I've been lurking around since before Skyrim's release, but I figured now's a good time for my first ever post.

Something that seems to be an accepted axiom, even amongst Bethesda fans, is that Bethesda are crap writers. The go-to example for a "well-written" game is New Vegas. Frankly, what constitutes "good writing" is so vague and subjective that there's hardly a clear marker of deliniation. But what's often repeated anyway, is "Bethesda's writing is full of cliches and New Vegas got it right."

Firstly, Obsidian bent this very basic rule of writing and it did it frequently: show don't tell. Much of the critical information of the factions, the world, the characters, and the plot (though not all of it) is stated directly as dry exposition rather than experienced naturally as a player. And some of what's told feels directly contradicted by what you actually see. So you hear New Vegas is a happenin' town, filled with brilliant lights and casinos of vice, and excitement and adventure? Too bad, it's dull, flat, uninteresting and lightly populated with NPCs with all the weight and substance of wet cardboard. So maybe things aren't black and white with the factions, maybe it's not clear good and bad? Tell me, who sounds better: a gang of pyschotic slavers who you personally see raze a town along with crucifying and slaughtering its inhabitants (who you only "hear" were not that great of people), OR a democratic republic with a firm and reasonable rule of law that protects the innocent and maybe has some bureaucratic troubles. As for typical tropes and cliches, New Vegas has them. The whole beginning of the game is a basic "revenge" tale, the driving force of the plot is an absurd macguffin (the chip, which can also constitute as the plot point for the first part), and main conflict is an obvious "good vs evil" (NCR vs. Legion). New Vegas is a great game, but it's hardly an inspired piece of Shakespearean brilliance.

As for Bethesda, though there's plenty of common tropes, they manage to create multiple conflicts of ideology where both sides have reasonable points (Evles vs. Men, Imperials vs. Stormcloaks, Reachmen vs. Nords). They still make plots where there's more occuring beneath the surface (especially if you're in tune with lore). People still argue and talk about plot points and lore from their games, even years after the fact. For such a "poorly written" game, it's quite a feat that there's still arguement about the civil war in Skyrim 4 years after it's release, even in communities outside of Bethesda's own.

S, I'm hopeful that the story in Fallout 4 will enthrall me, and that those who prefer lighter fare will still enjoy and understand the plot without having to think hard about what's below the surface.

Though I'm hesitant to always think deep lore = great writing, I agree here.

New Vegas didn't "tell" instead of "show" it showed and told. Because it was a massive conflict that involved lots of characters who had opinions on the matter, as well as events and travesties that gave us as much or more insight on the various factions than any one character managed to through dialogue. I found the conflict to be engaging, and it did more to make me question my philosophies and ideals in a hypothetical situation than anything Bethesda has ever created.

I consider Bethesda great lore writers, and they are good at setting up a believable and engaging conflict. Never had much to complain about in those regards. My complaints with Bethesda involve their plot writing. They can get get all the background, all the setup perfect (i.e. Skyrim) but then story we play tends to fall flat compared to the buildup and more that surrounded it. The only instances that I feel the game's writing matched or surpassed the quality of the background it came with are Morrowind, Oblivion's Thieves Guild and Dark Brotherhood, Shivering Isles, The Pitt, and Point Lookout. And half of those are dlcs.

It's very simple...

The lore in the games is great! (TES and Fallout)

The actual main story is usually bad. Cliche after cliche. Originality as well as overall story execution are paramount to good writing.

Morrowind was a near masterpiece in this regard. It was unique and executed very well. The world was unlike anything seen before.

I hate when people act like they know what "good writing," is. Most of my favorite stories are defined by most as "dumb," or "bad," when in reality, the stories seem to deal with concepts unique to my being. As long as a story can inspire me to do or think anything, it's good enough in my book.

I think Bethesda and Obsidian are both good...

I'm too tired and lazy to challenge every point, but this is disputable: "a gang of pyschotic slavers who you personally see raze a town along with crucifying and slaughtering its inhabitants (who you only "hear" were not that great of people), OR a democratic republic with a firm and reasonable rule of law that protects the innocent and maybe has some bureaucratic troubles".

The NCR are also culpable of sending soldiers unprepared, with literally no body armour to fights over territory that the NCR have no real right to claim.I'd also argue against their purported democracy, first of all has there ever been a democratic election in the NCR's history?

Secondly it's demonstrably not representative of the people within its state, the people of goodsprings (in the NCR ending) can end up being taxed out of their homes.

At best the NCR is an ever expanding kakistocracy, determined to sacrifice the lives of soldiers for its own end.To me I'm not sure that sounds better than the Legion

I quite liked the story in FO3, not so much in FO:NV. Personal opinion though. Skyrim's main story was epic the first time I played through it (except the last fight against Alduin). Had no replay value what so ever though. Morrowind was perfect in many regards. Loved Oblivion.

Quite frankly, I've never had any regret after buying a TES or Fallout game, and I doubt Fallout 4 will disappoint me.

Yes, Tandi was elected near unanimously like 6 times

The 2 main quests that have horrible writing in The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim are the endings.

When you kill Alduin Parthurnaax says he tries to raise a army of dragons to stop another Alduin from rising and destroying the world, nothing happens after that. I guess because of the PlayStation 3's (PS3) and Xbox 360's hardware limitations. The quest could of been written into a little bit bigger story.

The same thing goes when we either get Elisef or Jarl Ulfric Stormcloak to be the High Queen or High King, nothing happens. We never got to explore Summerset Isles and take the fight to the High Elves, for a free people of Nords, for a free Skyrim to worship Talos. So much more could of been explained and made into a bigger quest.

The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind though has fantastic writing and so does The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion. I enjoy doing the Dark Brotherhood quests in The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion.

I guess quests are ok in Fallout 3, but I do enjoy doing the quests a lot more in Fallout: New Vegas.

I'm still amused that people think FNV was good writing, Like Beth games, it had minor "sub-stories" that were good, but the overarching story lost focus as soon as you hit the Legion encampment.

Part of the problem is too many stories. Common in RPGs. Too much to try and incorporate.

Source?

I'm also hoping you know the difference between an election and a democratic election.

It also seems like nepotism, which couldn't be any less democratic.

Hmm it seems I'm not the only one who enjoys the quests of The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind, The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, and Fallout: New Vegas, and thought the replay ability of at least the main quests of The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim are not so well written.

I honestly hated New Vegas' writing. Very few of the characters were very compelling, and it seemed like Obsidian was just as guilty of relying on tropes as Bethesda was. Mr. House was really interesting right up until I met him. Basically Obsidian fell into the "genius trap", where it's sort of difficult to write dialogue for a 'genius' character if you're not actually as smart as you intend the character to be. So Obsidian just made him a [censored], which is how most writers handle that. Caesar was presented as some sort of master of strategy, but the game itself makes it clear how shoddy and fragile his 'empire' really is. I'm not saying Obsidian did a bad job, because crafting a compelling and thoughtful story that will still appeal to millions of consumers is nearly impossible (look at most blockbuster movies for examples). But the world felt shallow due to their negligence. Bethesda's ability to present interesting, if not particularly developed, themes and create a rich, believable world should be celebrated, even though they don't bother trying to tackle any sort of artistic narrative usually.

http://fallout.gamepedia.com/Fallout_Bible_6#_New_California_Republic

Government: The government of NCR is much like the Pre-War United States, with a House of Congress staffed by elected representatives (Congressmen elected by their states). These representatives decide upon the President and Vice-President to head the council and govern the republic - under advice from the representatives, of course (NCR, at the time, has no existing term limits - Tandi was currently serving her tenth year at the beginning of Fallout 2). The titles for these representatives have ranged from "Councilor," "Counselor," "Councilman," "Representative," "Senator," and in particular, the Hub (in its own obstinate way) prefers to call their representatives "Governors." (There is a lot of friction between the Hub and Shady for a variety of reasons, usually related to trade rights and caravan routes.) In any event, all titles are recognized and accepted outside of the council chambers, but within the chambers, the titles are occasionally used as insults and spark furious debates - nothing more than petty displays of each state trying to exert its independence.

NCR has outlawed slavery in their territories, have one of the best and largest standing armies in the wastes, and have benefited under their current President, Tandi, who has been with the Republic since she was a young girl in Shady Sands (see History, below). On the plus side, the NCR has outlawed slavery in their territories, has attempted to bring civilization and law back to the wasteland, and they don't (openly) discriminate against ghouls and mutants.

There is little to no sixism in NCR (unlike most other territories in the wastes), most likely due to the community's origins in Vault 15 and because of Tandi's extended presidency. The republic also has shown little discrimination against ghouls and mutants, though many political anolysts argue that this is because NCR has had limited contact with them (NCR had little contact with Necropolis or the Master's Army).

The NCR military is composed of several Divisions,^[1] including special cavalry and mechanized units. One of their "Special Forces" units consists of the Rangers, a select group that is pledged to protect the people of the Wastes much like the Texas Rangers of old. The Rangers are said to have numerous safehouses throughout the wastes, and they use these to strike at slavers outside of NCR territory (usually in the North). As expected, the two groups hate each other with a passion. NCR was also in the habit of establishing marshals in the major population centers in their territories, responsible for enforcing the laws of NCR throughout the Republic. Ghouls, super mutants, and humans were all known to serve in the NCR armed forces, even in the rangers.

Although nearly hitting a hundred years of age, Tandi has done more to unite the people of the wastes than any other leader born from the ashes of the Great War, and she is revered as a saint and even a "Great Mother" by some of the tribals outside of the Republic territories. Tandi's State of the Republic messages were famous for inspiring countless people to join the "service" and rebuild civilization.^[2] Under her rule, the republic has grown, and she has focused efforts on rebuilding the pre-war infrastructure to support the growing population, finding new forms of transportation and manufacturing, clearing roadways and rail lines, building forts, fostering caravans and trade in the republic (and with other territories), and dealing with threats swiftly and efficiently. In all her years, she has never forgotten her roots in the small village of Fallout 1, and she has always strived to put the welfare of the common man above the wheels of progress. When people talk about "good people," Tandi's good people.

Common NCR Laws include:

• No weapons may be carried openly within the city limits.
• Public drunkenness and drug use is grounds for arrest.
• Slavery, gambling, and prostitution are not permitted within the city limits.

These laws were more relaxed in the outlying settlements, but became more rigidly enforced the closer one came to a major NCR population center.

Eloquence is saying everything that should be said, not everything that could be said.

I'll get back to you after i've read this novella...

Edit:

There's not a single source for the first third of the excerpt (the relevant part).

Is the Fallout Bible canon?I know Bethesda has used it at times but that doesn't byproxy suggest all of the bible is canon.

There's nothing there that explicitly states that Tandi was democratically elected (nevermind 6 times), who was the electorate and what measures were in place to determine that there was a fair and free election?

All it says is that Tandi served a tenth year, and implies that she received the presidency from her father.

We also have to keep in context the original point, someone proclaimed that the NCR was democratic; even if Tandi was democratically elected (and there's little but implication from a dubious source to suggest it) that doesn't mean Aaron Kimball was democratically (key word) elected.The wiki just states that there was an election, not that it was democratic.

As I said earlier with the expedient expansion of the NCR, they are enforcing their political authority onto the new territories they claim with force, that's the antithesis of democracy (Goodsprings being an example).

Yeah, I never got all that outrage. When Bethesda wants to write, they can write rather well. I oftentimes find myself reading book after book and getting lost in them for an hour in TES games. Obsidian is also great yet they hail from a background in which you need to write and describe everything in detail: isometric 2D games with tons of dialogue. Bethesda had always been from another branch in RPGs so it's understandable not having as much proper dialogue experience.

I love Bethesda and love Black Isle and their off-shoots like Obsidian, Troika and such. Looking forward to another collaboration like New Vegas. I'm sure I'll have a blast with FO4 as well.

I once did a play through as a Mage dedicated to knowledge and reading every book. I don't think I ever finished. Such a simply stated mission...

Yeah, I can imagine. There was a guy who had printed every book and made it into a tome and it literally was a THICK tome!

Bethseda aren't horrible writers, but the majority of stuff they write is very cheesy and cliche(mind you I know that no story made today can be actually original), but they lack putting a good spin on their ideas or fall flat when giving the delivery of said story.

My prime example would be the launch trailer just released, just full of "epic" music and cheesey one liners.

As far as stories I find their side quests are usually much more interesting while their main quests and grand themes are just very generic.

Does no one remember Bitter Springs?

I did this as well, and I found most, most, of the books to be fairly well written. Though I can't say for sure that I read all of them...

My point wasn't that Obsidian only told, it was that they didn't show enough. When they did show, it often felt contradictory to information or the points the narrative wanted to give or make. I couldn't bring myself to subvert expectations or wax philosophical because it was obvious based on my experience in the world as a player, and not the exposition in the dialogue, who was a [censored] and who's system of thought worked.

Again, much of the exposition is in direct contradiction with what you actually experience (though I understand there's other considerations when making a game). From what you see, the NCR soldiers are about as equiped as a grunt could be, with armor and a rifle, and an attitude of readiness for war. And considering the courier could do ok mostly on his own with a 9mm pistol and a vault suit, it seems like they're ready as a military unit. Plus, from the slide (which is direct expostion, not something you see for yourself) of goodsprings, it mentions a few "old-timers" leaving from the taxes. Not exactly a violent pogram. As for the democratic part, I'm pretty sure even wiki states the NCR is fairly democratic.

But the lore in Elder Scrolls (Bethesda games in general) isn't some distant element of the setting and world, it's always directly in the middle of the story, and advancing within the story. To understand the plot well and appreciate it fully, you need to have some knowledge of the lore. As for cliches, I'd like to know at least one example of one for any sort of talking point. Frankly, every thing I've read, watched, and played of any media has what many would consider cliches.

I'll just take dragons, as an example. When Skyrim came out, people complained about dragons as a cliche (yet no one does so for something like the Witcher, which is filled with generic medievel fantasy). But most people don't mind a cliche when it's presented in a unique and interesting fashion, or something is subverted, or something of the sort. In Skyrim, dragons were presented in a way that distinguishes them to the Elder Scrolls, with things like their powers being based on shouts of their language, the motiff of being a near extinct race, their symbolism of various gods and emobidiments of ideologies (like Akatosh, the god of time, and Aldiun, the World-Eater), and their former worship by the nords. Plus, dragons themselves have been an obscure, but important part of Elder Scrolls lore (I know they were mentioned in Daggerfall, and obviously the empire uses them as symbols).

Which was/is considered a complete and utter catastrophe even by the soldiers that were there. They set up an entire aid encampment and from guilt alone made peace with the Khans. Bitter Springs is not the best example, I think. They weren't celebrating that like the Legion in Nipton.

Edit: well, not peace, but neutrality?

Umfortuantly, those fall well outside of Skyrim's viewpoint. First, you've only cleared the way. There still needs to be an election for the high king. Second, the War would have drained resources, and going accross all of Tamriel to immediately fight the Thalmor would seriously deplete Skyrim's resources if not ruin it entirely. The Dragonborn can win battles, but they can't be everywhere at once. There would be a period if at least ten to twenty years before such a campaign could be launched. Third... just about everyone would rather see "The Elder Scrolls VI: Summerset Isles" than "The Elder Scrolls V: Alinor".

Granted, they could've done the High King thing in Skryim's Civil War quest, but that's only closure.