Teeny Tiny Playing Things: Minigames

During a recent game of Magic: The Gathering, one of my opponents used a card called “Mine, Mine, Mine!”. For anyone who isn’t familiar with this example of silliness, this means that every card that you have in your library becomes part of your hand. “Mine, Mine Mine!” is part of the more humorous set of cards released during Magic’s life. Natuarally, the idea of comical cards in an otherwise serious game amused me, so I decided to look up some of these “jokers in the pack” and came across a card which (had I the spare cash) I would definitely buy. The card in question is “Enter the Dungeon”, which requires a sub-game of Magic to be played, under the table, literally. This mini-Magic-game made me think about other games-within-games. Now I know that’s a rather large topic to cover, so let’s take a look at a much smaller piece of it: minigames. 

Let’s start with some definition: what would count as a minigame? I personally would define it as any game which exists within the game you are playing, yet does not directly contribute to the game’s standard goal. For example, during a playthrough of Fallout: New Vegas, a player will experience lots of opportunities to play Blackjack, Roulette or Caravan. These small table-games are minigames: they are games within the game, that earn caps (money basically), and though, yes, caps help you buy stuff which can help you to win the game, it is more of a by-product than anything.

Like Fallout: New Vegas, other games (such as the Fable series) also feature gambling-based minigames. This is totally understandable for a few reasons. One, gambling is addictive and can encourage a player to spend more time on the game; two, rewarding the player with currency makes it a positive activity for the player, increasing their overall satisfaction with the game; three, gambling is a straightforward template for a minigame as its popularity and simple motives allow it to be translated to pretty much any setting. Bethesda’s Rage also uses this template in its holographic gunslinger board game. You place a bet, roll four dice and depending on what you roll, the gunslinger either kills his four attackers or is killed by them - simple, addictive and actually quite a clever concept for a game. (I have a feeling I may turn it into a drinking game when this article is posted). The second of Rage’s minigames consists of simply getting into a car and racing it. These minigames are all quite easy to find, but there are some that lurk in the shadows, put there as a reward for those who are diligent enough to find them.

"I want a cup of tea!"

I am of course talking about easter-egg minigames. These little biscuits are incorporated into games more for fun than advancing the storyline or developing character relationships. Such an example is found in the funfair campaign in Left 4 Dead 2. You and three of your zombie-hunting buddies have stumbled across an abandoned carnival. After a few levels you may think to yourself, “Wow. Valve have really tried hard to bring variety to the scenery.” when travelling through the sideshow section.  These attractions aren’t all just for show. There is a working “Whack-a-mole”, “Strength Tester” and “Shooting Gallery”, all with achievements aplenty, including one of the hardest achievements of the game (but I’ll leave that to you to discover for yourselves). Other hidden minigames require some more “out-of-the-box” thinking, like the low-res games hidden in Call of Duty: Black Ops. These arcade offerings are another basic way to incorporate minigames into stories, even in games where you wouldn’t think they would fit.

"Could you identify the zombie that "ate all your pies" please."

Starcraft 2 features one of these “How did they have time to fit that in there?!” minigames in the form of ‘Lost Viking’, a top-down space shooter. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a great idea. The 16-bit graphics and complete change in genre give the player a welcome break from tackling those pesky Zerg. But is it all worth it? If you play a game you want to play a game, right? You don’t want to worry about the outcome of yet another game within this one. So why do minigames keep cropping up?

I believe it is a combination of two reasons, one financial and one more heartfelt. The first reason being an elaboration of something I mentioned earlier: because it makes us feel like we’re getting more value for money. If we spend time on the minigames we take longer to finish the actual game, which means that we perceive the game to be longer than it is and have more content than it does, associating the developer with value for money. The second reason is that minigames are fun. Not just for the player but also the developer, they give a chance to change the pace and to add a lighter side to what could be a very dark and heavy game.

Whether you enjoy minigames, search for them and take full advantage of them, or hate them, avoid them and couldn’t care less about them, it must be admitted that they are incredibly useful and sometimes even powerful devices within the gaming industry, for changing how we feel about a game, helping us become more immersed in it or cementing the realism of an environment or world in which a game is set. For this I feel they must be respected, but what do you think? Do you feel more satisfied after playing a game incorporating minigames? Are there any noteworthy games-within-games that I’ve left out of this article? Let the world know.

I’ll see you in a nook or cranny that most people don’t investigate.

Zombies Through the Ages

No dissection of geek/nerd culture would be complete without briefly mentioning zombies. Whether you enjoy taking part in the co-op, horde-hustling action of Left 4 Dead, or watching the gritty lonesome road of 28 Days Later, we geeks know that one day we will need to get ready for the dog eat dog (or human eat human) world of the zombie apocalypse. Yet with so many iterations of infected, what sort of undead are we likely to face? In this post I hope to cover as many as I can so we can all be prepared.

Like most popular fictional incarnations, the roots of those loveable brain biting blokes are in ancient mythology, in this case Sumerian. They are featured in the Epic of Gilgamesh though could even date back further, the texts reads: “I will knock down the gates of the Netherworld, I will smash the door posts and leave the doors flat down, and will let the dead go up to eat the living! And the dead will outnumber the living.”

"Good News for the more fashionable amongst you. In a battle of high heels vs. chainsaw, high heels win."

While many pieces of literature including work by H.P. Lovecraft and H.G. Welles touched upon themes that were reminiscent of what we now think of as “the zombie” it was of course George A. Romero’s Night of the Living Dead that gave us what became the traditional image of the undead, shuffling slowly with an appetite for human brains, though it was a relatively long time before zombies evolved in full view of the public. Films such as Braindead and My Boyfriend’s Back, despite explicitly showing zombies’ hunger for human flesh rather than just brains, did not rise to fame very quickly at all. It was the next generation of media that showcased this alteration: the video game. Specifically the first Resident Evil game, released in 1996. Even that, however, showed zombies as the sort of creature that you wouldn’t need to worry about providing you had limbs which could propel you at a “non-backward” velocity.

This is where the zombie archetypes that we are more familiar with today come into play. Films such as 28 Days Later, the Dawn of the Dead remake and House of the Dead feature what my friends like to refer to as ‘the urban zombie’. Faster, more agile and more intelligent, these creations are more typically referred to as ‘infected’ rather than zombies. The common factor with all these undead monstrosities is that their brain must be destroyed in order to render them harmless (and dead…again).

So there we are. A quick trip through the history of the zombie. If you’re still worried about how to survive the zombie apocalypse, you’re perfectly sane, as for one, it’s a scary thought, and two I haven’t actually told you enough to survive. I know, I'm evil. But hopefully we are now all more aware of exactly what will be eating our brains, and everybody knows that it’s not how long you can survive against a zombie that impresses the girls, but how many facts about them you can reel off before experiencing that bite that goes straight through the speech centre of your brain. Sleep well everybody! As always, questions or comments are very much appreciated, so leave them here.

I’ll see you shuffling along at the end of the world.

The Ten (Nerdy) Commandments

Life is full of instruction manuals, whether they consist of the “insert rod Q9 into slot A-12.” kind, that tend to come with any piece of  flat-pack furniture or the “thou shalt not” sort, that are contained in many religious texts (though if B.F. Skinner was around back then, the writers of these would have known that positive reinforcement was much more effective than the opposite and would have benefited from writing as such). Being a nerd however, does not have an instruction manual, and though it would be wrong to say that I am a fully fledged nerd, there are some tit-bits of advice that I wish someone had let me in on. This is something I wish to rectify by sharing now.

10. Thou Shalt Graciously Lose.
Nothing is more irritating than someone who can’t see past the fact that they didn’t win. From gracious losing (not rage-quitting and keeping your cool), the energy that would normally be spent on being angry can go elsewhere, to your brain for instance. This way, when losses happen, instead of getting angry, making excuses and blaming others, you will be able to search for the real reason you lost, and as a result you can improve yourself. A great way to do this is to watch replays of your games, for example, you could use the Call of Duty Theatre utility to see your matches from a spectators point of view; when not suffering from the stress of battle you make it easier to spot your mistakes.

9. Thou Shalt Graciously Win.
The only thing that comes close to being as irritating as someone being a bad loser is being a bad winner (perhaps apart from when someone leaves dirty underwear in your room…so, me in other words). Well done, you won. There’s a time and a place to celebrate and the second after someone else has lost, right in front of their face, may not be the right one. By all means congratulate yourself, you worked hard to win. Just don’t rub it in other people’s faces. You never know, by taking this on board, when you thrash someone, hang them out to dry, and hand their backside back to them in a Macey’s bag, simply by being a gracious winner you may gain yourself a new fan, protégé or even…apprentice (dum dum dum dum dum dum dum dum dum. Wow. John Williams’ Imperial March doesn’t translate to text at all. Wait a second.

That’s better).






8. Thou Shalt Always ‘Turn Up’.
Volume is not the subject here. As much as I would like to say “Play your music with reckless abandon.” I am very aware that you may get a visit from the police about that sort of thing. What I do mean is whether it’s a blog you are writing, or a game you are playing, it is important to commit as fully as you can to the activity that’s important to you. It doesn’t matter if you aren’t prepared for it or if you don’t feel up to it, just ‘turning up’ goes a long way. When asked what the secret to his success was, Starcaft commentator and shoutcaster, Sean Plott replied: “All I did was turn up. There were days that I had said I would shoot a Daily. Even if I wasn’t ready for it or didn’t want to do it I would make sure that a video went out.” Just turn up.

"Tim was both overjoyed and dismayed when he unwittingly discovered the hidden killstreak that turned your phone invisible."

7. Thou Shalt Spread Your Time.
You may only feel you have passion for one or two things. However, if you spend all your time (of course I’m not including time spent eating or sleeping, unless those are your passions) solely on these it can impede other aspects of your life. Whether it is your relationship with your friends and family, or your attitude towards your studies, there will always be more to life than just your ‘favourite thing’. It also helps keep your ‘favourite thing’ special, something you do for enjoyment and ensures that it doesn’t turn into a permanent chore.

6. Thou Shalt be Open.
As much as this suggestion is featured in a post about nerd culture it translates well to many situations. Not being closed off to suggestions or ideas helps you to better yourself. Learn from other people’s mistakes and allow yourself to consider other points of view. You may find something you like. Being stubborn can have advantages, yet I have found that being flexible can be even more advantageous.

5. Thou Shalt Suffer Fools Gladly.
Now I’m not making the assumption that every nerd out there is incredibly intelligent. There are a lot who aren’t. The point here is that despite how much you may want to punch someone who, even after the tenth time of you telling them to do so, doesn’t tap their creatures after attacking, despite the word “Vigilance” appearing exactly zero times on their card. You should remind yourself that they are still learning. Admittedly slower than a Programma 101 could load a ten second video, but still they are learning. By all means educate them, just don’t lord your intelligence over them and try not show off , it won’t make them feel any better and will make you look like a (excuse my language) big poo face.

"No Jimmy, combining Nirnroot, a Ruby and Mammoth Cheese does NOT produce Oprah Winfrey."

4. Thou Shalt Remember Thy Roots.
It’s all well and good harping on about how amazing technology is nowadays, just remember where that technology came from and appreciate how hard it was back in the day to get a piece of technology to do what seems so easy now. Make fun of Windows 4.5 while at the same time remembering how hard it was to make it. Scoff at dial-up and the irritating noises it made (which for some strange reason I miss), yet remember that it was one of the valuable stepping stones in the path to broadband. By doing this you will remember not to take anything for granted and be more appreciative of what you have today.

3. Thou Shalt be Aware of Apple’s High Prices.
Apple computers and gadgets are pretty, very pretty. Though be ever aware that you are paying an extra couple of hundred pounds (or yen, dollars or goats) for technology which was surpassed within the last two years. If you work in one of the many media sectors however, I am sorry; you haven’t got much of a choice any more. For those who don’t, feel free to buy one if you want to, nothing is stopping you , just make sure you have weighed up all your options first.

2. Thou Shalt Take Advantage of Thy Skillset.
If there are skills, talents or abilities which you have developed through nerdy activities, use them in the real world (and vice versa). Planning and resource management don’t just belong to Command and Conquer. They can be put on a CV as well. Sure there are some things which don’t translate to the real world easily, simply work out how they could be utilised in any way possible. For example, saying you are part of a clan that plays Halo successfully can be a sign that you work well in a team.

1. Thou Shalt be Proud of Who Thou Art.
This one is pretty self explanatory. You are who you are. Don’t be closed to the idea of change but also try not to be ashamed of what you do as a nerd or geek in order to please others. You play video games, you read comic books. Certainly if what you do is bad for you then some changes must happen but if the problem is that people are prejudiced against you simply because of your activities then ignore them. As Oscar Wilde said: “Be yourself, everyone else is already taken.” wear your various badges of nerd status with honour and pride, it’s a more exclusive club than you realise.

So there we go. As much advice as I feel I can bestow upon you. Take it and go forth. Or if you want, don’t take it and go forth. It’s up to you. These are just some of the things I wished I hadn’t had to learn by myself. I hope that you too can learn from them and that you teach others what you’ve learned. As always I welcome any comments or opinions to be left here.

I’ll see you in Forbidden Planet.

3: A Magic Number

(The Art of the Trilogy)

This post is inspired by the sign-off for my previous article entitled The Most Compelling Relationship in Video Games. If you want to then it can be viewed by scrolling down to lower on this page or by clicking here.

When looking at how different story arcs are portrayed I believe that some of the best games or films are those that appear as a trilogy, there are two reasons for this. One: It splits up the development of main characters, and two: it helps to put into perspective the level of peril that characters find themselves in. I should note that I’m not saying that all trilogies follow these formulae. I’m also not saying that trilogies should follow them (but if Jerry Bruckheimer is reading this and decides to base his work upon my scribblin’s, then go ahead); this is merely an analysis of the patterns I have found in some of the ones I have enjoyed.

Firstly the development of characters in trilogies (and I mean trilogies that were always intended to be trilogies, not single films that have been given two sequels in order to transform them into money machines, which is why Transformers probably won’t be mentioned here) such as Christopher Nolan’s Dark Knight Trilogy and Shepard’s story arc during Bioware’s first three Mass Effect games tends to follow the same pattern. It also bears a resemblance to the description of how ‘productive teams’ are formed in business. Most groups do indeed go through this process but it must be completed in order to become productive, the process is as follows: groups go through forming, storming, norming then performing.

 "And to your left you will see...oh...more space."

Forming: Simple in the fact that all groups must initially form in the first place. Because this is new and exciting, group members get on well. Negative character traits aren’t noticed or are ignored.

Storming: The group begins to break down as bad habits grate and incompatible personalities clash. This causes undesirable performance of the group.

Norming: Members find ways to overcome, work with or use to their advantage, bad habits or negative traits and the group finds a happy medium in which to work.

Performing: Due to dealing with group problems, the group works together more effectively, causing production to increase and the group to perform well.

For this example it may be appropriate to add a fifth stage to this process called Deforming, as every group that is created needs to end, whether that is for a simple reason such as reaching the end of a contract at work or for a complicated reason such as a band breaking up due because of artistic differences.

Trilogies such as the ones previously mentioned will tend to follow this process with the first film/game showing characters forming, storming and norming, the second depicting them at their peak where they demonstrate performing and the third instalment demonstrating deforming. When films or games follow this process it seems to produce the most satisfying character development due to its depiction of real life group dynamics and character development over enough time for it to be perceived and analysed, without it taking up so much time that the threats that characters encounter are not resolved in a satisfactory manner. In fact the threat, its nature and scale are the main factor in the other pattern I noticed that trilogies of this nature have. The ‘threat level’ pattern is as follows:

Instalment one: A general threat which is not of massive or miniscule importance.

Instalment two: A threat to the entire environment in which the story is set.

Instalment three: A threat personal to the protagonist(s).

An easy-to-understand example of this is The Matrix (and yes I know that the original matrix trilogy was meant to be a little different but this too followed the patterns that I’m describing. So…yeah.), where Agent Smith should be considered as the threat and Neo as the protagonist. In the first film Agent Smith is merely one of the many threats that the matrix holds for Neo, the second shows Smith trying to take over the entire matrix for his own gain and the third depicts Smith’s personal grudge against Neo.

 "Not many people know that The Matrix featured some of the worst dance moves ever shown on film"

So what am I trying to say? I’m not trying to build up to anything large or profound here, and I certainly don’t believe that this blog is going to change the way writing is thought of. What I do hope is that what has been written here makes you think about how stories are presented to you and that, when you get to the end, a small idea which has been mentioned here attaches to your brain and helps the pieces of something that you may have had a hard time thinking about fall into place. As always I welcome any thoughts or comments you have on the matter to be discussed here.

I’ll see you in part III.

The Most Compelling Relationship in Video Games.

From the early nineties, video game creators made an alteration that would change the game industry for the next quarter of a century. Games began as very elaborate puzzles, and the only objective a player had was to complete the game (or to not complete it when your parents said “After this level you need to play outside”). In this time of video game revolution it was the writers that won as games started to include more elaborate storylines. Some, which could even be described as reminiscent of a soap opera (I’m looking at you Final Fantasy).

These great arching storylines, twisting plots and epic dialogue could not be achieved without building one very important factor: character relationships.

When a characters relationship is being created, sometimes it is what we gamers as an audience don’t know that makes a relationship interesting, such as the relationship between Yuri and Makarov in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3. We know that both of them worked together as ultranationalists and that despite the atrocities that they committed, Yuri was under the ultranationalists’ grip and was constantly reminded of the reasons for why they did what they had done (If Oprah was around she would have shut that controlling relationship down). So what exactly caused Yuri to defect to the FSB, almost resulting in his death? It is not made obvious and it is this lack of knowledge, this need to know more that makes their relationship interesting.

"The Company Paintballing Weekend."

Another interesting aspect to a relationship is when two different species or even intelligences interact. For example, Master Chief and Cortana from the Halo series or EDI and Joker from the Mass Effect franchise. Both are examples of a love story between an organic character and an artificial intelligence. However, they could not be further apart. Where Cortana and Master Chief’s story is one of unrequited love, Joker and EDI have one of a successful relationship, though both cover the philosophical question, if something is a computer simulation, is it capable of emotion? What is emotion anyway? Although saying that I’m pretty sure my computer has a tantrum every now and then: “But I don’t want to connect to the internet.”

“You are in my room and while you are in my room you will follow my rules! Is that clear?”

“I wish mum was here!”

“Well Mum’s gone to the shops at the moment so I’m the best you’ve got!”

“I hate you!”

“You don’t mean that”

“I do!”

*Blue screen of death*

“What have I done?!”

I think maybe I went too far with that one.

Now I’m a fan of a lot of franchises, and one that has become a favourite is Batman, and the relationship that I find most compelling in any video game is between our very own Dark Knight and Mr. Freeze. I know, a lot of people would say I missed a trick if I didn’t rate Joker and Batman as a more interesting relationship. Yes they have their twists and turns and maybe they have the most interesting storyline of all the Batman villains, but I’m going to stick my neck out, put my cards on the table and take the plunge here. The reason I find their relationship so interesting is their motives. Batman wants to keep Gotham City safe and Mr. Freeze just wants to save the life of his wife, both are noble deeds, yet it is the fact that when one person is trying to save the majority and the other the minority you will inevitably find conflict. The relationship is demonstrated well during the Arkham City campaign. Batman saves Freeze from death at the hands of the Penguin (which I find rather funny when I think about it), he asks him to save his life in return and synthesise a cure for the disease he has been infected with. Freeze refuses saying that his wife has been taken by the joker and that as long as she is in danger he will not do anything for Batman. They then begin their scuffle.

"I knew I should have hidden in the cupboard."

I believe that the other reason a relationship like this is so interesting to me is that it is so true to life. Few of us would say that we are inherently evil, everything we do is justified by our own motives and reasons, reasons we see as being good. Yes games would be very boring if every character relationship was realistic, that’s the whole reason we play games, to get away from reality for a little bit. The main point I am trying to make is that you can create the most epic, expensively produced, twisting storyline the world has ever seen. However, unless your audience can relate to the characters that you’ve created, it will all be for nought. Any comments you have about this article are greatly appreciated and I encourage you to leave them here.

I’ll see you at the end of a long story arc that will probably span at least three games.

The Recent Evolution of 'Geek'.

Back in the earlier years of secondary school, I remember being bullied. The reason I was picked on was in fact not a reason, but three reasons. One, I did not have the most athletic of builds (unless, if when I say ‘athlete’ you think of those partaking in shot put, weightlifting or a hot dog eating contest. In that case, yes I had a very athletic build); Two, I had a lot of hair that made me look like a ‘Mega Bloks’ figure (Not a ‘Lego’ figure. Lego figurine hair was way cooler than mine); and Three, I was really smart. I was called a geek and a nerd and I hated it. Now, however, the term “Geek” and “Nerd” are thrown about all the time, sometimes in instances that could be described as inappropriate. Here’s the dictionary definition of those two words.

Geek, noun.

1: An unfashionable or socially inept person.

2: A person with an eccentric devotion to a particular interest.

Nerd, noun.

1: A foolish or contemptible person who lacks social skills or is boringly studious.

2: An intelligent, single minded expert in a particular technical discipline or profession.

"Oh my gosh! They seriously used Comic Sans in a widely published academic textbook?!"

Do not assume that the message here is that these words should be solely used in the way that they were spat towards those who were regarded as “unpopular”. Rejoice in the fact that they are now used as a non-offensive term. Screw it, create Nerd Day if you want, a day when everyone fixes every problem with maths and duct tape; a day when people learn what “127.0.0.1 is where the heart is” actually means; a day when everybody types at thirty five words per minute. Go nuts!

What could be seen as disagreeable is when people use it to describe themselves for the wrong reasons. Some may say that Chuck Lorre holds some of the blame. Well, not Lorre himself, but one of his creations.

Back in 2007, Lorre’s award winning sitcom, The Big Bang Theory hit screens. American television was still trying to find a show to take on the role of the late cash cow, Friends. The Big Bang Theory (along with other ‘Friends-type’ comedies such as How I Met Your Mother) was a welcome replacement, and could appeal to the largest audience. With its references to science and stereotypical geek culture as its main selling point it appealed to geeks and nerds the world over. At the same time its humour, though relying on science and geek culture references, was simplified enough so that anyone watching the show would probably get the joke.

"The Big Bang Theory cast."

The existence of The Big Bang Theory should not be loathed in the slightest. It is a funny, clever, well-written show with a team behind it that has worked hard to make it as popular as it is today (though featuring Kaley Cuoco in some skimpy outfits couldn’t have hurt). However, it is from this blend of simplified jokes based around scientific subject matter and a set of storylines which have already been tried and tested by Friends and Seinfeld, which created a group of viewers who think themselves geeks, yet are not. Not even in the sense of the newer definitions that were mentioned earlier.

Someone being obsessed with shoes or football, and dubbing themselves a ‘geek’ or ‘nerd’ of that particular topic does indeed conform with the most recent changes in the definitions of the terms, and they may be (in my opinion, rightly) told “Go ahead, live your geeky life to its nerdy fulfilment. You have my blessing.” Yet can someone who simply, finds the jokes featured in The Big Bang Theory funny, class themselves as a geek? Is it an example of someone attempting to identify with a group as part of a need to be ‘Safe in Numbers’? Perhaps it’s a sign of people wishing they were smarter, and believing that labelling themselves as a geek is the first step on that journey, or is it merely that language is evolving so fast that the terms ‘nerd’ or ‘geek’ already mean something else? Maybe they are now used to refer to someone who can understand humour which has been simplified especially for them, and if that is the case, does it even matter? Am I getting involved in a debate that just doesn’t need to happen? As always your thoughts and comments on the matter are welcome.

I’ll see you when the light that radiates from the sun is reflected off your body, enters my eye and is then processed by my brain.

Why I Will Probably Always Prefer the Fallout Universe to the Elder Scrolls Universe.

The brands of Fallout and The Elder Scrolls are well known in the gaming community, with the latter gaining more popularity since 2011 with the release of the fifth Elder Scrolls game, Skyrim. I'm not going to get into the age old debate of which one is better (because, frankly it would be much easier, and far less painful to remove my own teeth without using anaesthetic), what I will do, however, is list the reasons I have for favouring being burnt alive by robots with lasers than being hacked to bits by Orcs with battle axes, in a perhaps pointless attempt to express my love for Bethesda’s (oh so flawed) masterpiece.

I will first go out of my way to say that the later games in the Fallout series (Fallout 3 and Fallout: New Vegas) were in no way perfect. They’re glitchy, could do with some better graphics in places and the downloadable content sometimes doesn't live up to the hype (although let’s face it, it’s better than Brink). The Elder Scrolls were, of course, exactly the same, until Skyrim was released. Sporting a brand new, shiny engine the graphics were far improved and though glitches were more abundant (due to the size of the world) they were less notable than those experienced in Fallout 3 or New Vegas (in my play through at least). It is however nothing about the glitches or graphics or DLC that makes me side with Fallout over Elder Scrolls. It is simply the lore.

"Have I got something in my teeth?"

Specifically it is the setting and explanations of how unusual events occur in the Elder Scrolls which I find tedious. Skyrim‘s setting, for example is the beautiful world of Tamriel, a land full of green pastures, dense forests and gargantuan, snow capped mountains. It has its problems such as dragons and giants but for the most part it is almost an Eden in which to thrive. It is a perfect world with something about to go wrong with it, and it is your job to stop that from happening. 
On the other hand, Fallout is a dystopia. Nuclear war has already occurred and the world has gone to pot. Martial law is enforced and the landscape is littered with a harsh wasteland of dead vegetation and buildings so dishevelled that you could only put them on the market in Essex. It’s a world that has already gone wrong and your role is to simply stop it from getting any worse (or to make it worse, depending on how you decide to play the game). I find that it is easier for me to identify with this world as firstly it is already set on our earth (albeit a parallel earth where the cold war never ended) and secondly due to how events are explained.

Let’s take the following example: Invisibility. In the Elder Scrolls, if a character is invisible then it tends to be explained away as ‘magic’. They have magic powers and as a result they can disappear. Admittedly sometimes it is explained that they obtained this ability by mixing some ingredients with magical properties to create a potion which they then drink to utilise this Bermuda Triangle-esque ability. Whereas in Fallout there is a science behind it. There is a device that emits stealth radiation, a fictional radiation which obscures the subject from view. Even though both of these ideas are truly absurd, I feel that the amount of effort it takes to create lore that says “Mix the wing of a moth with Vampire dust to make a drink that turns you invisible.” is far surpassed by the idea that there is a device that utilises an element of science fiction, science that someone had to spend time on and decide as to whether it was a viable solution to that pesky affliction of being seen.

"And for my next trick, I will make these Super Mutants disappear. Well... explode."

It is this extra effort that is essential to creating a believable world in Fallout that I find more appealing, compelling and interesting than that of Elder Scrolls. Is this amount of time and effort that Bethesda puts into their game creation a result of their commitment to back story and believability, or is it simply because that is the nature of the Sci-Fi and Fantasy genres? Whatever you think the answer is, I always welcome any feedback you may have in response to what is written here. 

I’ll see you in the Wasteland.