Forums » Elder Scrolls

• Borommakot

  

  • 1217 posts
   

  July 19, 2014 9:00 PM EDT

  

  So after a brief exchange in a status last night, Matt suggested I elaborate on a statement I made:

  Well, my view is that Skyrim is, by and large, a well written game. The Civil War situation strikes me as less well written.

  And Ben suggested turning it into a discussion, so I went with it.

  I offered the opinion above because of the enormous debates that frequently spawn about who's right, Stormcloaks or Imperials. The debate itself is not a problem, but the root of it is. One comment early on in yesterday's discussions jumped out at me, saying something to the effect of "The Empire is a vague and weakly vilified idea that the Stormcloaks hate, while all of the Imperial's hate is pinned very specifically and directly to Ulfric."

  The way I see it, there are two ways to create a morally ambiguous player choice in a game. One is to have clearly defined positions, two sides with pros and cons that actually leave neither side clearly at a moral advantage, so the player has all the cards to decide. The other is two provide two abstract choices and some emotional appeal to either side, without filling in all the information gaps. I feel the Civil War is much more the latter.

  Skyrim gives a lot of information about some of the situations surrounding the Civil War, but there are just as many holes as there is knowledge. Many pertinent questions simply can't be answered. Now, if the idea is to create some kind of meta situation where the player has to live with the discomfort of this moral ambiguity because of the vague air surrounding the choices, then Skyrim is spot on. I don't think that's what they were shooting for. That said, there's also the high probability that one side or the other will end up canonized, invalidating that "meta" experience anyway, it would have been a pointless exercise for the continuity.

  TL;DR The Civil War was one of the more poorly written stories in Skyrim, in my opinion. That's the only reason I don't identify with either side in the situation. What are your thoughts? Is all this conflict really the fault of a bit of weak writing, or is it solid, and really worth the debate?

• Garthar the Old

  

  • 78 posts
   

  July 19, 2014 9:06 PM EDT

  I don't think it's so purly written. It makes you think for yourself and ignore thinks you hear from random people about Ulfric. You can always speak to him directly and make your own opinion about him; not just listen whatever you hear and believe it. He is not what y'all think he is. Y'all milkdrinkers.

• Deleted Member

  
   

  July 19, 2014 9:10 PM EDT

  It was pretty much the same no matter which side is picked. I wish it had more depth.
• Asks-Many-Questions

  

  • 278 posts
   

  July 19, 2014 9:10 PM EDT

  I was all set to disagree with you, Borom, but I think you make some good points. Give me a couple of hours to finish here at work, and I'll post something when I get home and have a proper keyboard.
• Tom

  

  • 624 posts
   

  July 20, 2014 1:04 AM EDT

  I would've have liked some more hold-by-hold dialogue or events that made things a bit more detailed on the differences between Imperial and Stormcloak policy. What really makes them different in how the Holds are run, their laws, foreign policy/attitude, treatment of minorities, etc.

  Where's the village or citizens from the Rift, or Winterhold, or Eastmarch that's still loyal to the imperials and why? What about those rebels in Solitude, the Reach, or Morthal and why they want their independence?

  I'd have liked some more post-war information too. I want to know or see the differences in policy of the new jarls with either victory. I know there were some dialogue and minor actions, but mostly in the three major cities of Whiterun, Solitude, and Windhelm.

• Chris

  

  • 1441 posts
   

  July 20, 2014 1:18 AM EDT

  I wanna see more consequences. Have Stormcloaks regularly ride out and slay Forsworn, have Imperials/Stormcloaks attacking the remaining camps. Have fewer of either side's soldiers after the war. I want to be able to kill/marry either Ulfric or Elsif and become High King.
• Asks-Many-Questions

  

  • 278 posts
   

  July 20, 2014 3:04 AM EDT

  There were plans for scenes you could view after taking the other two major cities- Riften and Markarth. They play out like the one with Balgruuf- you and Rikke/Galmar plus the new jarl confronting the outgoing one. You can read the transcripts on UESP; they've got some good lines from both sides. (in the Markarth one, Galmar just cold executes Ondolemar, it's great)

• Incomitatus

  

  • 74 posts
   

  July 20, 2014 3:15 AM EDT

  I would ask what some of the questions are that can't be answered.
  
  Everything seems to make sense to me, but that could my educational bias filling in the gaps. After all, the study of war has consumed most of my adult life (except now I'm studying wine, must more appetizing).

• Borommakot

  

  • 1217 posts
   

  July 20, 2014 12:01 PM EDT

  This isn't about Ulfric. Something can also be poorly written and make you think for yourself. See the Mass Effect 3 ending controversy for plenty of evidence on that.

• Borommakot

  

  • 1217 posts
   

  July 20, 2014 12:03 PM EDT

  Agreed, and I think that's what Shor was getting at. Some more impact, some cause-and-effect would have made it a much stronger experience.

• Borommakot

  

  • 1217 posts
   

  July 20, 2014 12:26 PM EDT

  These are great points, Ben, and I absolutely love the combat and quests of the Civil War. But the gameplay isn't what spawns 900 comments on photos and 20+ page discussions, the story does. My only point here is that the writing of the Civil War situation (as a whole, not strictly the game quests) doesn't stack up to other stories.
• Asks-Many-Questions

  

  • 278 posts
   

  July 20, 2014 1:48 PM EDT

  I was the one who made the point about the two sides differing, because every time the debate pops up I see a very distinct pattern: Stormcloak supporters say they chose their side because the agree with the rebel's cause, while Empire supporters often say they chose their side because they don't like Ulric.

  Playing through both campaigns makes it easy to see why; the Imperial side is very much about demonizing Ulfric, belittling his cause, ignoring his grievances and questioning his motives at every turn. Very few NPCs on the Empire's side express anything but contempt and loathing for Ulfric, and I believe people internalize that far more than they are supposed to. Rather than listening to both sides and then make a choice based on the information, people hear Hadvar's "he's a power-hungry wannabe-tyrant" rant at the beginning and then never listen to any other opinion.

  You're supposed to be choosing between a reunited Empire on an independent Skyrim based on which you think is right, but most people seem to just make the decision less on which outcome is better and more on which NPC they talked to first. They never look past the surface, and when they do they tend to catch on a single detail and blow it way out of proportion. (*cough* Thalmor dossier *cough*) It annoys me when people just straight-up call Ulfric a power-hungry tyrant, because (to me) all the evidence in-game shows that he genuinely believes what he's doing is right. Whether you think it's the right move is up to you, but there's zero (0) evidence to suggest he's just in it for himself. (just listen to his death speech, for cryin' out loud- is that really the death speech of a crazed villain?)

  Hrm. I shouldn't turn this into a complaint thread. (too late!)

  Point is, the nature of the game lets you pick a side and then insulate yourself from any and all dissenting viewpoints. You can avoid talking to anyone on the other side pretty much completely, only getting your side's opinion and view on things. That's how people get so backed up about one side or the other; by the time they encounter an opposing viewpoint, its when you're fighting them. An Imperial character only has to talk to Ulfric exactly twice in the game, (when you take him Balgruuf's axe and when you kill him) and Stormcloaks only have to meet Tullius once. (when you kill him)

  I'm not sure whether this is a failure of the writing to give both sides a more equal shake, or an unavoidable evil of the open-world sandbox game.

• Okan-Zeeus

  

  • 149 posts
   

  July 20, 2014 2:21 PM EDT

  This is quite interesting. I appreciate the new perspective. Though I enjoyed the ambiguity and vagueness of the Civil War questline, it certainly would have been nice if both sides were more fleshed out in their positions and if there had been more clearly defined consequences. 

  Of course, I'm pretty well spent on anything having to do with the Civil War, so I don't care much for any position or opinion at this point... 

  I will say one thing, though: I don't think Bethesda is going to make one side cononized as the victor. I suspect they'll do something more akin to the dragon break in Daggerfall and make all possible outcomes (or none of them) canon.

• Casey

  

  • 100 posts
   

  July 20, 2014 2:34 PM EDT

  I'm hoping Beth goes retroactive from here. Instead of continuing the series in the future of tamriel, they could go back into the past, and give me back my levitation spells and boots of blinding speed.

  Then we wouldn't ever know what was considered conclusively canon for Skyrim lol

• Borommakot

  

  • 1217 posts
   

  July 20, 2014 4:05 PM EDT

  The first one that comes to my mind is "Why didn't Ulfric speak with Torygg?" He's not a stupid guy, he must have had a reason. Simply knowing that reason would resolve so much doubt and confusion. The game makes it seem like he just rode out and murdered the King. RuneRed made this point:

  He could've always challenged Toyrgg later, if this attempt was not successful.

  This is probably the root of my issue. The Civil War doesn't feel natural, but rather contrived to create an epic setting for some epic quests. It does that very well, but the situation just doesn't convince me.

• Borommakot

  

  • 1217 posts
   

  July 20, 2014 4:11 PM EDT

  I would attribute that to a writing failure yes. Just as when you write a screen-play, you're dictating the pace and when characters meet, when you write a game, you're responsible for the same.

  The Civil War suffers the weakness of a)not being the Main Quest and b) being in a sandbox situation. Ideally, if a character wants to avoid it all completely, they should have that option, but if they choose to explore the conflict, they need to be fully informed about it.

• Borommakot

  

  • 1217 posts
   

  July 20, 2014 4:13 PM EDT

  Eesh, I sincerely hope not. I hate going "back" in a series. I forgave Black Flag for it because it was about pirates, but it's always frustrated me. It was a big mark against ESO, for me.

• Asks-Many-Questions

  

  • 278 posts
   

  July 20, 2014 4:21 PM EDT

  See, this is one that I feel truly is answered in-game. Asking Ulfric about why he killed Torygg, he says that he considered Torygg to be a weak and ineffectual ruler, litter more than an Imperial puppet more concerned with pleasing his pretty young wife than with ruling his own people. By challenging Torygg to a duel as according to the ancient laws of Skyrim, he sets up a win-win: If Torygg refuses, he's shown to be a coward who won't defend his own honor; if Torygg accepts, Ulfric (who is a seasoned warrior) easily kills him and 'proves' that Torygg didn't deserve the throne in the first place. (Nords consider martial strength to be the same  as inner strength; if Torygg couldn't defend himself, how could be be expected to defend his country?)

  As I've said before, people who ask "Why didn't Ulfric talk to Torygg?" are missing the point. In Ulfric's eyes, Torygg wasn't a potential ally, he was part of the problem. All this stuff is in the game; I'm not drawing from any other sources. Maybe a little bit of reasoning, but that stuff is basically what Ulfric says. (Balgruuf, too, will answer the question with "Probably because he thought it was the only way to prove his point.")

• Borommakot

  

  • 1217 posts
   

  July 20, 2014 4:42 PM EDT

  I view that as weak writing of Ulfric. His actions are responsible for the death of every Stormcloack. If his decision was justified, than that's just a cost of war. Instead, it comes across as him just wanting to "prove his point" and it brought war and misery to the province. Even in arguing this point, you have "proves" in quotes, because it's self-serving logic. "I killed him, so he deserved it. Means my cause is right." I don't think this logic should have been perpetuated in the game, because it's easily answered with "When I kill him, it proves my cause is just."

  That being the case, if the game doesn't do anything to convince the player that they should recognize these "old Nord ways", the player is left viewing Ulfric as a barbarian. His logic isn't what people want to see, and the fact that he disregards diplomatic avenues works against him as a character. He just looks bad. Properly written, he should look good. The same goes for the Empire. They spend the game looking like pandering, flip-floppity wusses instead of an organization that is taking it's own stand and making some "necessary" sacrifices.

  edit: Now if I thought they wanted us to view this as barbarian vs civilization, it wouldn't be bad. But they're clearly going for gray vs gray, morally ambiguous choice.

• Asks-Many-Questions

  

  • 278 posts
   

  July 20, 2014 4:55 PM EDT

  I disagree. Ulfric's beef is that the Empire doesn't respect Nord customs, traditions or laws, and yet still expects Nords to just shut up and do what the Empire wants. He is attempting to show that, by acting true to the old ways, Skyrim will be better off than following a bunch of "pandering, flippity-flopping wusses."
  
  MY point is that, if you think Ulfric's actions are barbaric and backwards, then that is a perfectly reasonable motivation to support the Empire. But that's not what people accuse Ulfric of- they don't have a problem with the killing, they just accuse him of being stupid. What I try to show is that, barbaric or not, Ulfric's actions were 100% planned and logical.
• Borommakot

  

  • 1217 posts
   

  July 20, 2014 5:00 PM EDT

  That's very convincing in favor of the Stormcloaks. My main point is that it does all feel reduced to choice between "barbaric and backwards" and "pandering wusses", when it should feel like a choice between "free and independent" and "united against a common enemy".

• Deleted Member

  
   

  July 20, 2014 5:05 PM EDT

  Backwards?
• Asks-Many-Questions

  

  • 278 posts
   

  July 20, 2014 5:06 PM EDT

  That's a fair point. The game does seem to dwell a lot on the negatives of each side, and not the positives.
• Chris

  

  • 1441 posts
   

  July 20, 2014 5:13 PM EDT

  The Empire respects other races customs, look at Morrowind, they were allowed to worship the Tribunal, the Thalmor are just pressing their boots into the stomachs of the Empire.
• Chris

  

  • 1441 posts
   

  July 20, 2014 5:17 PM EDT

  I like having prequels, I like playing through the events of the past, fleshing out the lore and all. Plus, we get to see what really went down, did Tiber really become Talos, who became the Underking, what happened to Mannimarco after he was defeated, etc.