This. I'm not saying there should be massive questlines associated with every single NPC, but it's 2011 and Bethesda don't seem to have progressed (much) beyond the complete apathy of Oblivion's NPC's.

Skyrim IS soulless. It's fun, and there's a lot to do, but there really is nothing which genuinely makes you care about what is going on, or gives you any real indication that anyone else cares either.

The point he made is totally valid.

But you risk (in development of a game) just creating a system where the game (in a world as big as Skyrim) would randomly generate NPC dialogue that would be rather pointless, kinda like how the Companions constantly want you to go take care of a saber tooth cat in someone's house. It might not end up being that repetitive, but it sure would have that feel, knowing that the NPC you are interacting with is really just a random generator...every bit as soulless.

You can only create so many questlines in a game, and Skyrim has a TON. People keep asking for the moon AND the stars......not going to happen.

:foodndrink:

I can't keep reiterating this enough: if you're complaining about NPC's not acknowledging the way you've changed the world, you haven't played Morrowind or Oblivion.

If you can't utilize the game world and create your own rich tapestry out of what you're given, you've lost your imagination and you don't know what roleplay really is.

Making a living, reactive world is easy. Just remove all story and replace it with logical interaction.
This is easy to realize, and the developers are definitely capable.
Too bad hero stories are valued so much more for advertising and sales.

Look to tech demos, indie, and mods for competent and honest game design.


Also, Roleplay is about imagination. Imagination is about infinite possiblities. Roleplay is about being freely able to create whatever characters or situations you want, spawning them in as you wish in any area. Roleplay is leaving Skyrim empty so you can spawn-in your own imagined characters to fill in. If you're gonna talk about Roleplay, be honest. Don't pretend that playing pretend can be an unfinished job. Roleplay as your imagination sees fit.

This game came out earlier this year: it's called Sims: Medieval edition.

If you're not playing a TES game for the lore and story(which means ultimately enjoying the quests), there's something wrong with you

Obsidian did a much better job when it came to implementing reactivity in the game world and they had a fraction of Skyrim's development time. It's not a question of time, it's a question of creativity and the drive to make a game that feels real. A static game world that pretty much ignores what the player does, forcing them to pretend that they matter and imagine making an impact, is the complete opposite of a roleplaying game.

And while we're on the subject of reactivity, you do realize that it'd be a simple matter of adding a few more lines together with a check to see if the variable"FortGreymoorCleared" is set to true, in order to have said hag react to the fact that the player just slaughtered everyone around her. Then add a second check, for the variable "FortGreymoorOwner", to see if it's taken by Imperials or Stormcloaks and add further reactivity. The Gamebryo tools already supported this in New Vegas. Why wasn't this functionality used?

In fact, why wasn't the entire plethora of tools available to craft a living, breathing world used to make a living, breathing world? When compared to New Vegas, where decisions truly matter and the world reacts to them, Skyrim feels static and lifeless, like a theme park.



Christ. Roleplaying is NOT the same as play pretend. When you have to pretend that you've made a difference and imagine stuff to make the world feel real, that means that the developer has failed to create a roleplaying game. Roleplaying is creating an unique character and playing him out (in accordance with the background chosen, skillset, their views) in a dynamic world that reacts to your choices as you make them. Western RPGs come from the pen-and-paper background, where the Game Master continuously reacts to the players' actions and changes the adventure in response to their actions. This is why a game is supposed to react to the player and his choices, not expect the player to take on the role of Game Master for himself.

The reviewer is not the problem. You are the problem, when you state that (basically) it's wrong to expect the developers to create a good story and it's good to have to write it yourself.

Really? I guess I'm a little more invested than you. I made it to Riften and talked to a lot of people there before seeking out the Thieves' guild. I couldn't go through with the quest they gave me- they wanted me to blackmail, shake down, and threaten the NPC's I'd just talked to. When I started to do it, the first NPC chided me and made me feel so bad I had to stop.

I don't understand how none of the quests, not a single one, haven't affected how you play the game, or your immersion within it.

In a time when games are so much more cinematic than they used to be, roleplaying games included, its really hard to connect or feel anything for stiffly animated robot characters that have less than 10 lines of dialogue.

Its made worst in Skyrim because our dialogue choices are almost fully gone.

I love this game, I'm 175 hours in.

But I do feel this game lacks soul when it comes to stories, quests and npcs.

Thankfully, its still a really fun game to explore and adventure in.

But I think its a serious step back in terms of story and npc interaction. Huge step back.

:tops:

Someone made this anology some time ago here in this forum, I think it was one of the cleverest I've ever seen and fits perfectly with this thread.

Skyrim is like Lego. Some people will open the Lego box, follow the manual step by step, build whatever it's meant to build and when it's finished they will put it in the shelf and never touch it again.

Other people will do those very same steps but also try to build different things with those same pieces and the fun will last much longer.

And another group of people might actually never open the manual and just let their imagination flow.

Skyrim is like that. The tools and pieces are there. The "manuals" are the questlines. They are there for those with little or no imagination. But imaginative people will know how to use those tools and build new adventures over and over again making the fun last much longer.

except for, you know, the NPCs that actually greet you in new ways as you progress through the game and finish more quests ("so you're the one casts those illusions...impressive," mentioning that they know about how you killed the glenmoor witches, consoling you after death, etc, etc).
expectations just a liiiittle bit high, much?

Excactly. She has a purpose, same as clearing the fort is also for the Imperials.

If every piece of this game reacted the way you wanted it to when you first encountered it, then much of the games later content would be messed up.

Here is just one example of my interaction with a random NPC.

Found a random NPC complaining about bandits overrunning a mine (which starts up a misc quest). So I wander over to the mine (a good minute or two walk away) and proceed to clear out the mine. Walk back and talk to the NPC again and he thanks me. Then him and his buddy(or buddies) proceed to walk away from there temporary camp and walk back to the mine. They finish relocating (I walk with the just to make sure nothing attack them taking about 5 or so minutes to get there) then the NPC quest givers dialog changes. Now he owns the mine (and is more than happy to tell me about it) and will buy ore from me that I mine for him. I follow him inside the mine and hear him start muttering its so good to be back here, its just like I remember it.

There is a lot of depth given in a lot of random places, you just have to find it. Its just little touches like this that help me just love this game

It's so strange, but I feel the exact opposite. I despise those cinematic games where I feel like I'm less in control and actually playing than watching a movie. Even in those games, the dialogue I WANTED was never there. I feel much more connected with characters in a world where you can use your imagination than other linear games that force your development and hold your hand. I don't want or need to be the center of attention or have my ego stroked like so many other games out there. That feels fake. THAT feels robotic.

Nobody said that Skyrim is completely devoid of such instances of reactivity. Question is, why are they limited to meaningless, completely optional sidequests, instead of being an integral part of the core game experience? Y'know, instead of having reactivity (which isn't equal to depth, by the way) hidden in obscure places, have it occupy the front row and have eg. Whiterun's citizens react with more than one liners to the battle of Whiterun?

The thing is, you clearly invest yourself further emotionally than me, or indeed many other people who play these games; 'real' role players aren't the majority even on this board, let alone the population outside of it.

The story of Skyrim doesn't entrall me or get me making real moral decisions; occasionally I won't do something because it doesn't fit with my character, but it's because I'm forcibly inducing an experience, not because the game actually makes me care about anything, or convinces me that anything really matters. Like I said, it's fun, but it's just soulless.

Fallout: New Vegas was much better in this respect.

Grossly simplifying statements to exaggerate a problem isn't constructive. There are plenty of ways NPCs respond to the player, it's just that there needs to be more. Saying "nothing responds" just makes you sound like a kid "Aw mom I never get to play on the computer" when in fact the kid gets to play it everyday.

The forum is being filled with these daily "Bethesda didn't beta test AT ALL" type blanket statements. Really? Might as well follow that claim with "Todd has 3 nipbles." because it's about as helpful to the serious criticism at hand.

hmmm.. now if NV was actually done by Bethesda... (It was only published by them. It was made by Obsidian, some of the people that made Fallout 1 and Fallout 2)

Being that the definition of a soul is fairly ephemeral, and the author fails to define it, im going to define it within the scope of his intention. The soul, that he refers to, im guessing is by and large the characters. Skyrim does alot of things, but its characters in general are fairly puppet like. that is the nature of making something this huge with the plethora of options given to you. Would I say that Skyrim has as much soul, within his definition, as say ME? (ME haters back off, you can put in any other game that you think has good characters, this is just an example.) No, im afraid Skyrim doesnt. however when a game like ME shines is in this aspect. Skyrim builds soul not just through characters, but environment. there are books to read, filled with characters and drama. there are situations where u find an alchemist hut with his notes and further down the road you find his skeleton with a handful of flowers (whatever). THATS soul as well, and Skyrim can boast gobs of it and way more than any other game.
I would love if in the future Skyrim could bolster its capacity to render some full blooded characters, with unique animations and voice acting etc. It would create moments in the game that felt more unique, where you might have ppl that you really care about alot more. all that is great.

but to go around making the accusation this guy is making, he clearly isnt seeing the other half of the game. not too surprising, western dramas have been character driven for a long time. ppl define most of the scope of a drama by its characters. however Skyrim takes a leaf out of something different, and if you cant see that you are mistaking the tree for the forest.

Sorry, I just don't agree from my experiences of the game.

I'm a very visual creature. I do agree that its more fun to be in control than to watch cutscenes. But I find characters in a game like Mass Effect, like the Witcher 2, feel more alive. Their voice, their faces, their movements all have personality. I understand what you mean though. You feel more on rails. I could agree with that. Honestly, I might have a better opinion of the game, at least visually, if animations weren't so stiff and wierd. As the author of the article in the first post, its starting to be tough to swallow brooms appearing out of thin air 2011.

I think what makes the game feel so soulless, what keeps tearing me right out of immersion and reminding me I'm playing a game (a clunky one at that), is the limited dialogue characters throw at you. Guards in every city say the same thing. Things that should be unique flavour to a single character. And that dialogue doesn't chain well.

I just saved Skyrim from dragons. One guard'll clamour "YOu're the Dragonborn! You saved us all." The one right next to him'll say, "Get away, sneak thief!"

A companion will greet me as "You are a friend I value greatly!" and then says "Pheh, what could a whelp like you possible teach me?!"

Its too all over the place. Its not thought out and not believeable.

But I do RP more. I use my imagination. I'm often saying aloud things my character would say, things that will explain what I'm doing next. GF thinks I'm wierd too.

In conclusion, I think Bethesda would do well to cut back on silly stuff like this. Stop with the stupid endless greetings, and put more effort in your dialogue trees. In fleshing out more specific npcs.

In my opinion, it would be fine to have tons of "cannon fodder" npcs. à la Assassin's Creed. Just npcs there to crowd the streets. And then you have your specific, fleshed out npcs.

Take whiterun, keep all the NPCs it has now, all the quest givers, and then add the crowds. Have the important characters greet you, give them visual presence.

That "someone" wouldn't be you, by any chance? :mellow: