Skyrim, lacking a soul?

Originally Posted by pibbur
In what way? There are the daedra, the races, the books, the guilds, references to Morrowind … To me Oblivion was very much an Elder Scrolls game. Not as good as Morrowind, but still an Elder Scrolls.

Let's see, the Imperial province was supposed to be a jungle but we end up with a landscape that could just as easily be in High Rock, or really any generic fantasy game. Take your pick. Michael Kirkbride did do a quick lore band aid that some past emperor hated the jungle and magically transformed it, but really.

Also, the very pagan religion we saw in Daggerfall with temples for each of the gods and scantily clad priestesses somehow has suddenly morphed into the medieval Catholic Church with Knights of the Nine.

I'm sure there are lore masters who could go to even more detail about it but those are the two main lore breakers that stick out in my mind off hand. It feels like things were sacrificed in order to make a familiar, accessible PG13 game.

Daedra you could just as easily call demons or gods or something else, the races without context are just generic D&D races, the books could just as easily be swapped out for other texts and can read them online if I want, guilds aren't unique to Elder Scrolls, etc. All of that stuff to me is window dressing. It's not the soul. It's also all pretty generic until they put it into context and put a unique spin on it, if they do.

@Motoki, it really doesn't sound like Skyrim is the game for you. For me, it's absolutely perfect. I'd just move on and maybe pick it up in a Steam sale a year or two from now. I didn't buy Risen and probably won't buy Risen 2. The devs aren't going to change their game to suit my preferences and wishing so is just a waste of time and energy. I'll probably get both some day in a Steam sale or a bargain bin dive, but I'm in no hurry.

Originally Posted by Motoki

I'm sure there are lore masters who could go to even more detail about it but those are the two main lore breakers that stick out in my mind off hand. It feels like things were sacrificed in order to make a familiar, accessible PG13 game.

Developped universes are subjected to inconsistencies. Oblivion's trouble, though, is one does not need to be a lore master to start scratching one's head.

The game fails as somebody with a loose knowledge of the universe inherited from previous games or even someone who has simply read the booklet, starts questioning what is displayed.

I remembered one quite well: I expected to find Ayleid ruins as they were there first and declined. I much less expected to find Imperial ruins and I even less expected to find Imperial forts ruins only.

I cant remember what age the game is set but I remember that the action was supposed to take place in an age of prosperity for the Empire and the heart of the Empire looks like past peak.

@Motoki: Thanks for the explanation.

@ChienAboyeur: I guess I don't pay much attention these things. BTW, I think Oblivion takes place just after the events in Morrowind, but that was perhaps not what you meant by age-setting.

Originally Posted by lostforever
This may sounds bit silly but one of my pet peeves with PB games is the general lack of good quality women NPCs!

All of PB's games are "men games". Women aren't needed there - similar to a football, soccer, baseball or rugby game.

Originally Posted by crpgnut
@Motoki, it really doesn't sound like Skyrim is the game for you. For me, it's absolutely perfect. I'd just move on and maybe pick it up in a Steam sale a year or two from now. I didn't buy Risen and probably won't buy Risen 2. The devs aren't going to change their game to suit my preferences and wishing so is just a waste of time and energy. I'll probably get both some day in a Steam sale or a bargain bin dive, but I'm in no hurry.

You are probably right. I suppose it's just that I have memories of Daggerfall and Morrowind and I want more games like those. With improvements sure, but I feel like the things from those games I wanted to see expanded upon and improved aren't getting done and the things that I really don't care about are getting done.

I still stand by my comment that Skyrim just seems like an open world Viking themed action game to me. I did end up canceling my pre-order, but as you said I'll probably pick it up eventually once it gets marked way down.

Originally Posted by pibbur
@ChienAboyeur: I guess I don't pay much attention these things. BTW, I think Oblivion takes place just after the events in Morrowind, but that was perhaps not what you meant by age-setting.

Oblivion takes place 20 years after the events of Morrowind, so the two games are relatively close in terms of the timeline. Skyrim by comparison takes place 200 years after Oblivion, so it's much further removed.

I'm having the opposite perception from the OP.

I do agree that past TES games lack a soul, so to speak. But after reading and seeing much of what Skyrim may have to offer, I think it will be better than past TES games in this department.

Time will tell.

Originally Posted by pibbur
@ChienAboyeur: I guess I don't pay much attention these things. BTW, I think Oblivion takes place just after the events in Morrowind, but that was perhaps not what you meant by age-setting.

No, I did not mean that. The history of the continent in TES universe goes through several ages/eras/ stages with certain species gaining momemtum while others lose steam.

I dont remember if Oblivion takes place in the first, second, third, fourth age/era but I remember it was supposed to take place in a golden age for the Empire.

The Ayleid were first in Cyroodil and their civilization declined. Hence the Ayleid ruins.
But the Empire should not show only ruins of fort in its jewel province. It does not go with a flourishing Empire.

Major distortion from what one can expect on information given by lore.

I find I agree with lostforever. They can make a gorgeous open world but one can explore only so much before getting bored. Its the same problem in all there games even fallout 3. I play for story and exploration. Not just exploration.

Originally Posted by lostforever
This is spot on! This is why I am looking forward to Risen 2 more than Skyrim. I need to play FO3 one of these days given that most people think its better than Oblivion.

This may sounds bit silly but one of my pet peeves with PB games is the general lack of good quality women NPCs! I don't mean stuff like looks, romance etc but rather interesting personalities. When I was playing Witcher 2, i noticed that almost half of (may be even more) well defined NPCs were women and this adds lot of "colour" to the game world. I think PB need to do this and I don't believe this will cost them any thing extra.

Indeed. It was relatively easy to explain in Gothic 1 - it's a prison colony. However, Gothic 2, 3 and Risen were all lacking in terms of women. Risen was something of an improvement as far as women goes, so we can always hope they continue in that direction.

Originally Posted by TheMadGamer
I'm having the opposite perception from the OP.

I do agree that past TES games lack a soul, so to speak. But after reading and seeing much of what Skyrim may have to offer, I think it will be better than past TES games in this department.

Time will tell.

I guess what is your definition of "soul"? If they are the same as mine (in the first post) I like to know what is that you have seen or read that made you think this game has a "soul"?

I do agree that from what I have seen it will be better than Oblivion.

Don't get me wrong, I am no trying be confrontational, I am really curious and like to know if I missed any videos or nice articles on Skyrim.

Originally Posted by Alrik Fassbauer
All of PB's games are "men games". Women aren't needed there - similar to a football, soccer, baseball or rugby game.

Maybe that's why I am not too much into those games! Having said that I like cricket but hardly any women plays it

Originally Posted by Maylander
Indeed. It was relatively easy to explain in Gothic 1 - it's a prison colony. However, Gothic 2, 3 and Risen were all lacking in terms of women. Risen was something of an improvement as far as women goes, so we can always hope they continue in that direction.

Well we know that Risen 2 is going to have Patty again. Also going by the trailers there may be voodoo woman who may play an important role. So we can definitely say that Risen 2 will be an improvement over Risen in terms female NPCs!

Originally Posted by ChienAboyeur
No, I did not mean that. The history of the continent in TES universe goes through several ages/eras/ stages with certain species gaining momemtum while others lose steam.

I dont remember if Oblivion takes place in the first, second, third, fourth age/era but I remember it was supposed to take place in a golden age for the Empire.

The Ayleid were first in Cyroodil and their civilization declined. Hence the Ayleid ruins.
But the Empire should not show only ruins of fort in its jewel province. It does not go with a flourishing Empire.

Major distortion from what one can expect on information given by lore.

Oblivion takes place at the very end of the 3rd age. That age began with the establishment of the Septim dynasty by Tiber Septim and ended with

I suppose their intent was to show the empire in decline but ruins is probably a bit much.

Originally Posted by lostforever
I guess what is your definition of "soul"? If they are the same as mine (in the first post) I like to know what is that you have seen or read that made you think this game has a "soul"?

I wrote a long essay and then lost it.

In short, prior TES games lack that intimate hand-crafted-ness that I prefer and find in games like G1 and G2 and Risen.

Skyrim is looking to be a lot more hand-crafted and so I'm hopeful that it will have more of a 'soul.'

I'll be happy if we don't get nearly identical Eyelid Ruins and Imperial Fort Ruins. Since I played Oblivion for hundreds of hours, I really got tired of the look. If it was a little 10 hour game, like DS3, or a mid-sized 40 hour game, like Risen, then it would be more tolerable. It really sounds like Bethesda listened though, and I'm pretty excited.

It's likely that Skyrim will lack a "soul".
Atmosphere and all that is not Beth's strong suit.

Too early to tell - but from what I've seen thus far, the game seems to have more "soul" than Oblivion.

Oblivion lacked personality and the world just seemed a bit too tidy… almost like a movie set where everything looks just right. Skyrim seems to have those necessary rough edges that make a world look lived in. It has a certain harshness to it that was sorely lacking in Cyrodiil's areas.

Or maybe I'm seeing what I want to see. In any case, the huge improvements in character movement and facial animations plus the fact that they're adding completely new components (Dragons/Dragon shouts/Dual Wielding) seem like they'll make Skyrim much more interesting.


Still, to me the lack of "soul" in Oblivion came more from the very stiff voice acting and the limted amount of voice actors coupled with some pretty dull and by-the-numbers dialogue. And they haven't shown what's in store regarding these aspects so far.

The OP's question is slightly odd since Elder Scrolls as a series has never provided any of the requested "soul" elements at all. It's a bit like complaining that Vlad the Impaler was surprisingly prone to thrusting sharp objects through human flesh…I mean, what did you expect?

Originally Posted by JDR13
It's not possible to have the best of everything in one game.

Skyrim's obviously not going to have NPCs as detailed as The Witcher 2, but it's going to have a lot more of them, as well as a lot more content in general. That doesn't mean it'll be better or worse though. It just depends what you're looking for.

I've never quite understood this mentality when it comes to RPG design. Is it better to have generic, unremarkable and/or just plain bad content as long as there's a lot of it? What's so great about quantity when you can have quality instead?

Quantity is possibly combined with exploration
and Quality combined with story-focused gameplay, much like a Short Story,
I guess .

Originally Posted by Demiath
I've never quite understood this mentality when it comes to RPG design. Is it better to have generic, unremarkable and/or just plain bad content as long as there's a lot of it? What's so great about quantity when you can have quality instead?

Of course it's not ok to have bad content if there's a lot of it, but I wouldn't call the content in most larger games bad, just not as focused as some titles.

For some people, exploration is more important than story. For me, it just depends on the mood I'm in. Sometimes I go through a phase where I value a larger explorable area, and other times I'd rather have more focus on story and characters.