Like it was trying desperately to be a first person ~book. Ouroboros hits like a hammer with rich detail that reader would never have perceived by just standing there looking at things in the scene. Its careful language imparting measured understanding of those details, in a way that triggers the emotions of the reader... You don't get that from a stale after-scene like plungers on the wall, or two corpses on a bed... You get that by including a diary next to the bed that introduces the player to their entire life together and ultimate end.

sounds like your real problem is the lack of closure not the direction. that's not poor writing, it's just a side effect of having a persistent evolving universe in which the player has choices that could effect the lore in a later timeline and has to be left open ended to prevent paradoxes.

all of which are told through Geralt's point of view. very one dimensional.

Well, there's also the problem that a lot of rpg's have because of player choice. There's lots of ways you could end up missing dialogue options and plot points. With a lot of games it's up to the player to get as much or as little out of the story as possible. It's also very easy in more complicated games to completely lose the thread of the main plot because you spend so much time doing other stuff that seems or is unrelated. Baldur's gate 2 and Arcanum are great examples... My first times through those games I had many "what the hell am I even doing this for?" moments. Arcanum I was so lost I started over.

Yet it's still very well written is it not? I think it is.

Er... The titled ruler Elisif either way. And why would there be a new dragon to replace Alduin? You never absorb his soul, so it's hinted that he may return someday. The greybeards tell you as much. Parthunaax goes to try, by Odahviing suspects he will fail. And a new war against the high elves was mentioned to be coming soon at the end of the Civil War story, and will likely be part of Elder Scrolls VI.

I would of preferred the war with the High Elves to end in The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim, not The Elder Scrolls VI and have Black Marsh, Elsweyer or Valenwood taken place in The Elder Scrolls VI with a brand new story told.

Eh, Geralt is as trite as it gets so I couldn't really get into Witcher. That and the combat but mainly due to Geralt. Trite can be still entertaining but in Geralt's case, it's the boring type.

It wouldn't have made sense for the war to end in Skyrim. It's not the main front of the war. It's merely one of many the Aldmeri Dominion are trying to destabilize, in order to divide and conquer. To truly end the war against the Aldmeri, we'd need to go somewhere else, to strike at the problem more directly. So a game in the Summerset Isles, or even Valenwood, would make sense for that. Besides, the Aldmeri are not just an issue for Skyrim or the Empire, but for damn near everyone. There's still so much more they can do with this Aldmeri Conquest story arc. Skyrim's main focus was the return of Alduin and the dragons. The war against the Aldmeri was more of a side thing, and probably a prelude to future plans for the game.

Glad I'm not the only one. I wanted to like the game, but I just can't do it. Regardless of how it looks, the world is empty, the combat is bland, and I hate all the characters. It has one of the best crafted video game stories, though. That's about the only thing the game does exceptionally.

I liked more choices in NV. But that isn't to say that that the story was better.

And, sure Bethesda's Dad angle was cheesy. But at least you had a reason to play past the initial quest goal of finding him.
In NV, after you find Benny, there is no reason for you to give a crap about NV. You are a courier, who no one seems to know and who has amnesia from being shot in the head. No ties to the place, whatsoever.

The takeaway for me is that none of the games are perfect, and Bethesda's writing style is different. Which isn't bad, just different.