Show don't Tell is a great rule for writing, and it IS a rule a writer should consider when making a game, but, if you are creating a RPG game world from scratch, the history, lore, etc(which FO is), then you do need a mixture of both Show and Tell. Mainly, because games are limited, where as when writing a book, one is not. If say they showed everything talked about in NV, the game would become the impossible game, would have never been made, because of too high a goal. Show the first battle of hoover dam. Show the BoS vs NCR war. Show the battle of Helios. Show the Powder Gangers escaping the prison. Show Bitter Springs. Show the political corruption of the NCR back in California. It becomes an impossible task to do all this, so what they tell you, is the past. Nothing wrong with that at all. In a book, you can do that via flashbacks, or just start a book in the past, but unless your story is going to begin at the dawn of time, there will always be some past that either needs some telling in some fashion.

In the older style of games, some of what was told instead of shown, could have been possible, because the map node system and a much larger game world. The style FO games are now in, your story is going to be limited by the playable area, so something will thus be impossible to show, and must be told.

BGS didn't do a great job of telling in FO 3. There are a lot of questions of how things appear or happened that the game doesn't go into, that people have debated in lore for a long time, because the game, in certain aspects, is vague.

The other thing they did not do well was proper choice and consequence. Not every decision HAS to have C&C, but some things in FO 3 became ridiculous, blowing up Megaton one of them and the utter lack of any consequence in doing so. Being a slaver, not much consequence. You are still welcome into every settlement regardless, you can commit murder and be welcomed back. NPCs do not react in realistic fashion to someone who does these things. Part of the problem is that there was no proper way to complete the game as an "evil" character, and an "Evil" character was forced to go down the same "good" path, but given two stupid "evil" options that really don't make any sense, and are only useful if the evil character you are playing is an utter psychopath, with no regard for anyone else or even themselves, and then the question is why in the wide world of sports would people like the BoS and what not be sending the known most evil person ever out to do important stuff?

Also, consequences don't always have to be horrible. They can be subtle, opening up or closing other options down the line, or potential dangers down the line. They don't have to doom anyone, although sometimes a consequence will.

The Courier does not have amnesia.

A bit of humor at Ulysses'(writers) expense.

I like the stealth insult at the end "If you don't like Bethesda's writing you're probably too dim to get it."

I just don't understand it's been 200yrs and Edens like "remember when we all played baseball?"

Opinions, opinions never changes...and anyone has one...

I do believe they are good writers.

At this point I would hope Bethesda's stories are better I mean they're starting to lock the player into more and more decisions.

Fallout 3: From a Vault, Dad plays a major part in the story, You are 19

Fallout 4: Pre-War Citizen, Only Survivor of Vault 111, Married, Had a Kid, Voiced Protagonist Giving their Personality on things rather then allowing the player to portray the character as they wish.

That being said I wouldn't say Bethesda are crap writers just not as creative in that regard. Obsidian on the other hand writing is something they hold very dear. Both have their pros and cons I just tend to favor more depth in the writing department with fleshed out factions, characters, and quests.

Skyrim is guilty of some utterly dumb writing....stuff that doesn't make sense.

The various guilds for example, a plot line where a stranger can wander in, and within about half an hour rise to become leader is pretty daft when done once....when they do it six or seven times it's an epic fail... especially as when you are the leader, they still give you jobs....

The overall backstory and lore though is fine though.

He only acts like a person who has amnesia. I don't see the difference and yes Ulysses ruined a lot from the initial concept that was communicated here on these forums big time.

I don't have a dog in his race, but it clearly states that Tandy was elected by the representatives of the republic who were themselves elected by the people of the republic.

Personally what I find better in Obsidian is mainly roleplay: more possibilities to solve quests and more seeable consequences of your actions.

I find it weird that Bethesda would shackle players to a predefined backstory when its hugely restrictive from a role-playing perspective. It doesn't play to their strengths at all. So much for 'environmental storytelling'.

I am not a connoisseur of great literature but I do know what I like. I like Bethesda's writing and I like Obsidian's writing, too. Sure there is always room for improvement. I am probably going to get incinerated for saying this but I really liked Oblivion's story (here's where you all can groan and roll your eyes). I guess I am more like that mage in the Imperial City who "sleeps late and reads trashy books", lol.

That said, I always have so much fun playing their games. They are like comfort food for my game-playing appetite.

What's weird is NV gets so much praise but, by the end of the DLC, has shackled us to so damn much ambiguous backstory weirdness.

I think the issue with Bethesdas writing has always been the shortage of believable Characters and dialogue, often not assisted by the inevitable repetition of some of the "barks" - like the infamous "saw a mudcrab the other day...", but sometimes its just downright poor "I'm looking for my father, middle aged guy, maybe you've seen him?"

Their plotlines tend to be a little overblown too, but for me at least, thats a lesser issue.

What's not to get? To the Courier, Hopeville is just another forgettable delivery point. A community flourishes around him but it's not something he cares to notice. The point is - small, even forgettable actions can carry great repercussions. But the specifics of who the Courier is - his or her backstory - remain ambiguous throughout, and can be defined by the player.

The same cannot be said of Fallout 3. Oskar Schindler is always our father, Vault 101 our home, Butch our bully. It's all predefined. Little is left to the imagination.

So my gaming year went something like: Skyrim -> Witcher 3 -> New Vegas -> Skyrim.

There were some others in there of course but lets ignore those for now.

Skyrim I've been playing since launch on and off, keeping things fresh with mods by changing gameplay elements, adding quests etc. I think a lot of you are familiar with this process

Then I went into Witcher 3 knowing what to expect since I played the previous game and read the books. Wasn't disappointed, haven't finished the game yet but the writing quality again had me hooked (the Bloody Baron quest, holy crap) with even the smallest quest having an interesting story behind it. CDPR does a great job at making even what would look like fetch quests be interesting and tell a story (or part of it) to the player. Characters feel well written overall with a lot of them being way more complex than they initially seem, I always found myself thinking about possible repercussions and hidden motives when talking to people.

Next up was NV and I was decided to finish it this time. I like the game but whenever I tried playing it I always stopped towards the end due to outside factors. And I was great playing through it again. You really feel like you're in the calm before the storm, there's a tension that you feel when talking to NPCs about their lives and their worries about the legion threat in the east. It has some great moments and characters. Arcade's past and his conflicts between abandoning his family and friends and trying to move on from the atrocities the enclave committed. Or Veronica's struggle between staying with the only family she ever knew even though they refuse to adapt and are pretty much dying and moving on and abandoning the nonsensical mindset of the Western BoS. Or finally talking to Caesar and seeing a charismatic leader leading intellectually inferior men and mentioning Hegel's philosophy in his explanation of how he views the current situation. I disagreed with Caesar but I loved his character, it was quite complex and he had a very interesting story.

New Vegas oozes good atmosphere and writing in my opinion. It's thought provoking, it has grey areas, you get surprised by how looks can deceive when getting to know the characters more in depth.

In New Vegas, (and Witcher 3) everything feels connected, everything feels part of the same world.

Then I went to Skyrim and it hit me yet again as I walked by a guard and he told me "hey i know who you are, hail Sithis!". I was yet again reminded of the Mr. "I don't know who you are but blow up Megaton for me, mkay?" Burke. I was reminded yet again of the "middle-aged guy" line. I was reminded how in my previous playthrough I became archmage and didn't have any magic skill above 30. Bethesda has great lore and do an awesome job of making worlds that you just want to go and explore and mod and explore some more and mod again etc.

But when it comes to drawing you into their world with the writing they have failed consistently starting with Oblivion. They have some good high points (IMO the Dark Brotherhood quest lines had the best quests in Oblivion and Skyrim) and the Skyrim main quest was definitely a step up from Oblivion's. But when I look back there's not a single moment in Skyrim's writing that made me pause, clap my hands and think "Bravo, that's one unforgettable moment!". And it's a shame because I feel like they always do a great job at setting up the world (Civil War questline has immense potential, I would have loved it if they explored the political conflicts more) but don't take full advantage of it by fleshing out characters and quests more and making them less unidimensional or straightforward. You can get away with having fetch quests in your games if you give them a good story. Obviously everyone has their likes and dislikes and ways of "measuring" quality in a game's writing. But if after finishing your game (or movie or book) it managed to make me think about how the plot ties in together the different elements and what stood out to me instead of just "well, another one to add to the pile of games I finished" then that to me is good writing.

I still very fondly remember the talks I had with the cab driver in Vampire - The Masquerade: Bloodlines because of that revelation you have towards the end.

The "I'm looking for my father, middle aged guy, maybe you've seen him" line is deliberately vague. The description of your father is supposed to strike you as useless, even dumb. The humor in the statement is more than one-level deep.

"I saw a mudcrab the other day" is at least the kind of thing you might hear in a city on the shores of a lake where mudcrabs live. The number of things NPCs can say is finite. When NPCs regularly have conversations, repetition is to be expected. Calling out the repetition as though it shouldn't happen is kind of strange.

I always thought the middle aged line was supposed to be a joke. I took it as such anyway.

But why would your Character actually ask that? The only way its even remotely humorous if if it breaks the fourth wall in an intentionally awful kind of way, and even then its a stretch.

As for the mudcrab point, yep - thats what I mean, the repetitious nature of barks means makes it harder for the lines to appear natural, so I actually think the poor quality of these lines is overstated. That said, it still just doesnt feel like something someone would actually say. It doesn't feel convincing or real. If a bark is done well, then you shouldn't be able to remember them at all - but people remember Bethesdas all the time. Its a sign of clunky writing, and to some extent too few barks.

Edit: In case it isnt clear, I love Bethesdas games, and think they tend to be great in spite of the writing whose awfulness is probably overstated a bit (but then people get like that about RPGs).

Because the line, like many lines in an RPG, is supposed to be a paraphrased example of a much longer line where you actually describe your father, but people for some reason want to take the line as exactly whats written on the screen.

There is a difference if I establish the background at the start of the game or tak one on afterwards in the last DLC while I am constantly saying before: "No I won't do that evil thing."

No it is not. There is no indication whatsoever that any of the lines in Fallout 3 is meant to be a paraphrase and this would be a baffling way to write and present dialogues that the game is apparently presenting in full to the player. Keywords are paraphrases. Fallout 3 does not use a keyword system. This line is particularly stupid since you could just sub in "vault-dweller" for "middle aged guy" and the line instantly makes sense from everyone's perspective.

I'm quite fond of Bethesda's writing. It's not great novel material but a novel doesn't have to work within the confines of game play. Writing for a game isn't the same as writing a short story or a novel or anything else because it must be able to fit with game play possibilities. And quite frankly I've not played too many games with much better writing. Often there is much offered in game to give it a much deeper meaning.

I always remember a part of Fallout:3 where I was moved to tears by a journal kept by a nurse at a hospital camp I ran across. That area wasn't very deep until I took the time to read that journal. Whoever wrote it got a lot of writing kudos from me for that piece. Since that moment I have not once complained about the writing. If you take the time to read every book, every journal and every note, it adds much depth to the overall writing of the game.

They are because its mentioned several times in the GECK that many of them are due to the 140 character limit they had.