So wait, Skyrim as a role playing game?! : V - Skyrim

» Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:13 am

I agree it's a stretch to call TW games as full blown RPG. The RPG elements in it are secondary to the strategy aspect.

The point me and the other guy tried to get across was, even TW's secondary RPG elements often out-RPG Skyrim's game mechanic, and it's ludicrous to defend Skyrim's linear roleplay elements with "imagination and creativity" because those two are so broad and vague that you can apply to anything, like TW games as an example.

And I'm saying it's not uncommon for Strategy Games, especially large-scale ones, to have more depth to their secondary RPG elements than Full RPGs tend to have on the macro level (Such as influencing the world) simply because of the massive scope of Strategy Games. RPGs tend to be on a more micro-scale - It's easier to change the world when populations are just spreadsheets, and you spend more time on an overmap than the local one - and there are no "domestic" local maps.

Also... as far as Seti's post goes: He seems to be lamenting lost features that haven't been in since Daggerfall, and, aside from the seasons and holidays, they weren't very-well implemented there - They were just "apparently" more there because ALL the factions and quests were pretty shallow in that game - and the shallowness of the comparable "radiant Quests" in Skyrim is much more conspicuous.

» Fri Dec 16, 2011 10:55 pm

Well I don't know you and I hate you already. If iwas a npc I'd attack you

» Sat Dec 17, 2011 12:18 am

Skyrim is not RTS
Skyrim is not TBS
Skyrim is not FPS
Skyrim is not Hack and Slash
Skyrim is not Adventure Game
Skyrim is not Simulation
Skyrim is not Grand Strategy
Skyrim is not City-Builder
Skyrim is an RPG

» Fri Dec 16, 2011 1:20 pm

This garbage again? Telling someone your opinion IS a fact, is in my opinion, just an aggressive way of trying to get your point across. It does not change the fact that it is still just your opinion.

Ironically, I get the feeling those who are championing the "Skyrim is not an RPG" are not those who played their vision of the Ideal RPG in their time but rather 19-23 year olds who "must act for the good of the future of the industry". While the college student or recent graduate may have the ideal mix of advlt intelligence and energy, they still lack years of actual life experience to realize the world is much bigger than their narrow cause. Your voice falls upon deaf ears because everyone has a voice now and no one wants to listen. The only way to change things is to get in their do it yourself.....but of course, you anticipate having better things to do than create video games. The real world moves at an unrelenting and unforgiving pace.

I'm not trying to pick on an age group (or relative age) as that would be foolish. I just want to point out that I was in your shoes just 1 TES generation ago doing the exact same thing. My experience was more about finding the next great MMORPG after Everquest (and text-based Dragonrealms and Gemstone before that) and during that time I stumbled upon Oblivion and trashed it in these same forums. Fast forward to today and that perfect game has not yet arrived, yet I am somehow happier now that I am no longer searching.

» Fri Dec 16, 2011 2:03 pm

the thing is... at what point are you better off just sitting on the couch and imagining the whole story? at what point do the game's limitations become so trivial and easily overcome that your own imagination is hardly any less restrictive?

the current definition of RPG is so broad as to be completely worthless as a definition. trying to re-define what an RPG is only ever came into existence because publishers needed an excuse to shift popular RPGs to a broader demographic.

and here is the really important element i feel is missing from skyrim. you have to TRY and be what you want. otherwise, as i said, you might as well forget the whole game and RP everything in your head. wanna hear something crazy? an RPG... is limitations. its a framework that restricts what you can and cant do, and how difficult certain things will be to do, because the only way humans become immersed in an activity is when they really have to apply themselves to it. look at star wars... the originals were so great in large part because lucas struggled at every step to make it what he wanted. limited budget, technology, sick actors.... art through adversity. when he made the prequels, he had the world at his fingertips and very little restricting what he could do with the films. im going to take a wild guess and assume that most people prefer the originals, so you see my point :banghead: .

an open-world RPG should allow you a wealth of options, but "unintentionally enter godmode because the game is so poorly balanced" should not be one of them. even with a game expected to offer freedom of choice... ESPECIALLY with a game expected to offer freedom of choice, it must be defined by its restrictions. if you dont have to work for anything, than all those thousands of choices and playstyles become equally boring. someone made a lego comparison awhile ago. and id like to continue that. you can build pretty much anything you want with legos, but guess what? its hard as s**t. if you arent the person designing the sets, just considering the scale and detail of what your going to make can be overwhelming. but if you really apply yourself, you can make something to proud of, something personal, and something you can always find ways to improve. the blocky nature(as in RESTRICTIONS) of legos means there are always more levels of details you can add... your never really finished, no matter how awesome you make something. and that is whatt an TES should be. legos :wink_smile: .

is it really so crazy to think that having to bust your ass to beat someone is more rewarding than having to place a dozen arbitrary restrictions on yourself just to make them mildly challenging?! freedom is supposed to allow different playstyles, but if the game is too soft on you, any and every playstyle is boring.

This garbage again? Telling someone your opinion IS a fact, is in my opinion, just an aggressive way of trying to get your point across. It does not change the fact that it is still just your opinion.

Ironically, I get the feeling those who are championing the "Skyrim is not an RPG" are not those who played their vision of the Ideal RPG in their time but rather 19-23 year olds who "must act for the good of the future of the industry". While the college student or recent graduate may have the ideal mix of advlt intelligence and energy, they still lack years of actual life experience to realize the world is much bigger than their narrow cause. Your voice falls upon deaf ears because everyone has a voice now and no one wants to listen. The only way to change things is to get in their do it yourself.....but of course, you anticipate having better things to do than create video games. The real world moves at an unrelenting and unforgiving pace.

I'm not trying to pick on an age group (or relative age) as that would be foolish. I just want to point out that I was in your shoes just 1 TES generation ago doing the exact same thing. My experience was more about finding the next great MMORPG after Everquest (and text-based Dragonrealms and Gemstone before that) and during that time I stumbled upon Oblivion and trashed it in these same forums. Fast forward to today and that perfect game has not yet arrived, yet I am somehow happier now that I am no longer searching.

you are a very depressing alien, you know that? the drive for something better is kind of the motivation for everything humans have ever achieved.... clearly, you cannot be one of us if you do not share that drive. the last thing i want is a perfect RPG, because it means that RPGs will never ever get better from than point on. what i crave IS the search; the constant desire to find or make something better, which is really hampered when things get worse and i end up searching for improvements that were made and experienced 10 years ago. if you are no longer searching, then i am really sorry for you.

of course the only way to change things is to do it yourself, but until then (which will probably never happen with 99.9% of us) we have forums to bounce our ideas and concerns back and forth to occupy us. its kind of what forums are for. kind of like the eternal conflict between idealist youngsters and jaded old people :yucky:

» Fri Dec 16, 2011 4:34 pm

frotality, yes, ideally the limitations you request should be built into the game. I think though that people are looking too much at the leveling or "statistical progression" of the character than they are looking at whole scope of the game. There may be less than perfect aspects here and confusing game-building decisions there, but I still think this is one of the best games (and certainly the best single player game) I've played in an awful long time. I could go on and on about the scope of the game, but someone will find something to pick apart each element. If Skyrim is at least 8/10 in every aspect (not talking inflated game review based scoring) of an RPG game....then it's better the current competition.

» Fri Dec 16, 2011 6:40 pm

This garbage again? Telling someone your opinion IS a fact, is in my opinion, just an aggressive way of trying to get your point across. It does not change the fact that it is still just your opinion.

Ironically, I get the feeling those who are championing the "Skyrim is not an RPG" are not those who played their vision of the Ideal RPG in their time but rather 19-23 year olds who "must act for the good of the future of the industry". While the college student or recent graduate may have the ideal mix of advlt intelligence and energy, they still lack years of actual life experience to realize the world is much bigger than their narrow cause. Your voice falls upon deaf ears because everyone has a voice now and no one wants to listen. The only way to change things is to get in their do it yourself.....but of course, you anticipate having better things to do than create video games. The real world moves at an unrelenting and unforgiving pace.

I'm not trying to pick on an age group (or relative age) as that would be foolish. I just want to point out that I was in your shoes just 1 TES generation ago doing the exact same thing. My experience was more about finding the next great MMORPG after Everquest (and text-based Dragonrealms and Gemstone before that) and during that time I stumbled upon Oblivion and trashed it in these same forums. Fast forward to today and that perfect game has not yet arrived, yet I am somehow happier now that I am no longer searching.

It's the vocationalization of society. Even in liberal arts these days, you are taught more and more what to think instead of how to think. The things many people complain Skyrim lacks is more of a reflection of what the player lacks. Those people need to be force fed a narrative and character progression, which they will not find in TES. They need someone else to be creative and imaginative for them. TES doesn't treat you like a child and it doesn't force restrictions on you, you have to do that yourself. It's not so hard to do- don't pick up every mundane piece of armor or weapon, buy recipes for potions before you make them. TES makes it fairly easy to avoid metagaming which is one reason it has so much replayability.

» Fri Dec 16, 2011 2:28 pm

NO BECAUSE SPREADSHEETS!

Pfft... weaksauce RPG "spreadsheets". Some games actually need them.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2440843

I can appreciate a complex game just as much as the next nerd, but the complexity needs to have an actual function. The "streamlining" some are complaining about in Skyrim was a good move. Major and minor skills/classes, and attributes tied in along with leveling and scaling all didn't work well in TES.

» Fri Dec 16, 2011 1:55 pm

Pfft... weaksauce RPG "spreadsheets". Some games actually need them.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2440843

I can appreciate a complex game just as much as the next nerd, but the complexity needs to have an actual function. The "streamlining" some are complaining about in Skyrim was a good move. Major and minor skills/classes, and attributes tied in along with leveling and scaling all didn't work well in TES.

I love the Level bar... pretty ambiguous. On future playthroughs I may search the Internet to better understand how leveling works, but just playing through it naively it seems pretty spot on in comparison to the previous games.

» Sat Dec 17, 2011 3:16 am

On the topic of RPGs... I think alot of games people wouldn't normally consider RPGs are one of them.

Saints Row the Third, for example, I could possibly see classifed as an RPG.

It's got character progression and development in it's own upgrade system and respect levels, equipment progression in the weapon mod system, even some choices that can have a lasting effect on the game, etc.

» Sat Dec 17, 2011 2:17 am

It's the vocationalization of society. Even in liberal arts these days, you are taught more and more what to think instead of how to think. The things many people complain Skyrim lacks is more of a reflection of what the player lacks. Those people need to be force fed a narrative and character progression, which they will not find in TES. They need someone else to be creative and imaginative for them. TES doesn't treat you like a child and it doesn't force restrictions on you, you have to do that yourself. It's not so hard to do- don't pick up every mundane piece of armor or weapon, buy recipes for potions before you make them. TES makes it fairly easy to avoid metagaming which is one reason it has so much replayability.

This has got to be the weakest excuse in history. So according to you, the best game ever would be an empty box with a paper saying ''Just imagine it, you dunce! sheesh, do we have to do everything for you?''.

Also, you say that the game does not require meta-gaming (which is dubious in itself, especially if you want to play a mage) yet you suggest I purposefully avoid stuff that can make me more powerful, or that can break my roleplaying. That's meta-gaming, you know. As I have said, nothing stops my warrior from becoming Arch-Mage, even if he hasn't cast a single spell in his entire life, because getting the job basically requires a few dungeon crawls and a boss fight. There's freedom, and then there's nonsense such as this. It should be like in Morrowind, where not having high magic skills means you're a servant forever, no matter how many dragons you can disembowel with a single swipe of your sword. This is a guild of mages, not warriors, deal.

It amazes me how far people on these forums go to defend Bethesda. I actually quite like Skyrim, that doesn't mean I find it flawless, and it certainly doesn't mean I will stay silent.

» Fri Dec 16, 2011 10:43 pm

On the topic of RPGs... I think alot of games people wouldn't normally consider RPGs are one of them.

Saints Row the Third, for example, I could possibly see classifed as an RPG.

It's got character progression and development in it's own upgrade system and respect levels, equipment progression in the weapon mod system, even some choices that can have a lasting effect on the game, etc.

Barriers are being broken down for the sake of fun but some people are holding onto the past. On both sides.

On one hand, a lot of Saints Row players would not touch a traditional RPG with a 10 foot pole. I have a friend who thinks Red Dead Redemption is the best game ever but will not give Skyrim a chance.

The other hand doesn't need to be described any further after 10 pages here.

» Fri Dec 16, 2011 6:02 pm

This has got to be the weakest excuse in history. So according to you, the best game ever would be an empty box with a paper saying ''Just imagine it, you dunce! sheesh, do we have to do everything for you?''.

Also, you say that the game does not require meta-gaming (which is dubious in itself, especially if you want to play a mage) yet you suggest I purposefully avoid stuff that can make me more powerful, or that can break my roleplaying. That's meta-gaming, you know. As I have said, nothing stops my warrior from becoming Arch-Mage, even if he hasn't cast a single spell in his entire life, because getting the job basically requires a few dungeon crawls and a boss fight. There's freedom, and then there's nonsense such as this. It should be like in Morrowind, where not having high magic skills means you're a servant forever, no matter how many dragons you can disembowel with a single swipe of your sword. This is a guild of mages, not warriors, deal.

It amazes me how far people on these forums go to defend Bethesda. I actually quite like Skyrim, that doesn't mean I find it flawless, and it certainly doesn't mean I will stay silent.

Of course not, I am saying that the focus should be on developing the background and atmosphere and not force feeding you a narrative or character progression. On metagaming, how realistic is it for your character to pick up every single piece of armor or weapon you come across? You might know that certain ingredients can be combined to create a potion, but does your character? Sure, guilds and quests could be longer/better, but I don't svck down content like it's a cheap six pack through a beer bong either. There are better things about TES games than story lines.

» Fri Dec 16, 2011 5:08 pm

Jasta11 and screamingpalm, I do not think you guys are that far apart, perhaps a misunderstanding. I'm not big on anything to do with the Archmage title in Skyrim because it is pretty obviously broken. The title does not fit the effort. Even High Mage would be better but I would prefer something more modest.

» Sat Dec 17, 2011 12:52 am

Jasta11 and screamingpalm, I do not think you guys are that far apart, perhaps a misunderstanding. I'm not big on anything to do with the Archmage title in Skyrim because it is pretty obviously broken. The title does not fit the effort. Even High Mage would be better but I would prefer something more modest.

My point is basically that I souldn't be allowed to do everything no matter what skillset I choose or decision I take. And yet this is the case in Skyrim for the vast majority of the time, save for the Civil war, and to a lesser extent Blades vs Greybeards (quickest choice ever, btw). The arch-mage is the most dramatic example, but among other things I am allowed to join the Empire in the civil war while working with the Dark Brotherhood, hell I can even

Spoiler

assassinate the Emperor

and nobody seems to care one bit, and it's a turn of even that's more or less impossible to justify in-universe. Instead of relying on players dodging the issue on purpose (thus, meta-gaming) bethesda should have just closed the path. No, past a certain point you can't work for the guys who value duty, order and law above all else and the gang of psychotic murderers at the same time, player. Choose. No, you can't remain Thane of Whiterun and have Lydia by your side if you start massacring the people of said city (it's not like it matters anyway, most of them are essential, which is a whole other point). And so and so forth. But Bethesda hates closing off paths to the player, and hence only developpers like Obsidian and CD Projeckt RED can be counted on to deliver a RPG that doesn't hold the player's hands and makes choices for them. If it means more linearity, so be it, I can live with it myself.

» Fri Dec 16, 2011 10:01 pm

My point is basically that I souldn't be allowed to do everything no matter what skillset I choose or decision I take. And yet this is the case in Skyrim for the vast majority of the time, save for the Civil war, and to a lesser extent Blades vs Greybeards (quickest choice ever, btw). The arch-mage is the most dramatic example, but among other things I am allowed to join the Empire in the civil war while working with the Dark Brotherhood, hell I can even

Spoiler

assassinate the Emperor

and nobody seems to care one bit, and it's a turn of even that's more or less impossible to justify in-universe. Instead of relying on players dodging the issue on purpose (thus, meta-gaming) bethesda should have just closed the path. No, past a certain point you can't work for the guys who value duty, order and law above all else and the gang of psychotic murderers at the same time, player. Choose. No, you can't remain Thane of Whiterun and have Lydia by your side if you start massacring the people of said city (it's not like it matters anyway, most of them are essential, which is a whole other point). And so and so forth. But Bethesda hates closing off paths to the player, and hence only developpers like Obsidian and CD Projeckt RED can be counted on to deliver a RPG that doesn't hold the player's hands and makes choices for them. If it means more linearity, so be it, I can live with it myself.

But that's exactly what those linear designers are doing... holding your hand. Just because you are allowed the freedom to do whatever you want to, doesn't mean you have to you know. Bethesda provides you the canvass, you paint the picture- Obsidian and RED paint it for you.

» Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:34 am

I've now gotten into over ten debates in cyberspace and meatspace over whether Skyrim is a RPG or not.

I'd say the Four archetypes of RPG's are:
1. The rigid linear story based JRPG (FF, Chrono Trigger)
2. The more nonlinear open world adventure games that haze the gray area (Deus Ex, Mass Effect)
3. And the Boots to satchel, Tabletop origins, tell your own story, build-a-hero workshop RPG's. (DnD, TES, WoW, (Fable?))
4. Crap (Fable III?)

There are categorical issues with the above (MMO's place in the scheme of things), but it points out the fact that a RPG has been a definition of widening berth over the years.

Now there are several definitional paramaters of an RPG. Customizabe character development, equipment managment, etc. But the most important to me is the R and the P.

Role playing to me is imagination. You have to imagine these characters from ES and Fallout are doing the things prompted. And bethesda, i believe does an outstanding job of giving us the tools to play a role

Sure you might have to limit yourself from doing things that aren't appropriate for your character, because nothing is locked out due to your choices. Some might see this as a con, but that also leaves you open for your Archmage to grow wary of his collegiate duties and explore the darker sides of a drug addiction. Three months later he's a skooma addicted vampire that is pounding his way through the assassins guild on a grudge. AND he can still summon a blizzard at will.

I Implore people to consider any game with that much range. The limits of the Roleplaying in any ES game is only up to your inner child.

And i would be hard pressed to see Skyrim as anything other than an RPG.

Yes, it is a roleplaying game.

» Fri Dec 16, 2011 3:47 pm

I'm weird, I guess, and constant reroller but the only quest line I've ever completed in a TES game has been the Thieve's guild in Oblivion. My Skyrim Archmage knowledge comes from this forum and while I admit it may have provoked my Dunmer Mage to look in places other than the next College task, I am an explorer and a gatherer of knowledge first and foremost with all characters.

» Fri Dec 16, 2011 12:39 pm

But that's exactly what those linear designers are doing... holding your hand. Just because you are allowed the freedom to do whatever you want to, doesn't mean you have to you know. Bethesda provides you the canvass, you paint the picture- Obsidian and RED paint it for you.

Because it's not my job to paint the picture. If I wanted to invent a setting, a plot, characters et all I would fire up a DnD campaign or what have you. When I play a computer RPG I want to play a character created by me in a world created by the developper's vision. Because Obsidian and CD Project are way, way better at painting said picture than me. Because they know how to craft a good story set in a world compelling enough to svck me in by itself. Inventing stories in my head doesn't even compare.

I also fail to see how I can create a story in Skyrim, given that boring old Radiant quests are spoon-fed to me every minute and the world doesn't change one bit (thanks to essential NPCs and lacking choice and consequence)? only... ta-daam... the bigger quests chains change anything. So I basically have to do them to see any kind of real change in the world. So if I want to world to reflect my character's actions, I still have to follow the stories plotted by the developpers. What's the difference, ultimately? Well, the stories of other developpers are plain better, so I like it more in the end.

Look, I get your point, and I would agree if this was, say, Minecraft and the world did indeed hinge solely on the player's actions. But Skyrim is way too rigid to offer that kind of experience. The factions, the setting, the characters (for what they're worth), the plots, everything is already in place. It's just on standy, waiting for you to unfold it. No, I don't HAVE to do everything with one character. But the fact that I CAN is already a failure in the role-playing department to me.

» Sat Dec 17, 2011 12:30 am

I'm weird, I guess, and constant reroller but the only quest line I've ever completed in a TES game has been the Thieve's guild in Oblivion. My Skyrim Archmage knowledge comes from this forum and while I admit it may have provoked my Dunmer Mage to look in places other than the next College task, I am an explorer and a gatherer of knowledge first and foremost with all characters.

Same here, I play Dead is Dead so I have plenty of content left to explore.

I also don't do all the quests or join all the guilds/factions with the same character.

» Fri Dec 16, 2011 12:35 pm

To me rpg games always stood to me if I can picture myself inside the world itself. With the Elder Scrolls games I have no problem of picking a character and seeing me being in Tamriel. In Skyrim I see myself fighting dragons or bandits or the those pesky necromancers so I can steal their soul gems. When I first started the Elder Scrolls was back in 2003 with Morrowind. I would play at least four hours a day playing after school. Same thing with Oblivion and Skyrim. I cant put the controller down cause I feel so immerse into the world of Tamriel. But my personal opinion is that games like Final Fantasy have rpg attributes and skills but they dont feel like something real..

» Fri Dec 16, 2011 2:18 pm

Skyrim is not RTS
Skyrim is not TBS
Skyrim is not FPS
Skyrim is not Hack and Slash
Skyrim is not Adventure Game
Skyrim is not Simulation
Skyrim is not Grand Strategy
Skyrim is not City-Builder
Skyrim is an RPG

Skyrim is an rpg, but its also a very shallow one that gives the illusion of choice and freedom when really there is none or the choices given are meaningless and have little to no effect or anything, finishing the main quest is the perfect example of this, even chosing one side of the civil war changes pretty much nothing.

The freedom is outdone by saints row the third plain and simple, and the choices in leveling are terrible,perks do not make a game an rpg saints3, black ops and mw3 probally have more customization than skyrim and your choices alot more meaningfull. I started using magic to get the extra *levels* for my pure warrior type build and low and behold a few enchants and some potions in my bag and im managing perfectly fine with no perks at all in any of the schools.

Honestly its no wonder people question it as an rpg.

» Fri Dec 16, 2011 9:02 pm

The meaningless things people argue about when they could be playing a game instead.

» Fri Dec 16, 2011 12:27 pm

Everybody always ignores the good posts. :sadvaultboy:

Yup, like my post proving that Skyrim is indeed, an RPG, and a superior one at that:

But the thing is, I'm not just making those actions up out of thin air.

There literally is an option to tell the kid you aren't from the Dark Brotherhood. Plain and simple.

And when you go to investigate the orphanage, and you talk to the lady, there are 3 dialogue options, one of them I could tell would lead to her death, and one of them is "Remain Silent", which is the game blatantly leaving it up to your interpretation.

I am not a murderer. But I also didn't agree with her actions. I "remained silent", didn't kill her, and my RP was perfectly in tact.

The thing is, there is 2 ways to go about dealing with choice in an RPG.

There is the BioWare way, which disclaimer, I think is great. I love BioWare games, and don't get all the hatred of them around here. That was is blatant - you have good and evil (and sometimes neutral or anti-hero) options. Selecting those choices gives your character "points" towards each disposition, and the game is linear enough that it can script paths and interactions for any disposition combination.

Or, there is the Bethesda way, which I also think is great. Choices are more subtle. Often times, the choice does boil down to "do it or don't", but there is always a choice. There isn't really a disposition system that tracks the progress of your character. Instead, it's up to you as the character to just -do it-. If you want to be evil, there's no evil points, you just do evil deeds. If you want to be good, there's no good points, you just do good deeds. Disposition is mainly on an NPC by NPC basis (or faction by faction basis), and often times there isn't a blatant, in your face, consequence of your actions.

It really is a matter of preference, and neither is really "better" or "worse" than the other, or "more" or "less" RPG than the other. One design leaves the choice, and effect, more up to the interpretation of the player, where as the other doesn't leave much room for interpretation, it blatantly tells you.

I prefer the Bethesda way (again, not knocking BioWare games, I love their games and their design, they are my 2nd favorite studio) because to me, it is more lifelike. There is not always a blatant consequence of your actions. Sometimes in life, you make a choice, and you are left wondering if it was the right or wrong choice. I can cite references to that in Skyrim, and to be quite honest, I felt it enriched my roleplay experience.

It's not so much about just totally letting your imagination take over. If I wanted that, I don't need a video game to let my imagination wander. I can just sit quietly in my room and build stories all night long if that's what I wanted.

It's more about the game choosing to leave things open to interpretation. Here's an example:

After I did the Forsworn Conspiracy quest in Markarth, I did -not- submit to the guards to go to prison. Instead, I fought my way through the guards, got my ass out of town, hopped on my horse and rode. Thus, my roleplay now shifted to that of a fugitive from Markarth. I avoided Markarth at all costs. Thadious developed a hatred of the town, as well as the Forsworn. However, eventually the main quest led me back into that area when I had to find Sky Haven Temple. So my character made a choice - he returned to Markarth, and upon his return, he submitted.

He was taken to Chidna Mine. Well, I had a somewhat alternative experience there. I spoke to... whatever his name is (can't remember), and I did his deeds. Well actually, I didn't kill the guy he wanted me to (the guy got all paranoid, pulled out a shank and got himself killed). Then I made the escape with the Forsworn.

Now here's something else I did. I went "off-script"

Outside the mines, when the Forsworn began to attack the city guards, I got into the fight, but I didn't help the Forsworn. Instead, I began attacking them. I killed off all the Forsworn who I had just escaped the mines with. I fought alongside the Markarth city guards against the Forsworn.

The game didn't "record" it. But I didn't -need- it to. I know what happened. My character made the -choice- to turn on the Forsworn and kill them when I had the chance. The deed was done. It happened.

It's in situations like that - I was given an opportunity to go "off script" and do something that the game didn't necessarily intend, but it gave me the freedom to as well. And I don't need the game to "record" it - I know what I did. I was there. I'm the one who did it. I don't need the game to constantly remind me that I did it to feel validated for it. I know that it happened.

And that's the kind of thing I'm talking about. Bethesda doesn't (and I don't know if they -could- do it without making the game more linear and scripted) code blatant consequences into your game. The consequences are just what happens. In real life, the consequences of those actions would be that the Forsworn are dead. And perhaps, a bounty on my head for vigilantism, which I believe I received. The entire world wouldn't change because of that choice that I made.

That's what I mean. The game leaves it open to your interpretation. Because that's their design choice, to leave it up to you. What happens, happens, and it's up to you to interpret whatever meaning behind it. And I like it that way. I believe it gives me more roleplay power, because my motives are truly my own, not just a few scripted "good", "bad", "neutral", "anti-hero" scripted motives. The character truly is who I want him to be.

It really is the difference between the player telling the game who the character is, vs. the game telling the player who the character is.

Bethesda (Morrowind, Oblivion, Skyrim, Fallout 3) is the former, which is why I believe them to be superior RPG's.

» Fri Dec 16, 2011 8:28 pm

Skyrim is categorized as an RPG for all extensive purposes.

Sorrry for the nitpick, but it drives me bat**** crazy when people say something and have no idea what it even means. All extensive (or all intensive for that matter) purposes means absolutely nothing. It's: all intents and purposes.