the romance stuff, i don't actually think that has anything to do with bioware, it's just a natural consequence of npc interactions getting more refined with time, independent of which company you are. it's just the next logical step after followers and "player friends", nothing more.

i do agree about the bloody dialogue wheel though. really wish they hadn't, it's just awful (regardless of if it comes with voiced character or not: i can't tell what i'm about to say, that's bad, period. it's just like having some kind of wasteland tourette). and yes, it's clearly a concession to mass appeal with no enhancement for actual gameplay (for not to say a kneefall to this world's secondary illiterates) and i certainly do hope they'll take that bend without further damage and that that is just as far as it goes

i've personally never seen bioware up hill.

even putting aside you're always in some confined room and get kicked to travel maps before you can even say moo (where i'll have to admit though that i haven't played a single bw-title since skyrim came out, maybe this changed for the better) - everything i _ever_ played by bioware 1) bored the [censored] out of me, 2) had a storyline that was totally gaga, and not the good kind of, 3) somehow managed to be redundant AND incoherent (which IS an acchievement indeed, just not necessarily in game design), and 4) couldn't motivate me to even finish _one_single_one_ of them. about half in the game, i just didn't care anymore.

and i could also add that most of them were a buggy mess when i first installed them, but then, well, i played fnv's first (i think) release...

anyway, whatever it is people see in bioware's games - and telling from sales, there's got to be SOMETHING - , i just can't see it. whatever i've ever seen from them never touched _anything_ in me, just totally blank. shiny looks, nothing behind it. that's how they feel for me.

No, that's not what I'm saying. Bethesda had a semi-romance questline for male characters with high agility in Morrowind centered around Ahnassi, a Khajiit thief; that was a pretty good romance plotline. There was nothing similar in Oblivion, but what I'm suggesting is that, because BioWare has successfully included romance in most of their games, Bethesda decided to throw half-baked marriages into Skyrim "to keep up with the competition." Unfortunately, Bethesda is sorely lacking in good writers and good romances require good writers; Bethesda is never going to compete with BioWare in this department until they hire new writing staff. Honestly, I think BioWare is doing worse for itself trying to imitate Bethesda than Bethesda is trying to imitate BioWare.

With the exception of DA2 and DAI, I'd say it's the other way around. Bethesda is increasingly marketing their games to the lowest common denominator.

NPC interactions have gotten more refined in TES? Did they release a game after Skyrim that I haven't played?

"Shiny looks"? I love BioWare (or, at least, I used to--DA2 and DA:I were both awful and ME3 was overall good IMO but had issues, not good signs for the direction of the company), but they make seriously ugly games. As for bugs, they've got nothing on Bethesda when it comes to bugs. (Ironically, FNV has been the most stable Bethesda-published game for me--FO3 is unplayable, Oblivion and Skyrim are pretty crash-heavy, and even Morrowind can be notoriously unstable.) BioWare used to do good stories, but it's last several games haven't exactly been shining examples of airtight plots--but what BioWare has always done well is character development. If I were to list my top 10 favorite video game characters, most of them would have been written by BioWare. And that's also why BioWare romance plots tend to work better than other games' attempts at them; you can't have a well-written romance without well-written characters. If you can get past the bad graphics and clumsy controls, I'd recommend giving Jade Empire a try--in my opinion (and I seem to be in a minority, but...) it is BioWare's best game. But if you want something more approachable, I can also recommend Mass Effect (the original one) or Dragon Age: Origins (unfortunately, the rest of the Dragon Age franchise is pretty bad...). BioWare doesn't do open world RPGs (and DA:I is an excellent example of why they shouldn't), but in my opinion linear isn't a failing--open world and linear games both have strengths and weaknesses, and you can generally tell a better story with a linear game (Morrowind being the only exception I can think of).

I voted yes absolutely.

Because people really seem to enjoy this feature in games now adays. I see a lot of people throwing cold water (hehe) saying they can not do it, or it will svck. But I think the players who truly enjoy it kind head cannon it a bit anyway, so more power to them. Give them a bit to work with. Why not?

Course this is not for me at all given my strange taste in Romance...

"Six men came to kill me one time. And the very best of 'em carried this. Its a Callahan full-bore auto-lock. Customised trigger, double thorough gauge. It is my very Favorite gun."

" I call it Vera."

As long as it's optional. I'm a loyal person though and I'll probably be making decisions that I'd actually make. I don't think I'd be interested in anyone else if something happened to my spouse

yeah, maybe it's just that why they don't reach me. i'm all sandbox. and for what you call "good storytelling", the price to pay is linearity, and for what you call "good characters", the price is a fixed character. (and btw, i think beth's writing IS good, it just has more open ends for just these reasons, and it kind of disperses among the 700 quests you'll have running at any time. so i'd at anytime agree with "they hardly manage to keep you focused", but then, i think focus is widely overrated anyway

you see, in, say, fallout 3 there where zillions of brillant stories all around, it's just they don't slap you in the face with it. want the story? figure it out. want a tale told? go read a book. quite obviously, many people don't agree with this and would rather have somebody sit them down and explain the story. just, me, i do NOT want that. i do NOT want to be told a story by a game. i want to BE the story. i LIKE stumbling through the respective game world without the slightest clue, the "story" being whatever i make of it. and, just as folks say beth fails in "telling a story", i think just this is what bioware TOTALLY fails at. in their games, you're just a pawn.

Fallout 3 had a fairly set protaginist. People *still* whine about it.

I wouldn't call Dragon Age: Origins a 'trainwreck'. It was pretty good for what it was. My only real gripe with it was the poor writing for males and overall how incredibly trope filled it was. Otherwise, it was a 'standard' story well told. Especially once you toss some mods into the mix.

Also, I really don't think that DA:O inspired Hearthfire. People have been clamoring for adoption/housebuilding/marriage for a long time. Hence the mods for it. Makes sense that they would toss that crowd a bone.

You will also need to build a better case than merely taking the 'dialogue wheel' too. Mechanics are mechanics, and studios take things that work. You can dislike the wheel all you want (I do too) but that doesn't mean that it isn't a useful mechanic that most seem to enjoy/prefer.

What gives you the impression that it will be 'cinematic' heavy? Everything thus far seems to follow the same structure as Fallout/TES games have in the past.

'Admire' is rather tame for your lame comparison.

And even with your explanation I still call really devoted fan. Bethesda games are notorious for lacking depth. Its a large part of why you can imprint the world to act mostly like whatever you want. Like the other thread up on the front page where a dude just wants to hunts stuff. Fallout 3 especially had a huge world but no reason to explore half of it other than idle curiosity. And frankly, 'Idle Curiosity: The Game' kind of svcks. I want reasons to go do things other than "I may find some more tin cans there!". 1

In FO4, perhaps you could really romance Vera.

"Yeah, I'm feeling kinda lazy today. Those charging raiders are all yours, Vera."

"Oh! Really? Now, you're not just teasing me, are you?"

"Nah. Just tell me which bits to point you at."

"Oh, you do know how to show a gun a good time . *sultry* Maybe afterwards I'll let you... field strip me "

New ValtTech AI enhanced V.A.T.S. - just a love affair between a vault dweller and their gun

Was there ANY writing behind the 'romances' (better call it just 'marriage' in Skyrim...? There was no romance plot in Skyrim... or did I miss something...? Just the 'Nice stuff, do you want to marry me?'`...

I enjoy telling my own stories--but that's why I write. Gaming can be a form of interactive storytelling, but you have to have a competent co-writer--so I enjoyed Morrowind and FNV but didn't enjoy Oblivion or Skyrim. I had...mixed feelings about FO3. Morrowind really is the last time Bethesda had decent writing.

I didn't say Dragon Age: Origins was a trainwreck, I said Dragon Age: Inquisition was a trainwreck. Origins was the only good entry in the Dragon Age franchise, IMO. The story was mediocre, but it had a great cast of characters. Ironically, Inquisition had a good cast as well but not enough to save it.

That's pretty much it. :/

yeah well, allright with me, devoted fan it is then...

sounds like something i'd buy actually

i wouldn't say "the last time they had...", but i agree it was their strongest story collection overall so far (though i do think fo3 had just as strong moments, they just wouldn't quite connect to a whole as they did in morrowind). last place in my personal beth rpg writing quality charts would clearly be oblivion btw.

Like I said, I have mixed feelings about FO3--it certainly had its high and low points. Oblivion was boring to play, but I felt its story was mediocre--which places it well above the confused and incoherent mess that is Skyrim's attempt at being a story. But I freely admit that I have high standards and pretty harsh judgment when it comes to stories.

save world by killing bad undead time travelling boss dragon. what's so confusing about that? ,-))

You want to write your own fanfic, have at it. I just don't want to do the same thing to experience a decent game. I buy these sorts of games to take part in a story, not write my own. If that is what I wanted I would be off playing Minecraft, or writing novels or raking in that sweet, sweet youtube money.

Sorry, many people call DA:O DA:'one'. Which is what I read it as. Sorry for the confusion.

Then there is plenty of pretentious hipster crap not getting funded. Go have fun with them and leave my AAA stuff alone.

Lack of a really memorable antagonist is only a small fraction of Skyrim's narrative issues.

In Skyrim 'marriage' was just a means to get an animated accessory for your house. I wouldn't call it 'romance'.

oh. there was an antagonist in skyrim? )

Actually, what I'm saying is when I'm playing a game I expect it to provide me with a story; I do write books, so if I'm going to write a story myself I'm going to write one where I don't have to spend my entire time fixing Bethesda's crap. That's also why I don't write fan fiction; if a story has problems, they'll be my problems thank you very much. (Also, indie games are pretty much making the best games out there these days. Sims 4/TES/FO are really the only AAA games I play anymore, as of Skyrim TES has lost me, and Morrowind's really the only AAA title that would make my top 5 game list.)

That isn't what your initial response said. You said pretty clearly that the 'on rails' type of storytelling is 'bad' and wide open so you can fill in the blanks is good. Which isn't what I want. I like the story 'rail roading' me to an extent. I just want the freedom to be able to approach it in different ways, with different endings. I want choices to have more impact on the world at large so even if we always come to the head of turning on the purifier, how you do it has an actual effect on the game.

And I completely disagree with you about Indy titles. I think the last one that I actually cared about was Shadowrun Returns, or maybe Papers Please, Most of it is janky garbage, like Sunset.

I suspect one of the big tests of how high someone's standards are is; can you recommend a story which you objectively know is well crafted but which you hate, and deprecate a story which you objectively know is bad but which you love anyway? An example might be a movie critic recommending a kiddies cartoon movie which sets his teeth on edge with it saccharine clichés, but which he knows is well done for what it is and so will be loved by its target audience.

On the more general topic of romances in linear vs open/freeform games (regardless of which company is making the game), is a freeform game simply incompatible with a romance sub-plot?

I can certainly see that there are serious problems. A linear story makes it much easier to give a romance sup-plot context, and the pacing imposed by the overall story can be used to give pacing to the romance. Whereas, in a freeform story, any romance has to provide its own pacing and continue to work regardless of the order in which the player approaches the various storylines in the rest of the game.

For example, one of the problems with DA:I was that main story quests and side-quests could be approached in different orders, and at least one of the romances could be made impossible to pursue by doing quests in the 'wrong' order.

For a romance storyline to provide its own pacing regardless of the order the player approaches other quests would place much more burden on the writing and game-design of the romance, and could even lead to the romance placing constraints on the design of the rest of the game (which in a freeform game is, by definition, a Bad Thing ).

I think it is possible, and personally I'd love to see that Bethesda have attempted it, even if it turns out badly, but I don't have any experience in non-linear writing (and precious little of any other kind, either ).

As I see it, a romance quest in a freeform game could have four parts. The first would be the introduction, where the player encounters the object of the romance and after offering assistance in some small matter agrees to have the object accompany them. The second would be the 'learning' phase, running alongside whatever quests the player chose, where the object tags along with the player, assisting as any other companion would, but offering observations on the world and the player character's actions in it, and revealing more about themselves through dialogue. The third section would be a quest devoted to fulfilling a major goal of the object's. That would need to be linear, and might well have a time limit on it once launched, or take place in a separate worldspace, and it would culminate in either a cementing or rejection of any emotional ties between player character and romance object. The final part would be strong companionship ('marriage' or it's equivalent) or fallout (sad parting, furious reaction to rejection, resignation to 'just friends', whatever works for the object's character).

Of course, another alternative to that would be something more along the lines of the romance object being a homebody, and the player character travelling around having adventures but coming back to the comforting familiarity of a friendly face in a safe location. Which seems to be how many people regarded (and enjoyed) the marriage feature in Skyrim. Couldn't stand that myself, but it was clearly popular... along with having vast and comfortable homes provided by mods .

[edit]

As the small hours of the morning approach and I have work tomorrow, I'll read any vituperative or scornful responses tomorrow with interest - if anybody even bothers

No, that's not what I said; that's how you (mis)interpreted it. And yes there are plenty of horrible indie titles, but really good AAA titles happen about twice a decade it seems. Indie games like Brothers - A Tale of Two Sons, The Banner Saga, Thomas Was Alone, or the various adventure games made by Daedalic Entertainment are, in my opinion, the best games on the market.

I can think of plenty of both, though more so the first than the second. 1984 is an absolute masterpiece of writing; I hated every second of it. Same for Neuromancer. For the second, I enjoy some of the schlockier episodes of Star Trek: The Next Generation just because they're hilariously awful.

KEKs,

And of course there will be more individual titles. When ~1,000 indy games get made for every AAA title of course some of them are going to be good/ok. When comparing in aggregate though those numbers work against them in terms of quality. Just as 9 times out of 10 I would rather see a tentpole than something shot on no budget with their friends camcorder. This is especially true when looking at niche's. Getting lucky enough to get noticed and played to even get on your list versus the inbuilt marketing speaks volumes on its own. And even then one of the titles you mention is garbage.

Ah, I've been doing it wrong, then. I wasn't aware that a game's marketing budget determined its quality.

Determined? Absolutely not. Good indicator? Yes.

They seem really dead set on you liking your Pre-War other half, I don't think Bethy will tolerate advltery on their watch. Just like how you can't kill Serana because I'm 100% positive there's one guy on Dawnguard's who's convinced Serana is his wife.