Bethesda and True Agency: Part 3

In 2011, Bethesda came out with the Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim. Arguably, this could be said to be the most popular title they’ve ever released. I’ve personally played the game for over 400 hours, and as I write, 5 years after launch, ~28,000 people are playing the game on Steam. For a game so expansive and diverse, it’s difficult to pinpoint one thing that’s responsible for its lasting appeal. If we consider its intention – to be a world where you can go anywhere, do anything – perhaps that’s where the appeals lies. And you would certainly think so, given the unprecedented size and scope of Skyrim as a world. But where it has breadth, is there depth?

Skyrim begins like other Elder Scrolls titles; you’re a prisoner, and by some combination of circumstances, you’re set free. Skyrim’s opening cinematic introduces you to the mise en scene in which the entire game takes place; Skyrim is a province in the midst of a bitter civil war, and the narrative is immediately complicated by the return of Alduin, World Eater, the nemesis of the Aedra Akatosh, more or less the King of Gods in Elder Scrolls lore; and hundreds of other dragons, an ancient race whose wisdom is only rivaled by their desire for destruction.

And you’re released into this world. Will you fulfill the prophecy as Dragonborn and save Skyrim? Or will you explore the rest of the world and become whoever you want to be? Or both? Skyrim seems to offer a wealth of options exploring this world, but it suffers from the same flaw that plagues Fallout 4; it’s too damn big. Don’t get me wrong, Skyrim is an incredibly rewarding experience, but it falls short of being the “go anywhere, do anything, be anybody” target, not necessarily because of its scope, but because of its focus on scope. For example, Skyrim has hundreds of dungeons, all crafted beautifully, many unique and interesting in amazing ways. The world is very well developed in that sense. And yet, they seem to have missed one of the most important aspects of developing versatile options: a sense of balance. Sure, there’s multiple classes of weapons, and multiple ways to play, but the combination of relatively easy bow mechanics and an absolutely broken sneaking system means that the easiest way to play (and therefore one many players gravitate toward), is as a stealth archer, sneaking and sniping foes with relative ease. It certainly takes some excitement and reward away from otherwise exciting battles when you try to fight legitimately and valiantly with a sword in one hand and a magic spell in the other, only to eventually give up and win handily by hiding in a corner and shooting a few arrows. What’s more is, the balance exists this way regardless of which race you play, making that choice more or less only an aesthetic one.

Vivec (Morrowind)

And again, the dungeons and exploration have incredible depth, but what about the actual life of Skyrim: the cities? Even the Imperial capital of Skyrim, Solitude, has only 85 unique NPCs (http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Skyrim:People#Solitude_People). It seems that Bethesda is limited in the depth possible in its world by the desire to have full voice acting in the entire game. For comparison, Morrowind’s largest city, Vivec, had 326 unique NPCs (http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Morrowind:City_People#Vivec_People). Perhaps for a more fair comparison, given that Vivec is meant to be a metropolis, even Morrowind’s small town on the river, Balmora, has 92 unique NPCs (http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Morrowind:City_People#Balmora_People). It’s clear that while Bethesda has no shortage of content in the minds of their creators (evidenced by the sprawling dungeons that dot Skyrim’s landscape), they are limited by their attempt to enhance the feel of the world. But did it even help? The cities certainly don’t feel all that big, despite the addition of 3 or 4 unique voices shared by every man, woman, and child in the province.

I want to reiterate that these qualms in no way keep Skyrim from being an incredible game; to the contrary, the aggregate of its quirks and characteristics obviously works on many levels and has created one of the most active fan communities of all time. There is certainly something to be said for how things were prioritized and the level of success granted by that. In my opinion, the balance of choice, depth, and realism that has granted the most immersive role-playing experience in this format is Obsidian’s Fallout: New Vegas (fawning over NV continued in Part 4).

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Bethesda and True Agency: Part 3

  1. jic5468 says:

    I agree that the dungeons are “same-y” to the extent that they are visually consistent, but Skyrim is one continent and to some extent this enhances the atmosphere of the world; I wonder what kind of dungeons you’re hoping for if not caves infested by wild animals or falmer, Nord catacombs, abandoned forts, or Dwemer ruins?

    The variety I found in the dungeons was specifically in the layouts and puzzles, some of which were very inventive given the limitations of the Gamebryo engine, and had a respectable similarity to puzzle based dungeon classics like the Zelda games.

    Have you plundered Vahlok’s Tomb in Solstheim? You have to gather 2 halves of a dragon claw and sacrifice a body to create a bridge of light to cross a pit and reach the final battle.

    What about Labyrinthian? Where you need to navigate Shalidor’s maze in order to find and defeat a skeletal dragon and the dragon priest Morokei.

    And did you explore the Dwemer ruin of Nchardak? Where you need to use special devices to manipulate the water levels of the temple to reach certain areas and solve puzzles? Sounds familiar…

    Or how about the 4 dungeons you need to explore to find the 3 pieces of the Gauldur amulet and reforge them in the tomb of the Gauldur brothers, only to unwittingly resurrect them?

    And you can’t seriously sit there and tell me Blackreach wasn’t incredible. Come on.

    Perhaps there are only a few dozen really interesting dungeons for the ~200 or so in the game, but games have been lauded for less, and the variety that does exist in Skyrim gives me the sense that at the very least, the dungeons were an incredibly well executed component of the game.

  2. LJ Flood says:

    I agree that Skyrim’s problem is it’s focus on scope, but I’m going to have completely disagree about why, specifically about the dungeons, and your point about the balance, I would say, is the least of Skyrim’s problems. The dungeons are excessively same-y, with about five flavors of dungeons TOTAL, and that’s being a bit generous (falmer, dweomer, nordic, necromancer/vampire, bandit?). The actual content and layout of these dungeons is the same, with the same pattern of chests, boss-ish monsters, and skill books, and occasional new word. And this is no surprise, considering that no team of developers can make literal hundreds of dungeons and retain variety. The cheap gameplay ability isn’t as much a problem as how all gameplay types start to feel the same as well, and the game becomes a slog of chugging potions and managing inventory. They should’ve focused their immense resources on enriching their gameplay, instead of copy-pasting dungeons to fill out hours of play.

Leave a Reply