Skyrim Rewrite Part 2: I'm Waking Up

By Brosephus · Dec 31, 2021 · ·
  1. More Like Helgone

    I wrote in the previous entry that Skyrim's Main Quest does have moments of good writing. Those who have played the game over and over again may surprised to hear I think the introduction is one of them.

    The player starts the game as a prisoner of the Empire on their way to a public execution in the town of Helgen. They learn a little about the rebellion tearing Skyrim apart, as well as the religious conflict that started this whole mess. The Imperials are so callous and exhausted that one of their captains dispenses with due process and sentences the player to death.

    Then a dragon shows up and sets Helgen on fire. You flee into the caverns beneath the city with one of two companions before you escape and get your first taste of the open world.

    We're keeping the intro as is--the cart ride, the dragon showing up, spelunking with your friend of choice, etc. Perhaps we should start the game with a prettier vista that better showcases Skyrim's fantastic world design, but we're keeping everything else. Even the player's choice to escape with Hadvar, an Imperial officer, makes some sense. He's decent toward you despite your status as a convict and drops his grudges toward the rebels once the dragon shows up. Hadvar even considers teaming up with a group of Stormcloaks to escape the city.

    I know many people find the introduction boring, but I think it manages to deliver a lot of necessary exposition and set up a number of interesting questions without being ham-handed. The introduction provides some good characterization for both the Imperials and the Stormcloaks. It even introduces Alduin in a cinematic cutscene that looks natural in the Gamebryo Engine (which doesn't last, but we'll get there.)

    Part of the reason I think the introduction gets a lot of criticism is because of everything that comes after it. Once you've done a few quests and start to realize the main plot is going nowhere, it becomes much harder to enjoy. You know many of the various aspects of the world the game is introducing will have no interesting payoffs. Once the player loses trust that the story will be worthwhile, the otherwise forgivable limitations of the game's storytelling--the awkward voice acting, the limited number of NPCS, the stiff facial animation--become more irritating than they usually are.

    Defining the Dragonborn

    The player eventually meets up with their chosen companion in the small town of Riverwood. They meet one of the townsfolk (either Alvor or Gerdur, based on your choice in the intro) and explain what happened at Helgen.

    Before we go on, we need to talk about self-inserts. From this point I will be referring to the player themselves as separate from the player character, who I will call the Dragonborn.

    I've heard the assertion that blank slate protagonists in games are outdated and that main characters entirely separate from the player are inherently better at conveying characterization. While this may be true for some games, its not a universal rule.

    Having a main character who is their own person allows for a more complex protagonist, but that complexity is not always necessary for a functional story. Both Gordon Freeman and Chell (from the Half Life and Portal games respectively) have received critical acclaim despite having no real character traits separate from those of the player. If Fallout 4's botched attempt at a voiced protagonist is anything to go by, its that simple characterization is much better than inconsistent characterization.

    So what's the difference between a compelling blank-slate protagonist and a bland one? What separates Gordon Freeman from the Dragonborn?

    Gordon is one of the most active characters in Half-Life's story. The player's drive to survive and escape--and by extension Gordon's--is what pushes the plot forward. Gordon never has his long-term goals set by an NPC, and so the story never imposes itself on the player. While other characters inform Gordon's actions, he is never defined by them.

    And so we come to one of the biggest problems with Skyrim's story: the Dragonborn is a very passive character. Upon encountering the Dragonborn, most of the questgivers in the main plot either already have a plan to deal with the dragon threat or develop one on the spot. They then dump the specifics on the Dragonborn.

    This is entirely backwards. Writing questgivers this way manages to create two problems that seem contradictory on the surface, but are actually related. It both prevents the Dragonborn from expressing any defined personality and destroys any pretense of player agency. We need to bring the motivations of the Dragonborn and the player closer together.

    The Dragonborn needs to be the most active main character in stopping the dragons, making plans and pushing the major players of the world to action, rather than act as a cipher the other characters can conveniently assign their chores to. This will be the Dragonborn's defining personality trait, one which should ideally bring their motivation more in line with the player.

    This leads to our first major dialogue change. When Alvor/Gerdur says the town may be in danger from a dragon attack, the player will be given a dialogue option, asking if there is anything they can do to help. Only then does Alvor/Gerdur mention that the Jarl of Whiterun may be willing to assist in defending the town. They player also has the option to dismiss their concern and excuse themselves from the conversation.

    This seems like a small change, but its sets an important precedent: When the player reaches a new major questgiver in the narrative, they receive the choice to either press the plot forward or wait until they're ready to come back to it. There will be exceptions for certain moments in the story, but this principle will apply to most of the characters in the main quest.

    This is how we can give the Dragonborn their own motivation while having them remain a blank slate. The player is the one choosing to become more invested in the narrative as they see fit.

    We've laid the groundwork for our more extensive changes, which we'll examine in my next post.

    Next Up: Whiterun, Jarl Balgruuf, and the Civil War Everyone Forgot
    Foxxx likes this.

Comments

  1. jim onion
    It's been a while since I played the game, but I think your suggestions are spot on. The main story had a lot of potential to be interesting, but wasn't because of poor execution.

    Although I personally didn't have a really big hang-up until it comes to Paarthurnax. Why can't I convince Delphine that she is wrong if, say, I have a high enough speech skill? Or if I can't convince her, then maybe she gives me once last chance to kill (or banish) Paarthurnax or she'll kill me and then do it herself.

    I'm curious to see how you will suggest making the Civil War questline more engaging. Giving the player more agency, rather than having burdensome and overly assertive quest givers, is interesting.

    You also mentioned how there aren't any REAL consequences to siding with either the Stormcloaks or the Imperials. Granted, it's a difficult choice because you have supremacists on either side: the Thalmor and the Stormcloaks (some of whom are racist toward elves, including those that have nothing to do with the Thalmor).

    But in my opinion, the effects of either side winning the war feel very shallow. Okay, so some new Jarl / some other NPC becomes Jarl. And you can go to that one castle and talk to all of the banished Jarls and they have new dialogue, but like... that's it?

    If they DID write real hard-hitting consequences, it could lead the player to question their decisions and possibly either switch sides or seek a compromise. I think that Obsidian handled this masterfully in New Vegas in terms of the factions battling for the Mojave; the writing in that game was just incredible, and I think that's because it provides the perfect space for player agency with their "blank-slate" Courier character.
      Brosephus likes this.
  2. Brosephus
    @Foxxx I won't cover the Civil War quests, but that won't stop me from complaining about them lol

    The two questlines in the are just mirrors of each other: go here and kill the enemy until you win. There's no exploration of how these factions work or the ideologies they hold. There are no moments where Ulfric asks the player to place non-nords in danger or where Tullius sends you to track down Imperial deserters Apocalypse Now-style. Something, anything that explored their characterization would be nice.

    In New Vegas, it wasn't just that you could make multiple decisions with long-lasting consequences. The faction quests in that game were designed to show different aspects of the factions and how they speak to the game's central themes. You get a sense not only of how the NCR and Legion operate, but of the different conflicts within them. Will the Legion outlast Caesar's inevitable death? Even if the NCR win, can they govern the Mojave effectively?

    I'd actually be ok if Bethesda went for more linear stories in their games. I just with they had better characters. And themes. And basic stakes.
      Foxxx likes this.
To make a comment simply sign up and become a member!
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice