I find that cheap, devs ending the game so they can escape its consequences. Also great post Spec.

PS. Not ending it but not bothering with its consequences too? Well, I find that way both cheap and lazy.

And the point I'm making is, the more multiple endings you want, the more unrealistic that demand becomes. Because the way TES is structured each outcome must be reflected in the gameworld dynamically. So the more choices, the more development time making all the changes be reflected. You just get more and more extra dialogue and scripts. If you want the game to stay as huge as it is, something has to give. And that something - as it stands - is your choices. Nobody wants a smaller TES game - everyone expects the next to be at least as big as Skyrim. You simply cannot expect all that and multiple meaningful decisions. An ending - optional in terms of it only happens when you make it happen - could allow both a massive game and real decisions.

You're right consequences isn't a TES focus - I'd say that's it's biggest flaw. Skyrim is a wonderful game, but none of it feels like it means anything. The MQ certainly doesn't. Because it ends - you carry on fighting dragons. What's changed? You saved the world in some abstract sense and just carry on fetching x from dungeon y.

NV is a very relevant comparison because it's basically exactly the same game format using the same engine as Oblivion (and Skyrim really with its souped up version) - they're fundamentally the same game in terms of structure. Where they differ is in narrative approach - NV offered far more freedom exactly because the ending allowed a variety of choice. Bethesda choice is an illusion - you can only really choose to opt in or opt out. Do the main quest or don't. But how it ends is how they tell you it will end and that's that. Amid all the random wandering about you can do, the game is very, very linear in its storytelling. It gives you little to no choice exactly because people demand a format that makes it basically inevitable they can't give you choices because it would be too complicated to cater for all the eventualities as long as people demand they must be able to rescue someone's lucky hat from a dungeon after the climix that can't be dramatic or meaningful exactly because of that demand.

As long as people cannot bear the thought of saving one bit of content until they decide they're done, TES storytelling will always be on rails and always ultimately meaningless.

all good things come to an end

I don't understand you. Yes, that is the focus of TES. It is meant to be a big open-world game where you can do anything. I think consequences might ultimately take away from that. But did you ever think that people like it that way? There are many things that Bethesda aren't good at in terms of game-developing. But what they are the best at is creating a breathing, immersive, organic world. From what I gather, you simply don't like the lack of consequences. Well don't play it then, it's not what the game was developed for and has never been a strong point. And remember, Bethesda didn't make FO:NV, even though it was on the same game engine, it was a different company with different strengths and weaknesses, and New Vegas could've improved its choices and consequences much more. When I play Skyrim, I play it because I am stressed, either from frustration with another game or problems in my real life. I play Skyrim because I want to immerse myself in an incredible world that will make me quickly forget about my problems. And Skyrim does a great job of doing that. If I'm feeling good, want something cinematic, or with deep story or choices, I will play Mass Effect. Etc, games have different purposes, strengths, weaknesses, and cater towards different audiences. TES not having consequences doesn't mean that the story telling will never get better, and it doesn't mean it will become bad.

There are many reasons TES is shallow, the game not having final ending is not one of them.

I don't see how having an ending that ends the game makes it any better.

We'll agree to disagree, I don't like the idea and never will. Personally I don't think it will ever happen, even Todd Howard can't see any good coming from that.

This idea of depth is becoming somewhat annoying and redundant as the basis for this argument is through direct comparison to another game. Which is absurd because you can pick and choose areas of depth in any game and use it as an argument for why this other game is shallow. This is bad enough by itself but what really gets me is how depth is always an illusion and is so easy to see through that it becomes such a trivial piece of a game.

As a side it would be nice if people added logical alternatives with their points that are actually viable rather than this melting pot of ideas some would like to pitch as a game.

I enjoy playing TES - but like so many people I have what I consider to be contructive criticism. You may as well say to the people who complain about spellmaking being axed "well just don't play it then", or say it to people who want mounted combat or whatever. The forum would be really quite dead and utterly futile if the response to all criticism or suggestion was "well just don't play it then". The only reason I bother saying all is this because overall Bethesda IMO make some of the best damn games there are. And in an ideal world they'd be even better. Like in the storytelling/consequences dept.

Yes NV could have had improved consequences. the point is it had them. Skyrim does not -beyond in very superficial ways. I'm by far not the first person to bemoan the lack of narrative depth and player choice (in terms of decisions with consequences) in TES -it's a very common complaint. By people who enjoy playing but would like it to be even better. The point of thread was I don't think they could meaningfully address that even if they wanted to because the fans demand a format that makes a significant range of choices with consequences impractical in terms of game design.

And thus, Gstaff thanks you for your criticism. Thanks for playing.

I would love more depth in Skyrim as well. It can be done. Adding a final ending to the game isn't needed to give the game more depth and consequences.

I just don't see how adding a final ending will make the game so much better that it's worth having to keep people from a final battle just so they can extend the game.

Well, like I've said before, I think it just think the more choice = more complexity for the devs. Like there's a thread today about NPCs acting like the civil war is still on after the player did the quest - thing is, for major events to be reflected across the gameworld you're talking massive amounts of extra dialogue. It's one thing for guards to make offhand comments - which they frequently get wrong as it is - quite another for about 100 NPCs to react in their own way. Each outcome must be scrpited, must be reflected in dialogue - the bigger the outcome, the more work to account for each variable. Then the more scripts running and the more possibities - all occurring in different sequences according to what the player decides to do and when - the more bugs you'll get.

I just don't think the meaningful player choice people so often ask for is realistic in a never ending sandbox. Not unless their budget triples.

couldnt agree more

Personally, I was pissed when NV didn't let me continue after the credits. Maybe TES has ruined me, but I like seeing the effects of my choices after the main quest. That was my biggest gripe with NV and the reason why I let my friend borrow it and never asked for it back. You just make this huge decision and fight this massive battle, essentially destroying a major faction in the process, and all you get is a little video telling you what happened afterwards. Would have been a fantastic game if I had been able to walk around and physically see my choice.

Sure TES doesn't have a definitive ending, but that's what I like about it. The story continues. Your path was pre-destined to happen and ultimately is a short segment in the massive tapestry that is Elder Scrolls lore. It follows a formula that, in my opinion, works well.

I thought the FO3 ending was great. Sure I did not like dying, but it was unexpected and had a sense of symmetry. Your Father died doing the same thing and you followed.

Now I`m not saying I want this all the time because it was a tad annoying not to continue and do other things, but it was a nice surprise and it really MADE YOU CHOOSE TO BE A TRUE HERO OR NOT. This is what makes memorable games. I personally think FO3 is BETTER, yes BETTER than Skyrim not just because of this but many other facters too- and that`s saying something since I don`t normally play rpg shooters and found the non-green world depressing (but it had hope).

People who didn`t like it don`t know what a good story is, but that was one of them because it involved the Player in a critical decision moment of the game.

I wish there were more of them, they don`t have to be fatal, but have consequences that last.

I must try NV now, (especially since I bit the bullet with crappy Steam).

to an extent OP has a good point. the hyped radiant quest system demands no one really treats you like the head of a guild. no one would ever call their boss a whelp and send them on a fetch quest for some printer paper. but in order to keep these quests active, npc's can't truly treat you like their boss.

but i'm not fully convinced having a concrete ending would suddenly make bethesda master storytellers. bethesda is terrible at telling a story; they are either picking bad writers, picking bad stories from good writers, or have a juvenille and naive outlook on what makes a good story or an epic story. FO3 had an ending and it made no sense whatsoever. it was a terrible ending to a terrible story.

i believe it is possible to have a good story and have a game that doesn't have an 'end'. but of course that takes creativity in storytelling and talented writers; something bethesda does not have.

i guess the next question is 'does beth tell terrible stories because of the obligation to not end the game (and thus due to time and budget constraints they are forced to tell shallow meaningless stories), or does beth tell terrible stories because they are terrible storytellers?'

the answer is beth is terrible at telling stories. for FO4 todd howard needs to lose the ego and hire avellone and sawyer. todd builds the world, avellone and sawyer fill it in.

TES was always intended to be a long series and has always been tailored to modders. It seems more likely that the game will be discontinued than ended to me, simply because an integral component to the series is leaving the world open. You are meant to be able to explore long after the main quest has been completed. If a definitive ending was added, the door would be closed to modders after the completion of the main series ending quest, which is contrary to the point of the TES games. Part of what makes them unique is their perpetual playability, which allows modders to revamp and continue the game. Putting the keys to the creation engine in the hands of the consumers allows us to be game designers and is an integral and fairly unique characteristic of TES games. There are not many others of TES's caliber that allow you to design your own quests, items, houses, even continents. For these reasons, there should not be a definitive end to TES, ever. However, I cannot disagree that there could be more choice and consequence implemented.

i laughed@ the op

that is exactly op's point. you can't do that in FNV because it would be a massive programming effort to physically show those changes in the game world. with an 18 month dev period, this was simply not possible (not to mention that fallout always had an ending and it was bethesda that broke the almighty lore and tradition their TES fans cradle like a deity). and if they did let you walk around the game world after the hoover dam battle, how many threads would there be complaining nothing changed in the game world?

OP's contention is because the game must go on the stories must be shallow and never truly affect anything, but with a concrete ending you can have major decisions and consequences.

I'm happy that TES ends when I decide it ends. I love FNV too but I'd have preferred it to continue on after the MQ. I understand why it couldn't and I still love it but I don't want TES that way. I'll play the story and endings they want to write. My decisions have enough impact for me.

Despite the title being a bit misleading, I generally agree that it would be good to have something in-game that gives you a warning that "beyond this step is the point of no return."

But I think that even this type of thing being discussed just shows that maybe all this mixing and matching in game creation isn't as great as initially thought. With older games, pretty much anything one did was to advance the story - but that approach works when the stories are engrossing, deep, complicated, and offer many options to the player along the way.

But with the advent of sandbox, it seems like a lot of good storytelling gets tossed aside in favor of "Hey, you'll be able to run around and do whatever you feel like doing!" But in the end, what does that really amount to, when you know that when you approach the main quests they're generally going to play out in one of two ways? Or, should you choose to avoid the main quest for a while, you find that there is very little variety in the other tasks, quests, and missions you're asked to do.

I know some people love it, and will continue to fall back on "But you can do anything!", but I'd like to ask them, ok, you're not following the main quest(s), so what ARE you doing? What is this "anything" you keep referring to? Make a list and you'll find that it's really quite limited.

If I have a huge box of Legos, and I can make "anything" with them, but if all I do is put them into piles, I'm not really doing anything. To me that's the same as having a "game" but not really playing the "game."

Which makes me wonder about the developers. If I made a game and people didn't actually want to play it as designed but rather just run around and goof off, I'd seriously be rethinking my approach.

You know what? Call me the stick in the mud but I agree with the OP. If you're going to do a story that has the fate of the god damned world place on it, make it more meaningful, give it a definite ending.

Hell, me and my friend speculating about the plot (what if Alduin and the Dragonborn are the same?ect) came up with deeper ideas than the final product. And that's saying something.

Well it ever happen though? Nope. They made that clear with FO3.

they did this with fo3, i really did not enjoy that at all. it was very jarring to suddenly just turn around and abandon the MQ just so i could keep playing...

how about we just let tes be tes and if you want linear games with more rigid gameplay for the sake of story, play those instead.

It would be fine if the MQ just ended properly. Rather then completing the quest and having it be marked completed.

There is just no significance given to the story line behind the world at all.

Sandbox is not necessarily a detriment to story telling. Red Dead Redemption comes to mind.To me the best story ever in a video game.

One way to do it is what Obsidian did in FONV and direct the player to narrative points.That takes away from what a great deal of people enjoy about Bethesda games.When you run into

West cliff
North death
East invisible wall

Hmm guess Ill go south

So if they hire new writers I would rather have RDRs as they have more experience in telling a good story in an open world.

also id like to point out that we do indeed see "results", but its put in the form of history and legend. for example we see many references from oblivion in skyrim, and the whole plot is based off of the fallout from oblivions. the same has happened with every tes game.

Yeah it's a great game so is the The Witcher 2 it's depth like that that made me fall in love with the series.I'm still not sure if Abigail is guilty or innocent unless I missed something if you let her die you find out she was a member of the cult of the lionhead spider.That does not mean she is guilty but makes you think and adds a element of grey to the quest.I just wish Skyrim had quest close to ones like this sadly it has none.