These kinds of choices can be done in New Vegas too, just that New Vegas has 5 main quest endings and tons of choices in more than half of the sidequests.

because that's how the game has been made?
this game's about exploring and freedom, consequences=less freedom

I bought the game because of a strong lineage. and if you think your age makes you wise you are sadly mistaken old timer.

Nope...presenting you with two cookies and saying you can choose one of the cookies is freedom, you can have one, but not the other, freedom of choice - freedom of consequence. Giving you both cookies is just giving in and saying that you can have everything if you want, without any consequence.

You don't think consequences=more freedom, at least in an open-world, free-form game?

The more consequences there are, the more splitting up of the world there is. Your playthrough will be even less like mine. Consequences result in more differentiation. That's always a good thing in open-world, free-form RPGs.

Somewhere between the two. Not every quest needs to have multiple options. Maybe, even, not every faction. But there should be enough C&C in every part of the world that you feel like there's a reason for you to be playing.

As for the main story line... I don't think it's necessary for a TES game to have a branching main quest. The reason branching main quests are offered in other games is because the rest of the world is so restrictive. A mostly linear main quest, for TES, means that nobody feels cheated if they didn't make the right choices, and everyone gets to experience the awesomeness.

The C&C outside of the main quest brings the world to life and gives you a reason to continue playing. The linearity of the main quest gives some structure to what would otherwise be a chaotic, pointless exercise.

Both yes and no.

Consequence doesn't necessary have to mean less freedom it is all about how it is done. For instance during the civil war quests you could be given the choice to replace the Jarl in the city that you capture, there could 3 choices to make each with a different advantage and disadvantage. It could be strengthen a certain guild or weaken it by your choice, what would happen if for instance riften got a jarl that was determined to root out the thieves guild once and for all? Or what if the jarl that you choosed wanted to strenghten the thiief guild as it would ensure her/his powers. The third one could be a person that wasn't too concerned about the guild at all, but rather would run the city as it had been run. These would not make the freedom less, but it would enhance the experience for the player as if he played a person that wanted to get rid of all evil he would be able to get Thieves guild out of Riften and force them to relocate. And for a thief, by choosing the jarl that wanted them there the thief guild would get a certain boost and added protection from the jarl.

Side quests could also have consequences but in smaller ways, what if the bandit leader you are about to kill pleads for his life and promises to never do anything criminal again? By sparing him you would have 2 choices, either lie to the jarl about you killing him or tell the truth. This consequence would be a lot smaller, but the player could then meet him as a farmer maybe, or a merchant or maybe even as a bandit again at some point. These choices doesn't affect freedom either, but it would allow players to roleplay their character more "correctly". A good character could then either capture the bandit and imprison him, spare his life or choose to kill him.

However consequences that effectively blocks off a part of the map is bad, they will affect the freedom a lot and should not be used in a game like TES games. However by adding consequences you would also add some dept to the game for players, their actions would mean something thus connecting the character more to the world.

that's my opinion folks, yall need to chill

this game is not fallout NV, not Oblivion and not Call Of Duty, it's Skyrim and that's how it is, live with it or play something else

And by posting your opinion in a discussion thread you should expect that people that don't agree with it will comment on it. If you don't like then don't post.

Some of us don't need to chill. Some of us think forums are for discussion. What do you think about my comment?

of course, but one thing is commenting and something else is bringing up religion like ninja did, trying to personal attack

seriously, religion on a skyrim forum?

I think your idea is what I would hope for in the future.The trick now is how to get them to do it.

also, you are still ranting about what the game is not, and it has no point.
as I said, that's how skyrim has been made, total freedom and no consequences to influence you, and it's not gonna change.
maybe you should hope that TES VI will be more like new vegas, I hope not

No need to worry about that. Beth's direction is firmly set to "Fallout 4: Skyrim with Guns" and "TES VI: Look what we removed this time!".

...

You've got me there.

I really hope so, completely against you on this one. The character attribute and balance in fallout new Vegas is the most well balanced out of all the scrolls and fallout games.
I mean a luck skill tree would of been a hundred times better than that woeful speech craft tree that was given where only 3 of the perks were of any use. As for the traps, I mean the fallout
traps such as rigged shotgun and landmines did realistic damage unlike when you get body slammed by a battering ram trap and just brush off the damage. No I had to get a modifcation per usual to actually
fix this problem.

Choices and consequences can easily still be done so that it is in keeping with the lore even with the main quest so long as the main meat of the ending stays the same. It is the journey not the destination and all that.

your arguments are sure all valid, I'm not saying that skyrim couldn't be better, everything can be better if you think about it.
but considering that I played it for around 400 hours, I still think that those 60$ are well spent, and I enjoyed every single one, and there hasn't been any other game (at least on the xbox360) that managed to provide the same amount of content in 2011.

It wasn't religion...it was using wisdom as an example of my point, like I said, you can find the same message in many different sources. But, I certainly don't want to offend anyone on a spiritual level so I will edit it.

Since FONV has come up.

Why are those in favor of Multiple endings in favor of them?

Unless the ending of a game will never be brought up due to the next game taking place so far away that it is not mentioned or so far in the past/future it is not mentioned multiple endings are pointless.Why have 6 endings if 5 don't count?

It's about cause and effect, I guess. Feedback towards your actions is an end to itself. If you make a dozen endings, even better. Sometimes 5 is enough. Sometimes even 2. People like to get immersed and roleplay their characters though, and if in the end, your character is taken from you, directed down only one path, and redefined from how you would make choices yourself, then it svcks balls. I don't mind it in games if I didn't create a character at all. Like every Final Fantasy puts you in a predefined protagonist's role. The only roleplaying involved there is the "how" (how you build your skills, how you defeated this or that enemy), but not the what. So multiple endings is a sign that the developers want to take into account the possibilities of what some players are thinking of themselves and their position in the world, what their "morality" stance is, etc..

In the case of New Vegas (and Dragon Age: Origins too) those ending slides were the culmination of the choices and their consequences i made troughout the game. What i did and how it affected the world. Even though they were just few images and a voice over, it brought a closure to the story. Fallout 3 attempted this, but as it didn't have any real choices either, it felt very hollow.

Do you feel that by having certain events that are going to happen that the game world has a chance to affect the player has any value?I have seen some posts about people who bailed on the Stormcloaks because they did not like dissapointing Balgruuf.

I feel the main quest of a game should be like a huge boulder rolling down hill.You may be able to move it slightly to one side or another but never stop it and never make it land where you want.

That's a pretty good way of putting it, New Vegas and Origins worked quite like that. They have events that will happen more or less the same no matter what, but the player's actions still make differences.

Excellent discussion all.I am going to bed for the night but i will check in tommorow and hope it continues.