If I may but in for a moment...
All narrative media (books, movies, games, etc.) do two things - tell a story and build a world.
Most games focus on the first aspect: each character is someone unique and serves a purpose, each location is there because it needs to be. The story takes precedent, and the whole point is to make the player emotionally attached to the characters and invested in the story. If done properly, the player cares about what happens to the characters, but not necessarily to anything other than the characters. Bioshock comes to mind - I really cared as I was playing, but the end was the end. I was not at all interested in the sequel because the story I cared about was done.
Other games, like TES, prioritize on the world building. There are tons of characters who are not involved in the main objective, locations are there because they are part of the world, and the player does not have to follow the story. This does cost some players emotional evolvement because its just not as concentrated as a linear game. On the other hand, it makes players care about the world.
Take Vivec, for instance. He had a couple expository paragraphs in Morrowind proper - and yet outside of our interaction with the game he is one of the most developed, and in my mind brilliant, characters. Similarly, there are tons of people who want a game that takes place in Summurset Isle, not because of the story that could be told but because of how cool the location is. Its two different kinds of immersion: one that focuses on the player's experience during gameplay and the other on the player's relationship to the essence of the game.
On the other hand, prioritizing the world does not mean that the characters have to suffer. Take one look at deviant art to see the insane devotion people have to Martin or Lucien Lachance.
tl;dr - they are different things, though not exclusive.
[edit] I just noticed killmoms has my pic in his signature. Awesome!
Thanks for the reply. I was hoping it would inspire a debate of sorts among users as well as Devs. I do understand what you're saying; in a sense, the
world is the real character of
Elder Scrolls and there are so many characters (some of whom we may never even meet - even after 100+ hours of play!) that there will inevitably be some loss of emotional investment. I think the key word is of course 'emotional'.
Heavy Rain is an extreme example because of the themes and tone of that game, but I guess I was just surprised to see
TES devs praising that game purely because it's so different to their own.
I know they can't reveal anything about
Skyrim, but I guess I was also wondering whether they might have somehow been influenced by
Heavy Rain (particularly, narrative influences), and what that might mean for any changes made to the presentation of in-game set-pieces for example.
Half-Life 2 is a great example of world-building and storytelling through a first-person perspective without the use of cutscenes .i.e. you discover things as Gordan Freeman discovers them. Do in-game set-pieces have a place in the
Elder Scrolls universe?
In short, can a large-scale, free-roaming RPG be considered 'cinematic'? Or should we be content with creating our own cinematic adventures?