So we have a new open world kind of game, SoulKeeper.

[leddis3]

 

 

The is a completely ill defined idea of an RPG in this context.

By that definition, Call of Duty is an RPG.

 

I've had this argument numerous times in numerous places so please go around in circles on this.

I cannot assume the role of a set character. I can only act as them. In order to role play, it must be a character *I* have defined, a character *I* relate to, a character that is connected to *me*. As someone else said in this thread, anything else is not role play, it is acting.

 

Soulkeeper is not an RPG and never will be, and neither is The Witcher 3, and until someone has the balls to make a true open-world RPG to compete with Bethesda, they will keep giving us mediocrity.

 

It sounds like the only way *you* can acknowledge something as an RPG is to either make one yourself or play D&D. The thing is, I know only one series that did this and that series is the Sims. Which I'll remind you, has no storyline whatsoever.

 

 

 

Or any given TES, or Baldur's Gate, or Mass Effect, or Dragon Age. Don't be obtuse.

 

[Chaos63]

 

 

 

The is a completely ill defined idea of an RPG in this context.

By that definition, Call of Duty is an RPG.

 

I've had this argument numerous times in numerous places so please go around in circles on this.

I cannot assume the role of a set character. I can only act as them. In order to role play, it must be a character *I* have defined, a character *I* relate to, a character that is connected to *me*. As someone else said in this thread, anything else is not role play, it is acting.

 

Soulkeeper is not an RPG and never will be, and neither is The Witcher 3, and until someone has the balls to make a true open-world RPG to compete with Bethesda, they will keep giving us mediocrity.

 

It sounds like the only way *you* can acknowledge something as an RPG is to either make one yourself or play D&D. The thing is, I know only one series that did this and that series is the Sims. Which I'll remind you, has no storyline whatsoever.

 

 

 

Or any given TES, or Baldur's Gate, or Mass Effect, or Dragon Age. Don't be obtuse.

 

 

 

But in all of those cases you're still playing a savior/warden/soldier that the developers shaped according to their will and their opinion of what the character should be, which makes your choices illusionary at best.

How are you not seeing this?

[leddis3]

 

But in all of those cases you're still playing a savior/warden/soldier that the developers shaped according to their will and their opinion of what the character should be, which makes your choices illusionary at best.

How are you not seeing this?

 

Already went over this:

 

And nobody says a created character shouldn't have some background or driving force be it Dragonborne or Nerevarine or w/e.

We're asking for RPGs, not life simulators.

 

A videogame RPG will always have a set narrative and driving force, but will also let you define characters within it.

All Skyrim players may control the Dragonborn, but my Dragonborn is vastly different from yours. If you do not like my Dragonborn, she is no barrier to you because you role play your own.

Geralt on the other hand will always be Geralt. Of all the many thousands of Witcher 3 players, all of them are playing the exact same character. They are not "role" playing.

 

And to get back to my initial point, a set character like Geralt is a barrier. So are character classes bound to set characters, as Soulkeeper seems to want to do. What if I want to be a warrior, but hate the character the developers have chosen with arrogant presumption to force me to use if I want that class?

I am sick of being held as a captive audience to Bethesda because they're basically the only ones producing open world RPGs that have all the elements needed, and don't exclude people like me.

[Chaos63]

 

 

But in all of those cases you're still playing a savior/warden/soldier that the developers shaped according to their will and their opinion of what the character should be, which makes your choices illusionary at best.

How are you not seeing this?

 

Already went over this:

 

And nobody says a created character shouldn't have some background or driving force be it Dragonborne or Nerevarine or w/e.

We're asking for RPGs, not life simulators.

 

A videogame RPG will always have a set narrative and driving force, but will also let you define characters within it.

All Skyrim players may control the Dragonborn, but my Dragonborn is vastly different from yours. If you do not like my Dragonborn, she is no barrier to you because you role play your own.

Geralt on the other hand will always be Geralt. Of all the many thousands of Witcher 3 players, all of them are playing the exact same character. They are not "role" playing.

 

And to get back to my initial point, a set character like Geralt is a barrier. So are character classes bound to set characters, as Soulkeeper seems to want to do. What if I want to be a warrior, but hate the character the developers have chosen with arrogant presumption to force me to use if I want that class?

I am sick of being held as a captive audience to Bethesda because they're basically the only ones producing open world RPGs that have all the elements needed, and don't exclude people like me.

 

 

The more I talk to you, the more I'm getting the sense you only care about character creation, and everything else including the story, choices, and morality is just a minot sidekick coming along for the ride. If you had your way, we'd have maybe 20 RPGs in the market and that would be that, everything else would have to be renamed because it doesn't fit your profile.

 

[leddis3]

 

The more I talk to you, the more I'm getting the sense you only care about character creation, and everything else including the story, choices, and morality is just a minot sidekick coming along for the ride. If you had your way, we'd have maybe 20 RPGs in the market and that would be that, everything else would have to be renamed because it doesn't fit your profile.

 

 

I'm saying character creation is fundamentally important to RPGs.

Of course I want a good story too, if I didn't I wouldn't keep criticising Bethesda, which you can't have missed since I did so in the post you're replying to so quit strawmanning my position.

 

Why is it so unreasonable for me to want both an engaging story with choices and character creation?

Why the hell do you think games like TW3 frustrate me so? I'd play it if it wasn't for Geralt, for a character I loathe essentially excluding me. CDPR claim to care for the RPG gamer yet tell an RPG gamer like me to fuck off if I don't want to play that miserable bastard.

 

With character creation, everybody wins. You do, I do, everybody. That's supposed to be the beauty of RPGs, a beauty ignored by more and more developers.

[bjornk]

I'm saying character creation is fundamentally important to RPGs.

Of course it is. That is where you put something of yourself into the game. It could be a crazy looking character that looks nothing like you, but it's your own creation nonetheless. That alone makes it much easier to identify with the character and adds to the feeling of being there, which we call "immersion".

 

As for playing the male brute in RPGs, that's a thing people who either lack imagination or don't like to use their brains in games often go to. These people generally prefer shooters and other action games to RPGs anyway. Playing as a weak, flawed character or playing as the opposite sex is a much richer role playing experience.

[Chaos63]

 

 

The more I talk to you, the more I'm getting the sense you only care about character creation, and everything else including the story, choices, and morality is just a minot sidekick coming along for the ride. If you had your way, we'd have maybe 20 RPGs in the market and that would be that, everything else would have to be renamed because it doesn't fit your profile.

 

 

I'm saying character creation is fundamentally important to RPGs.

Of course I want a good story too, if I didn't I wouldn't keep criticising Bethesda, which you can't have missed since I did so in the post you're replying to so quit strawmanning my position.

 

Why is it so unreasonable for me to want both an engaging story with choices and character creation?

Why the hell do you think games like TW3 frustrate me so? I'd play it if it wasn't for Geralt, for a character I loathe essentially excluding me. CDPR claim to care for the RPG gamer yet tell an RPG gamer like me to fuck off if I don't want to play that miserable bastard.

 

With character creation, everybody wins. You do, I do, everybody. That's supposed to be the beauty of RPGs, a beauty ignored by more and more developers.

 

 

It is unreasonable because not every RPG has that element, but that doesn't make it any less of an RPG genre. I would also wonder that if TW had a character you actually liked and could identify with, would it then be enveloped by your "true RPG" definition. Because if it would, it would also make you a hypoctite whose only point here is "only an RPG I like is a real RPG". Kind of like saying the only true horrors are the ones that managed to scare you personally. I hope you're getting my point.

 

Also, "strawmanning"? We are so done here I don't even

 

[trpd]

Wiki: A role-playing game (RPG and sometimes roleplaying game) is a game in which players assume the roles of characters in a fictional setting. Players take responsibility for acting out these roles within a narrative, either through literal acting or through a process of structured decision-making or character development. Actions taken within many games succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines.

 

You may notice that there is nothing about range of choices you are given. cRPGs must limit roles to certain simulatable amount. So yea it would be nice if you got play as mage student hiding in Novigrad or pirate from Skellige - but that would mean making pretty much separate game for each role as neither of those could take witcher tasks. But it is a trade off - as result you get voice acting that can fit the characters , cutscene like dialogues where characters can shake hands or sit by each other. The world can better react to you - those hostile will call your freak, those that know you by proffesion will call you witcher and your friends will use your name just like they would in life.

 

There is nothing wrong if you can't fit the character, just like the book not everyone liked it. But that doesn't make it any less of rpg, it just have story driven focus over sandbox.

 

Character creation - if you would stick to first person in Skyrim then you wouldn't be even able to tell which gender you play as dialogues doesn't differentiate that. Most helms also will cover your face fully so ... yea... pretty irrelevant. Unless you care for naming your character - that none will ever use in game, thats the downside of fully voiced. (Maybe someday games will use voice synthesizers to cover for that)

[leddis3]

 

It is unreasonable because not every RPG has that element, but that doesn't make it any less of an RPG genre. I would also wonder that if TW had a character you actually liked and could identify with, would it then be enveloped by your "true RPG" definition. Because if it would, it would also make you a hypoctite whose only point here is "only an RPG I like is a real RPG". Kind of like saying the only true horrors are the ones that managed to scare you personally. I hope you're getting my point.

 

 

If I am unable to role play then how is it a role playing game?

And no, if TW3 had a character I liked I still wouldn't define it as an RPG. Whether it's an RPG or not doesn't decide if it's a good game.

Because while it'd be a character I happen to relate to I would know others would feel alienated and excluded.

 

 

 

Also, "strawmanning"? We are so done here I don't even

 

Yes, you misrepresented what I said.

 

[ukshadow]

I seriously don't get why all of you are so angry. Learn to enjoy things for what they are.

 

[leddis3]

I seriously don't get why all of you are so angry. Learn to enjoy things for what they are.

 

No. I don't like my options stifled by uncreative developers who think we all want to play the same character over and over.

And frankly, I don't like the message TW3 seems to be sending to other developers, that millions of gamers will accept this homogenized bullshit because they built a good game around a terrible fucking character.

 

I'm bloody well concerned for the future of RPGs.

[Captain Cobra]

I seriously don't get why all of you are so angry. Learn to enjoy things for what they are.

 

The internet and Video games are srs bsns.

[bjornk]

Wiki: A role-playing game (RPG and sometimes roleplaying game) is a game in which players assume the roles of characters in a fictional setting. Players take responsibility for acting out these roles within a narrative, either through literal acting or through a process of structured decision-making or character development. Actions taken within many games succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines.

This is by no means an accurate or complete definition of the genre. Take the first sentence, for instance, it practically applies to every game. Is Half Life, a game in which you assume the role of Gordon Freeman, a role playing game? No. The second sentence pretty much implies that a role playing game cannot be sandbox, i.e. without narrative or story, which is another bullshit. Role-playing is not the same thing as "acting". In acting, you are someone else, in role-playing, you are you, except in the body of a fictional character.

 

if you would stick to first person

Most helms also will cover your face fully

That's a lot of assumptions. The appearance of your character may be irrelevant for you, but not for everyone. That's why we call the genre "role playing". Vanilla Skyrim may be almost gender neutral (except items, marriage and a few other things), however you can choose your character's race, which is taken into account not only in stats and skills, but also in dialogues. In other role-playing games gender is taken into account, take Fallout series for instance.

[trpd]

 

 

 

I seriously don't get why all of you are so angry. Learn to enjoy things for what they are.

 

No. I don't like my options stifled by uncreative developers who think we all want to play the same character over and over.

And frankly, I don't like the message TW3 seems to be sending to other developers, that millions of gamers will accept this homogenized bullshit because they built a good game around a terrible fucking character.

 

I'm bloody well concerned for the future of RPGs.

 

 

 

Then i should be rejoicing then. But i'm not, i see too many "Skyrim" inspired games, so worry not more Skyrims coming.

Uncreative developers huh? So how many RPGs You made? No? Wrote a book then maybe? Milions enjoy the game and you trash talk the developers because it doesn't fit your image of what they should make. Hahahaha

 

 

 

 

 

Wiki: A role-playing game (RPG and sometimes roleplaying game) is a game in which players assume the roles of characters in a fictional setting. Players take responsibility for acting out these roles within a narrative, either through literal acting or through a process of structured decision-making or character development. Actions taken within many games succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines.

This is by no means an accurate or complete definition of the genre. Take the first sentence, for instance, it practically applies to every game. Is Half Life, a game in which you assume the role of Gordon Freeman, a role playing game? No. The second sentence pretty much implies that a role playing game cannot be sandbox, i.e. without narrative or story, which is another bullshit. Role-playing is not the same thing as "acting".
 

if you would stick to first person

Most helms also will cover your face fully

That's a lot of assumptions. The appearance of your character may be irrelevant for you, but not for everyone. That's why we call the genre "role playing". Vanilla Skyrim may be almost gender neutral (except items, marriage and a few other things), however you can choose your character's race, which is taken into account not only in stats and skills, but also in dialogues. In other role-playing games gender is taken into account, take Fallout series for instance.

 

 

Definition is whole thing not just one sentance. There is more on wiki, read it whole you will not find a word about character creation.

Most TES play in first person, hell PC sales are what 20%? Not all of them mod the game. So it safe to assume that chracter creation is not really important in it (well unmoded creation doesn't let for much customization anyway).

[leddis3]

Then i should be rejoicing then. But i'm not, i see too many "Skyrim" inspired games, so worry not more Skyrims coming.

Uncreative developers huh? So how many RPGs You made? No? Wrote a book then maybe? Milions enjoy the game and you trash talk the developers because it doesn't fit your image of what they should make. Hahahaha

 

So because I'm not a designer I don't get to critique? Get lost.

People enjoy TW3 because of the game. I've lost count of the number of people who've said "I love the game, but I hate Geralt."

And good for them for being able to endure him and play it. I can't though, to me he's a disgusting pig.

 

I'm not trashtalking CDPR. I'm calling them what they are. Uncreative. They could've given us the option of making our own character, they chose to just force Geralt onto everyone instead. Three damn times.

 

 

 

Definition is whole thing not just one sentance. There is more on wiki, read it whole you will not find a word about character creation.

Most TES play in first person, hell PC sales are what 20%? Not all of them mod the game. So it safe to assume that chracter creation is not really important in it (well unmoded creation doesn't let for much customization anyway).

 

You assume wrong. And how does lacking mods somehow mean character creation is irrelevant?

Not to mention that the PC sales of Skyrim total around 8 million.

 

[bjornk]

Definition is whole thing not just one sentance.

And that whole thing can be applied to Half Life, which is not a role-playing game.

 

 

There is more on wiki, read it whole you will not find a word about character creation.

Until pretty much 2000's, physically designing a character wasn't technically possible in computer games, it only became feasible after migrating to 3D graphics. Up to that point people had to use their imagination. That's pretty much the time when role-playing games started to become more and more immersive.

[trpd]

 

 

 

Then i should be rejoicing then. But i'm not, i see too many "Skyrim" inspired games, so worry not more Skyrims coming.

Uncreative developers huh? So how many RPGs You made? No? Wrote a book then maybe? Milions enjoy the game and you trash talk the developers because it doesn't fit your image of what they should make. Hahahaha

 

So because I'm not a designer I don't get to critique? Get lost.

People enjoy TW3 because of the game. I've lost count of the number of people who've said "I love the game, but I hate Geralt."

And good for them for being able to endure him and play it. I can't though, to me he's a disgusting pig.

 

I'm not trashtalking CDPR. I'm calling them what they are. Uncreative. They could've given us the option of making our own character, they chose to just force Geralt onto everyone instead. Three damn times.

 

 

 

Definition is whole thing not just one sentance. There is more on wiki, read it whole you will not find a word about character creation.

Most TES play in first person, hell PC sales are what 20%? Not all of them mod the game. So it safe to assume that chracter creation is not really important in it (well unmoded creation doesn't let for much customization anyway).

 

You assume wrong. And how does lacking mods somehow mean character creation is irrelevant?

Not to mention that the PC sales of Skyrim total around 8 million.

 

 

 

You are denying their creativity when they have clrearly created something great. So i ask You to show what greater works are on your account for You to say that.

Skyrim - firstly it is far easier to play in first person and most say it is more immersive to play that way (3rd person animations are also piss poor). Then regarding mods - like i said ealier game doesn't differentiate genders, you don't get to see your face during dialogues and helmets cover your whole face. Bjornk mentioned that mods help and i counterered it saying that players that mod the game are in great minority (8 mil PC sales out of like 30m? )

 

 

 

 

 

Definition is whole thing not just one sentance.

And that whole thing can be applied to Half Life, which is not a role-playing game.

 

There is more on wiki, read it whole you will not find a word about character creation.

Until pretty much 2000's, physically designing a character wasn't technically possible in computer games, it only became feasible after migrating to 3D graphics. Up to that point people had to use their imagination. That's pretty much the time when role-playing games started to become more and more immersive.

 

 

 

rpgs originate as pen&paper games and as such there can be no character creation but only assuming roles. As such denying TW its genre as not having char creation is pure BS.

@HF sry didn't play so i can't say if it has decisions and consequances.

 

But ... definition of RPG, none is really following it these days. LIke action rpgs - they got nothing to do with RPG,

[leddis3]

You are denying their creativity when they have clrearly created something great.

 

When they wasted it all on scum like Geralt, yes. I deny their creativity.

 

 

 

So i ask You to show what greater works are on your account for You to say that.

 

This is a fallacious argument. Drop it.

 

 

 

Skyrim - firstly it is far easier to play in first person and most say it is more immersive to play that way (3rd person animations are also piss poor).

 

All subjective opinion. I play primarily in 3rd person and find it more immersive.

 

 

 

Then regarding mods - like i said ealier game doesn't differentiate genders, you don't get to see your face during dialogues and helmets cover your whole face.

 

Irrelevant.

 

 

 

Bjornk mentioned that mods help and i counterered it saying that players that mod the game are in great minority (8 mil PC sales out of like 30m? )

 

That's not a counter at all, and it's more like 24 million. And by what fucking logic is 8 million units a minority? Compared to what? The 9 million for 360 and 6-7 million for PS3?

[Suludi]

Funny enough, CD Project Red took quite a risk when they focused on Geralt as a clearly defined person with his own background story, personality and voice. Many people thought it wouldn't work cause players wouldn't identify with him. Now that it HAS worked (though not for all), the barriers have fallen and we may just get more predefined characters.

 

I liked Geralt in TW1 but I already lost interest in TW2 because they had changed the voice actor and I didn't like the new voice. This was not "my" Geralt. And in TW3 he even looks different. So in the long run, it hasn't worked for me. I prefer having choices.

[leddis3]

Funny enough, CD Project Red took quite a risk when they focused on Geralt as a clearly defined person with his own background story, personality and voice. Many people thought it wouldn't work cause players wouldn't identify with him. Now that it HAS worked (though not for all), the barriers have fallen and we may just get more predefined characters.

 

Hardly a risk. Most Eastern European "RPGs" do this. See Gothic series, Risen, etc.

I have certain opinions on the reasons why I'm not going to share, but suffice to say this was pretty much the norm in the region CDPR come from.

 

I fear with the big success of TW3 we will, as you say, get many more set characters as developers attempt to ape their success and will inevitably misunderstand the real reasons for it.

[bjornk]

rpgs originate as pen&paper games and as such there can be no character creation but only assuming roles.

Character creation isn't just about designing the physical appearance of a character, and also tabletop RPGs would certainly have that as well, if it was technically possible. And let me repeat again, the term "role" in these definitions means a position or a job, and is not to be confused with an "acting role".

 

As such denying TW its genre as not having char creation is pure BS.

Oh, so this is all about fucking witcher again, huh? Who the fuck cares?!

[trpd]

 

 

 

You are denying their creativity when they have clrearly created something great.

 

When they wasted it all on scum like Geralt, yes. I deny their creativity.

 

 

 

So i ask You to show what greater works are on your account for You to say that.

 

This is a fallacious argument. Drop it.

 

 

 

Skyrim - firstly it is far easier to play in first person and most say it is more immersive to play that way (3rd person animations are also piss poor).

 

All subjective opinion. I play primarily in 3rd person and find it more immersive.

 

 

 

Then regarding mods - like i said ealier game doesn't differentiate genders, you don't get to see your face during dialogues and helmets cover your whole face.

 

Irrelevant.

 

 

 

Bjornk mentioned that mods help and i counterered it saying that players that mod the game are in great minority (8 mil PC sales out of like 30m? )

 

That's not a counter at all, and it's more like 24 million. And by what fucking logic is 8 million units a minority? Compared to what? The 9 million for 360 and 6-7 million for PS3?

 

 

 

I don't think even 4 mils mod , majority vs minority - devs will always pick more. (hence TW3 would not be possible if not for consoles).

irrelevant tho.

What matters is that Skyrim character creation is shallow and its effects are not visible during normal gameplay.

It will also never be possible to create game as _real_ game as TW3 while having variation in PC, the best you can hope is how it looks in DAI, where even yoru lover is calling you inqusitor (F that). It is a trade off.

I will leave it saying i hope there is space for both type of games on market - sandbox with char creation and story driven with defined PC.

 

 

 

 

rpgs originate as pen&paper games and as such there can be no character creation but only assuming roles.

Character creation isn't just about designing the physical appearance of a character, and also tabletop RPGs would certainly have that as well, if it was technically possible. And let me repeat again, the term "role" in these definitions means a position or a job, and is not to be confused with an "acting role".

As such denying TW its genre as not having char creation is pure BS.

Oh, so this is all about fucking witcher again, huh? Who the fuck cares?!

 

 

 

Game in subject will also have predefined PC ...

as i understand the definition it talks about "acting role" not jobs/proffesions.

[leddis3]

I don't think even 4 mils mod , majority vs minority - devs will always pick more. (hence TW3 would not be possible if not for consoles).

irrelevant tho.

 

The modding community is massive, and people who own Skyrim on consoles bought it again on PC specifically to mod it.

 

 

 

What matters is that Skyrim character creation is shallow and its effects are not visible during normal gameplay.

 

Yes they are, your statement is completely relative.

 

 

 

It will also never be possible to create game as _real_ game as TW3 while having variation in PC, the best you can hope is how it looks in DAI, where even yoru lover is calling you inqusitor (F that). It is a trade off.

 

So it can never be as "real" because the voiced NPCs don't say your name? Really? That's your argument?

That's bullshit. I'll take someone calling MY CHARACTER "Inquisitor" over someone calling someone else's character their name.

Clearly you have no idea what roleplaying is.

 

 

 

I will leave it saying i hope there is space for both type of games on market - sandbox with char creation and story driven with defined PC.

 

You could just say that in the first place.

But I vehemently disagree that a story driven game needs a set PC. That's just an excuse and one that threatens char creation if all developers decide to take the path of least resistance as they inevitably do.

[Guest endgameaddiction]

To be fair, The Dragonborn, The Courier, and The Lone Wanderer aren't exactly standalone characters either. You have a guidance put before you. No matter what, you are going to be The Dragonborn, The Courier, or The Lone Wanderer. In game you are referred to these titles by someone somewhere. The only difference between this and a premade character is the character customization, creating your own appearance of that actual Dragonborn, Courier or Lone Wanderer. There isn't really any more room for RPG than that in Skyrim or Fallout except for the choices you make that determine the outcome of your player. But the issue I saw with Skyrim was the fact that apart from being this Ultimate Dragonborn, I was able to be a dishonorable thief in the thieves guild and become a honorable companion both at the same time without any impact towards me, the player. There were no restrictions. There were no judgements from either guilds finding out.  I walked the plains of Skyrim as a good and evil person and it had no impact on anything except being tossed in jail if I committed a crime, or being caught from stealing a sweet roll. It was either jail or pay a fine. And sure, you can tell me that I could of easily just skipped those other quests, but it's not like I actually could skip the thieves quests when Brynolf would walk up to me and initiate it. And really, I'm the type of person I like to complete all quests. This left a lot of room out for RPG. This is why I'm sick of games that go with the ultimate unstoppable hero of all the land. The one and true savior to save us from our miserable lives. And this is why I say in the means of Maturity with Soulkeeper, I hope it takes on a more mature approach in storyline and gameplay that is more believable than some teenagers story book.

 

I'm not siding with anyone. Both sides of arguments are valid on certain points of views. I try to stand in between to understand both sides. And I could never hate a game knowing the directions it's been going since before. It's up to me to judge on what bests suits my needs. And with that, comes patience. I am willing to tolerate a cheesy storyline as long as I do have a pretty wide customization for character and an open sandbox world I can do as I please. But a really bad storyline will have an impact too because as i said, a storyline comes first.

 

In the end between an open world sandbox with character customization and a open world with a premade character, they both have a premade storyline. Otherwise there is no existing game. Neither one entirely gives you full rolepaying in a game. It all just depends what you are capable of doing in the game world that makes it an RPG.

[leddis3]

Like I mentioned before, I feel the fact that Bethesda is pretty much the only game in town when it comes to open-world RPGs with customisable characters has noticably affected their writing, which has gotten worse and worse since Morrowind. They're simply not trying, because they don't have to.

 

People can compare this game, or TW3 to Skyrim all they want but without being able to create a character they aren't direct competitors. Not to people like me, who remain having to go to Bethesda for the type of game we want.

I would honestly love these games to be an actual threat to TES/Fallout. To give people like me options, to threaten to take away their modding community. Because only with competition comes total effort.