First Person: Skyrim is Soulless

[Dandark]

SPOILERS!!!! I think?





The reason I suppose Agnis doesn't have much diaglouge is because you are supposed to kill her for a dark brotherhood side contract.

Of course the point still stands. I kinda agree with the article in that your actions don't really have consequences, such as the SPOILERS AGAIN!!!!! war, you could join the stormcloacks and invade whiterun. Now I know that the game isn't suppose to be that dark, but usaully when a town is invaded, it gets sacked.

No difference is made between whether the stormcloacks or imperials win,but really I would of thought that when the stormcloaks win, that they would of looted the town and raped the women and killed the livestock and blah blah blah you get the idea.

Instead the only difference is that the guards are now stormcloak guards and you can ask some of the townspeople what it's like under stormcloack rule.



Of course I still don't complain about it too much as I expected that Skyrim wouldn't exactly have much in the way of consequences.

 

[SonicWaffle]

Honey, EVERYTHING is an immersion breaker.

"Honey"?

Alright, but I'm going to start calling you dollface!

The sooner you learn how useless the word "immersion" is, the better.

The issue with "immersion" is not that the concept is worthless - without it, games like Skyrim would be reduced to pick-up-and-play games you got bored of in an hour rather than sweeping addictive experiences - but that the word is heavily overused.

If immersion is broken for you because of your viewpoint or the game mechanics, then you are perhaps playing the wrong game. However, if you are totally immersed in the experience of a game because you're really enjoying it, you've managed to overcome whatever technical obstacles you had and really get into the world and the story of the game. If the game, like this one does, makes a huge deal about giving you freedom and choice then those choices have to mean something. If in your head you are a mighty elf battlemage astride the land like a colossus, choosing who will reign the realm and who lives or dies, then to find out that nobody actually gives a damn will bring you out of that experience like a bucket of cold water to the face.

Lack of consequence may be an immersion breaker, but I'm sure not being able to roleplay out a consequence-free murder fantasy breaks a few thousand other people's immersion.

Choices must have consequences. If they don't, there's simply no point in giving the players choices.

Imagine you're the kind of person who wants to play a child-killing sociopath. You kill a random kid, and...nothing happens. You chose to do something, you carried it out, but nobody cares. There are no consequences, no ramifications for your behaviour. Wouldn't you rather have furious city guards and weeping parents attempting to take vengeance? Would you want the realm to be alive with whispers of your terrible deeds? I'm sure you wouldn't want to be totally ignored, regardless of what you did.

After that, it's simply a matter of scaling. If small actions have minor consequences then large actions (like deciding a civil war or killing a Jarl) should have major consequences. They don't, at least not as far as gameplay is concerned.

 

[Duffeknol]

Oh wow, this article sums up everything I've been yelling about Skyrim since day one and got flamed to death for.

 

[Sabrestar]

I think the ultimate problem with Elder Scrolls-style open-world games can be pointed out by expanding the Uncanny Valley concept.

Games that fit into a 16Mbit cartridge were only very vague approximations of reality. Players didn't expect realistic responses from sparsely-animated pixels that marched along two-dimensional platforms. It was easy to divorce oneself from reality because the games of the old-school make no pretensions toward reality.

Now, technology can't possibly emulate the real world perfectly. Heck, we barely understand half of how the real world works at all; there's no chance under heaven and earth that we could have powerful enough technology in the foreseeable future to model that. Why, then, do we expect realism from Elder Scrolls and not from Mario? Because the pretensions toward reality are very much present. The Uncanny Valley is a computer-graphics trope originally, suggesting that a point when things get close to realism, but not quite there, the ability to accept and appreciate them falls off dramatically. In short, they're close enough to seem real, but that just makes them more obviously not real.

Elder Scrolls games since Morrowind have been firmly rooted in the Uncanny Valley. Back in Morrowind, aided by mods, I could adventure the world, dungeon-delve, cast spells, get my character pregnant (with attendant difficulties wearing armour) and carry a child to term... but the child would never grow beyond an infant. In Oblivion I could listen to conversations between NPCs... that would make no sense. (I'd make a Skyrim comparison but I haven't played it yet.)

Elder Scrolls games and their like don't feel real because they come so close, and clearly want to come so close. It makes the suspension of disbelief a lot harder because it only has to happen sometimes. I know I can't kill things by stepping on them like Mario does, so I'm already pulled out of reality when I play one of his games. Mentally I'm already prepared to accept a world I don't recognise, so things that don't seem believable are the norm for its existence.

Don't let it be said that I don't like Elder Scrolls games; I'm still hacking away at Oblivion mods. I kind of like living in the Uncanny Valley, but it never lets me forget I'm there.

 

[draythefingerless]

New Vegas had lil visible consequences.

Skyrim has lots of em. START THE quest to destroy the dark brotherhood, guards will go all fanboy on you saying youre that guy who killed x. use your shout too many times in a city, a guard will come to tell you to keep it quiet. etc etc

but of course, if you find ONE situation that doesnt go beyond its expectations, the game is ruined. :/

Would love for people to show me a game that does this better.

 

[Fappy]

Wall of text incoming...

Part of the problem is voice acting. Its far easier to have variable/radical/dynamic changes in NPC dialogue when you use text. Much, much easier.

I don't have a huge problem with Skyrim's soullessness because like every other TES game I've played its more about the cool stuff you do. Plus, I am really good at making my own fun and filling in the gaps with role play in these games.

The problem is: there is no way the developers could create dynamic enough NPCs to react to half of the possible things players can do.

Here's a good example of something I did last night (minor spoilers for anyone who hasn't been to Solitude at least once to follow): I was playing my lawful good Khajiit merchant/monk last night who was very unhappy about the poor Nord who was about to lose his head on the executioners block. My character thought it was unjust and grew furious with the situation, so much so that the beast was coming out (he's a werewolf, reluctantly). As the crowd was shouting about how crappy a guard the Nord happened to be my character wandered behind a building in an attempt to brace himself and prevent his transformation. He failed. What resulted was my Khajiit flying into a blind werewolf rage and charging the executioner's block. He killed a generic guard and the Imperial captain in charge of the beheading, then ran out into the wilderness and passed out. When I returned to Solitude that morning I found the man who was to be executed dead in the middle of the market place... the guards had killed him after all. When I talked to an NPC about the execution he simply gave his opinion about whether or not the man deserved to die. He failed to mention that A MOTHER FUCKING WEREWOLF interrupted the execution and murdered the captain of the guard.

Honestly, do I expect the AI to be programmed in such a way that it could comprehend that situation? Not really. It's pretty much impossible to put that level of dynamic detail into a game as big as Skyrim.

 

[draythefingerless]

SPOILERS!!!! I think?





The reason I suppose Agnis doesn't have much diaglouge is because you are supposed to kill her for a dark brotherhood side contract.

Of course the point still stands. I kinda agree with the article in that your actions don't really have consequences, such as the SPOILERS AGAIN!!!!! war, you could join the stormcloacks and invade whiterun. Now I know that the game isn't suppose to be that dark, but usaully when a town is invaded, it gets sacked.

No difference is made between whether the stormcloacks or imperials win,but really I would of thought that when the stormcloaks win, that they would of looted the town and raped the women and killed the livestock and blah blah blah you get the idea.

Instead the only difference is that the guards are now stormcloak guards and you can ask some of the townspeople what it's like under stormcloack rule.



Of course I still don't complain about it too much as I expected that Skyrim wouldn't exactly have much in the way of consequences.

Spoilers:
it is being invaded to strengthen the side that is invading it. Stormcloaks cant sack it, they need the city for the war effort. theyre basically just changing the jarl to one that will help them. If they sack n plunder it, whats the point of invading and wasting your own resources on it?
End Spoilers

Its easy to find things you think should of been done diferently in a game with this much content. Its soulless because you look at it that way. you WANT to find something that makes it bad. I married Mjoll and Aerin kept snooping into our house, cause he follows her everywhere. i got to a point where i couldnt stand him snooping in our relationship and decided to kill him. i dragged Mjoll to some corner, tld her to wait, then headed to Aerins house, broke in, sneaked behind him, and killed him. Thus creating a really complex story, all using game mechanics.

 

[Something Amyss]

The issue with "immersion" is not that the concept is worthless - without it, games like Skyrim would be reduced to pick-up-and-play games you got bored of in an hour rather than sweeping addictive experiences - but that the word is heavily overused.

Without it, games like Skyrim would still be exactly as they are.

If immersion is broken for you because of your viewpoint or the game mechanics, then you are perhaps playing the wrong game.

Oooh! A variant of "you're playing it wrong!"

I like where this is going.

However, if you are totally immersed in the experience of a game because you're really enjoying it, you've managed to overcome whatever technical obstacles you had and really get into the world and the story of the game.

Sounds nice, but it's the opposite of the above and still just as silly.

If the game, like this one does, makes a huge deal about giving you freedom and choice then those choices have to mean something.

Most games that tout freedom and choice don't really give you either. Clearly, this line is crap.

If in your head you are a mighty elf battlemage astride the land like a colossus, choosing who will reign the realm and who lives or dies, then to find out that nobody actually gives a damn will bring you out of that experience like a bucket of cold water to the face.

From the guy who said he wasn't a roleplayer.

Choices must have consequences. If they don't, there's simply no point in giving the players choices.

Except, as above, that's not the case. You repeated it, so I did. Sorry for the redundancy.

Imagine you're the kind of person who wants to play a child-killing sociopath. You kill a random kid, and...nothing happens. You chose to do something, you carried it out, but nobody cares. There are no consequences, no ramifications for your behaviour. Wouldn't you rather have furious city guards and weeping parents attempting to take vengeance? Would you want the realm to be alive with whispers of your terrible deeds? I'm sure you wouldn't want to be totally ignored, regardless of what you did.

You're asking me to weigh what I personally want or what I know others want? Because the former, yes, I want there to be repercussions. But if you're focusing on me, you're choosing to ignore that these people exist. They're everywhere. Some are even on this board and have posted things to such an effect.

After that, it's simply a matter of scaling. If small actions have minor consequences then large actions (like deciding a civil war or killing a Jarl) should have major consequences. They don't, at least not as far as gameplay is concerned.

And they probably never will.

But it hasn't really stopped people from being "immersed," regardless of what you've argued.

And that's both the beauty of "immersion" and why it is completely meaningless.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

Why would the game world care about you? Your a nobody. I guess you prefer more linear games where your the star and everyone knows it. You have to want to play, to explore a cave because it intrigues you. Ive started main missions and 6 hours later i realise ive let myself be side tracked by random caves and towns. The soldiers and people sometimes recognise you, saying your the guy that killed the dragon. etc. Could they make the game more immersive? Yes. Could they improve the writing and everything else? Yes. Is Skyrim awesome? Yes.

 

[Carnagath]

Actually the main quest of Skyrim is pretty colorful, if that was the whole game it would last about as long as Witcher 2 and noone would complain. Of course that's just the beginning, there's a massive other number of quests to do. The "titled" ones again do a pretty decent job at keeping the player interested in finding out what's going to happen. The random ones of course do not. You can't really expect a world of this size to be filled with interesting characters with personalities that react in a lifelike manner, I think it's an unreasonable goal that only Fallout 2 vaguely approached in an era where the focus of game design was that and only that. Skyrim does at least offer you choice. If you find the open world adventuring too soulless, you can easily skip it without any problems and concentrate on the main queests and side quests. You don't have to go 100% sandbox happy if you feel that you're missing the point. Hell, you're not even gonna miss out on any good equipment, since player-made gear is the best in the game.

 

[Furioso]

I get what you're saying, when I completed the support the Empire quest line all I got was a mediocre sword, and no one else cared, I was kinda ticked, but I still love the game

 

[SonicWaffle]

Without it, games like Skyrim would still be exactly as they are.

Sorry, but I don't buy that. If you sit down and play a game for eight hours is it because you're immersed and involved, or because you don't give two shits?

Oooh! A variant of "you're playing it wrong!"

I like where this is going.

Not what I meant at all. What I meant was that per your list of examples, if something like first-person viewpoint breaks your immersion, then you really shouldn't be playing a first-person shooter. If a fundamental mechanic of the game is bringing you out of the experience then try to avoid games which feature that mechanic.

Sounds nice, but it's the opposite of the above and still just as silly.

Silly how? I don't like third-person viewpoint in Skrim, so I don't use it. I'm enjoying the game immensely, having found a way around a technical issues that marred my enjoyment.

Most games that tout freedom and choice don't really give you either. Clearly, this line is crap.

Most give you freedom to choose, but only to choose from those options they have pre-selected. This allows them to keep the story or questline coherent rather than having the game descend into uncontrollable anarchy. If you have a choice between the Stormcloaks and the Legion, the game can't allow you to choose "make a hat out of voles and go on holiday to Bermuda" because then the narrative will fall apart.

My issue is when I'm given what appear to be major choices with extremely minor consequences. In the Mass Effect games, the Rachni and the Collector space station in particular felt like big, real choices because I felt that my decision would affect the galaxy. there will, I'm sure, be consequences for my choices somewhere down the line. In Skyrim, that feeling is largely absent because I know that choices which should have a knock-on effect on the entire world will actually just change dialogue options with a few NPCs.

From the guy who said he wasn't a roleplayer.

There's a difference between roleplaying and wanting to feel like what you're doing in-game has a purpose and noticeable repercussions. If you shoot a guy in an FPS, you want to see your bullets having an effect, not for him to drop from fighting stance to dead & stiff as a board the moment you put enough bullets in him to deplete all his HP.

Except, as above, that's not the case. You repeated it, so I did. Sorry for the redundancy.

I'll repeat it again - a choice must have consequences to be worth anything. If I kill this guy, what'll the repercussions be? What happens if I steal this potion? How will people react if I set their town on fire? I'm not really following your argument that any of that is wrong.

But it hasn't really stopped people from being "immersed," regardless of what you've argued.

I'm not arguing against it. In fact, my argument hinges on the fact that I find the game very immersive but ultimately pointless. What's the point of going to all the trouble of crafting a big, open world full of choices and telling me I'm free to play in it if the major world-changing events I orchestrate or partake in don't actually change anything?

 

[Dandark]

SPOILERS!!!! I think?





The reason I suppose Agnis doesn't have much diaglouge is because you are supposed to kill her for a dark brotherhood side contract.

Of course the point still stands. I kinda agree with the article in that your actions don't really have consequences, such as the SPOILERS AGAIN!!!!! war, you could join the stormcloacks and invade whiterun. Now I know that the game isn't suppose to be that dark, but usaully when a town is invaded, it gets sacked.

No difference is made between whether the stormcloacks or imperials win,but really I would of thought that when the stormcloaks win, that they would of looted the town and raped the women and killed the livestock and blah blah blah you get the idea.

Instead the only difference is that the guards are now stormcloak guards and you can ask some of the townspeople what it's like under stormcloack rule.



Of course I still don't complain about it too much as I expected that Skyrim wouldn't exactly have much in the way of consequences.

Spoilers:
it is being invaded to strengthen the side that is invading it. Stormcloaks cant sack it, they need the city for the war effort. theyre basically just changing the jarl to one that will help them. If they sack n plunder it, whats the point of invading and wasting your own resources on it?
End Spoilers

Its easy to find things you think should of been done diferently in a game with this much content. Its soulless because you look at it that way. you WANT to find something that makes it bad. I married Mjoll and Aerin kept snooping into our house, cause he follows her everywhere. i got to a point where i couldnt stand him snooping in our relationship and decided to kill him. i dragged Mjoll to some corner, tld her to wait, then headed to Aerins house, broke in, sneaked behind him, and killed him. Thus creating a really complex story, all using game mechanics.

I don't actully consider Skyrim to be completely soulless but I can see why one could.
Also armies didn't usaully order their soldiers to sack cities, they just did. I mean it wasn't very realistic although I can't really blame them.

 

[winter2]

Agnis? I could have sworn I killed her as part of the Dark Brotherhood storyline. Maybe I'm wrong.

For me, Skyrims soul lives in the environment it gives us. I have spent hours just jaunting through the hills enjoying the snow and wind.

 

[Hoplon]

The lack of reaction to events is a big damper on Skyrim. Empire or Stormcloaks, Alduin defeated or not. none of it matters in even a small way to the world of Skyrim.

So why should it matter to me?

 

[dfphetteplace]

I don't care. Skyrim is an incredibly fun game and I enjoy all the time I spend playing it. It is a game, a game the deliveries a ton of fun stuff. Great plots and great exploration. Sure there are a few things I would like different, but that is what modding is for. And if I thought I could do better, I would, but I can't, so I don't. Complaining about it is the same as volunteering to fix it.

 

[Jumwa]

I find the New Vegas comparison suspect.

No kidding, and well said on the reasons why.

New Vegas is a great game, but it doesn't really accomplish anything that Skyrim didn't, despite the occasional claim otherwise.

The whole example strikes me as odd. Agnis responded to the actions, she just didn't respond as the author wanted her too. She doesn't care that you killed the forts occupants, she knows more will take their place and she'll have a job with them again, cleaning and cooking. It's a bizarrely sedated reaction to some murder around her, but I suppose in her situation it's supposed to make sense.

Oh, big tough fella waltzed on in and killed them, huh? Big whoop, why's she care? Seen it happen dozens of times before.

It's not as if she acted completely unaware of it, she acted completely unconcerned with it. Two different things.

And considering this is just one minor little character in some random little fort in the middle of nowhere who serves no apparent quest purpose, that's more than I'd expect from such a massive, sprawling game.

 

[DoomyMcDoom]

Reason you get more world changing feel from new vegas is that new vegas was written and developed by obsidian, who may as well be a reincarnation of blackisle studios, who made fallout 2, in the old fallout games it was all about making a difference in communities, stuff you did mattered globally, faction influence, karma, all that stuff.

Bethesda "learned from fallout 3" when they made skyrim, and fallout 3 was all about this kinda stuff.

I went into skyrim EXPECTING this kind of stuff, so maybe I don't feel supprised that most of the npcs feel lifeless, and pointless.

Still, one might think they were going for a partially senile, completely rooted, not caring who else occupies the area around her due to it being in constant flux, due to the strategic import of the fort's location, character in agnis.

 

[Wolfram23]

I tend to agree, though I still find people comment on a lot of the small things I've done so far...

Also,

Come on, modders!!!!! I honestly would love it if modders added a huge amount of text dialog. I said before, I would not mind one bit if they only voice acted major characters like Jarls and such, and then for all the hundreds of minor characters they basically only have text dialog - except that they would have a fairly generic voiced greeting or something. For example current guards have a small range of things they can say, which is great. Just need to add a lot more text chatting options. Particularly if you're trying to find someone/something. Guards tend to know things.