An attempt to review Skyrim

Where does one even begin with an entity like Skyrim? Do you go by the same lists of individual merits like you would a standalone game, or do one primarily see it in regards to the rest of the Elder Scrolls series? Or maybe start with the fact that the five years after its release has brought a seemingly never ending stream of (more or less) openworld sandboxes?

Skyrim was, in my opinion, the last truly great game Bethesda Game Studios made. And, I know, I am beginning to sound like the bitches who complain about how the Elder Scrolls have been “dumbed down” since Morrowind (which I have a hard time understanding the reasoning behind, because Morrowind is a stale, shallow game that is redeemed by its world-building). And I am sorry I do come across like one of those bitches, but Fallout 4 (FO4) simply do not engage me the same way.

Bethesda Game Studios has a bad habit of not learning the correct lessons from their previous installments. When the Radiant Story (RS) in Skyrim didn’t ignite people’s pubes in excitement, what they should have done is to tone that aspect down, not have more of it. It is really quite annoying to see the extent to which RS is used in the game.

I do like a lot of the things they did with FO4. I like the return to the more traditional outlook for the Brotherhood of Steel (BoS), while being a more engaged player in the development of an area. It strikes me as a good way to marry the ideas of the traditional and Lyons interpretations of their mythos. I like the Institute and their rather unambiguous moral character. I like that the Railroad, while having good intentions, appear entirely detached from the reality of the synth situation, both as it pertains to who they are and what threat they can pose. I like the Minutemen, in that it makes sense for me that people would organize themselves.

I like that there is not an obviously wrong side to the conflict of the main story, I like that it is not about the mustache twirling evil Enclave. I like that the BoS and Institute both engage in some messed up things. I like the Commonwealth Wasteland, with its creatures and people.

Gameplay wise, it is far stronger than FO3 was. Guns handle better, the customization of equipment is fucking awesome and they made a very meaningful distinction between regular armor and Power Armor, which I think was about frikkin’ time. The levelling is, well, it’s there. Kinda. I can’t say whether or not I like it, even now. It’s just a new way to do it. And, honestly, I’d rather they try this stuff than never evolve.

In short, I have a lot of good things to say about FO4. So why don’t I consider it alongside Skyrim, FO3, Morrowind and even Oblivion? It is entirely possible that I am just weary of the BGS style sandbox RPGs, but I don’t think that is it. I still have some fun in FO4, running around shooting people, after all.

There are a few prongs to the reasons why the game leaves my mind almost the instance I turn it off, unlike Skyrim which made me go over things and plan what I wanted to do next when I turned it off again. Or what sort of character I wanted to roll next, because I knew there would be a next character. In FO4, on the other hand, I have 1 character. Total. Never restarted the game.

Indeed, it is so hard for me to stay with FO4 that this review has been in the making ever since the release of Nuka-World. Comparing to my “The Orderless Paladin” article, which I wrote in a couple of hours after thinking it though a little bit beforehand, that is quite bad.

FO4 breaks tradition on one thing (not as jarring an article shift as it seems right now, trust me), compared to previous BGS titles: Expansions. As much as I dislike what they did to Cyrodiil in Oblivion, the Shivering Isles is a fucking awesome place with an awesome character driving the plot: Sheogorath. They have tried to recapture his awesomeness in both Skyrim and the Elder Scrolls Online without much success. As much as I love Skyrim, Dragonborn surpasses it in most regards. Bloodmoon and Tribunal for Morrowind are great.

Then there is Far Harbor, Automatrons and Nuka-World. Eh… Well, I liked Far Harbor until it kinda just stopped with no real ending. It was atmospheric and brought up some interesting questions about the player character. I like the ideas behind Nuka-World. Automatron is, in a word, lackluster.

I think Nuka-World is a micro-scale example of why I think FO4 do not engage me. On paper the thing is fucking brilliant, but the story elements and lack of interesting quests makes the game a lot shittier than the sum of its parts.

For the main game, one of the things that really drive me nuts is that you’re given too much investment in following the main quest. This is something I touched on a bit for my New Vegas rant, but it is important for a game to understand what it is trying to be. This is why it is such a nice detail that Hadvar/Ralof suggest to split ways after Helgen, just as the road forks off in two directions. Your character doesn’t have any personal investment, you just escaped from a Dragon attack. Getting the fuck out of dodge is a perfectly reasonable conclusion.

And, yes, FO3 suffers a bit from the same issue as FO4 here. Oblivion not as much, as your character do not necessarily have the motivation to oppose Dagon or help the Septims. But I think it is a major problem when the game gives me a sandbox with a great deal to explore, after it has established that my character’s child has been kidnapped.

Enjoy the sandbox nature of the game and be the worst fucking parent ever, or ignore most of the game running after the kid? I get that BGS wants to do better storytelling, I do. It is necessary as more and more developers branch out into the open world game niche. Like the Witcher 3, which pulled off the whole “looking for your daughter(well, sort-of adopted daughter, in that Geralt loves her like a daughter)” story in a sandbox game. Man, Witcher 3 is an awesome game. I think it is the first nominee for the “Best Game” award I have played. It has fun gameplay, great storytelling, likeable characters, an interesting world… you name it. I hope it will be topped, because that means more absolutely fucking awesome games. But back to FO4.

When it comes to Nuka-World the story elements are tones down. You’re basically given an offer to become the boss of some Raider gangs and has to help them conquer the rest of the Nuka-World. There is a safari zone, bottling plant, wild west place, castle for children and a futuristic place. Nice spread, on paper this would be brilliant. Shame they didn’t put any content in these places to make them interesting. I don’t think I have ever played a BGS expansion with so little content in it. Even fucking Knights of the Nine, which is just a questline DLC added to Oblivion, felt more fleshed out than this.

At the end of the day, I’d describe Nuka-World like this: Pick it up if you want to kill mostly the same enemies to new scenerie.

This is what happens when I try to review Skyrim. I can talk about specific things in Skyrim, like how I think people are oversimplifying the change in religion that has occurred, or the civil war, but I can’t write an actual review for it without going off about something else.