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.

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.

Most of the complains can be applied to any TES game... If you didn't like those, what would have made you think this game was for you?

Most of the complains can be applied to any TES game... If you didn't like those, what would have made you think this game was for you?

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

A fraction of the time, a fraction of the world? Skyrim is huge, not just in physicality but in scope. They wrote a language for it, for god's sake. The micromanagement level of this game is insane. I can't believe you're not acknowledging that when comparing it to other games.

Maybe because, as was already pointed out twice...she's already used in a quest?

Yeah.

Let's illustrate further your scripting theory- who said the fort was taken by anyone? My character could have cleared out that fort and I don't belong to either of those factions. Oops, there's another string you have to create. What if there's a thieves' guild quest that involves that fort? Better create yet another scripted reaction. Also, we must ensure these reactions don't interfere with one another because the player has the opportunity to join every faction in the game.

Your anology doesn't fit- a truer comparison would be if your GM couldn't make it that day and wrote a campaign with some notes on which direction to take it if you made certain choices. Even being your friend and knowing your playstyle, he could not have predicted each and every choice you could make, so you're going to have to ROLEPLAY to excuse some missing data.

In the end, this is a computer program. It's not unlimited, it's not omnipotent.

And you are blowing everything out of proportion- all I said was if you have a problem with an NPC not reacting to a particular set of circumstances, roleplay a reason for it. That's not rewriting the game, it's explaining behavior.

God, I would hate to play a tabletop game with you. You're the player who kicks his chair and swears at other players when they come up with some unorthodox method of getting around an obstacle. "IT'S NOT IN THE GAME GUIDE RWARRRR"

Chill out.

Except Fallout 3/New Vegas have a similar format and yet manage the 'soul' quality well. I also disagree with the narrow interpretation of what the writer means by soul; the quality referred to is unquantifiable for the most part; it's a sense that what you're doing in this world actually matters. It's not exclusive to characters, a great example of which is the destruction of Megaton in Fallout 3. The game is forever changed by a simple choice.

I love the die-hard fan-boys that disagree with this article.

Open your eyes. The article is true. Get off the honeymoon stage already and start looking at the game closely.

The article applies to pretty much all NPCs.

So anyone who doesn't agree with your point of view is a die-hard fan-boy?

Nice way to invalidate your argument.

See, my own take on Agnis is that she lives, has always lived, and always will live at, Fort Greymoor. Her comments said to me that it didn't really matter who else lived there - they were all transient occupiers. Only she was constant. As such, it didn't really matter to her whether the bandits lived, died or were replaced.

She's kind of like a ghost who hasn't died yet.

Its true, you're right. But its not unfair to expect/hope for some evolution at some point. I do think that there needs to be some evolution before the next installment in 4-5 years.

...but it's Bethesdas job to make that imagination reality, not your brain.

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?

And that's why this kinda game is not for you my friend.

Go back to MW3 or Call of Duty.