Fair point. I'd agree it would be far better if we could see all the results dynamically. My argument is that's not a realistic expectation because it's a task of Herculean proportions - like I said, I'm sympathetic towards Bethesda about NPCs not reacting to the civil war end properly - how the hell can they do that when so many NPCs have dialogue referencing it in one way or another. how could they have everyone hail your world saving - the game would have to have an enormous amount of extra content. Factor in proper choices and it just gets ridiculous.

So I therefore think if you had the choices then got told, say, what happens to Whiterun or whatever based on what choices you made it's the best you can realistically hope for - assuming of course you think player choice in story outcome is preferable to the rigidly linear story structure hiding behind an illusion of free choice that exists now.

Just stop playing after you completed the MQ. Problem solved. That's what I do when I have completed every faction I wanted to do with a character.

Also I don't know what you expect. Who even knows that you saved the world? The whole point of world saving is that nothing changes. What effects to the world would you propose?

But don't you do that already? Really - how many players race through the main quest first and then do everything else? A consistent aspect of player feedback is that people have a strong tendency to get sidetracked. In theory, the game already tells you the end of the world is upon us and you'd better do something about it - people nevertheless have no problem justfying to themeslves fetching Amrin's sword from some bandits is worth their time. Particularly if they want some free training. As it is, the game requires suspension of disbelief that virtually all the quests are meaningless crap compared to stopping THE END OF THE WORLD. Why would you even bother with the thieves guild faced with something so apocalyptic? Or bother with killing random nobodies for the dark brotherhood? the game structure would be fundamentally identical. The only drawback to, say, not finishing the thieves guild questline is if the end told you what your actions with the thieves guild led to in the long term.


I like the books idea - the problem is they'd be basicaly telling the future - one you're free to go and contradict by, say, killing somebody. But maybe if it constituted a prophecy that's more likely to happen because of what you did, that could be really interesting. Actually, you could even unlock, say, some sort of ending that tells you what you did is going to cause, but you can play on anyway - as long as you're aware you may contradict it by your subsequent actions and the existing gameworld may not make much sense in klight of your actions - which let's face it, it doesn't now. It doesn't have to stop post MQ play - as long as you don't care about post MQ play being more nonsensical than it is already.

I'm sorry, but you've totally missed the point.

That's true, there is the question of how much sense it makes to get sidetracked in the first place. The right amount of urgency in the main quest is another issue that often gets talked about. Some of the earlier games were less "OMG the world's going to end!". Daggerfall was mostly about investigating something that happened in the past and you were mostly in the dark about what was going on, Arena had the villain win before the game started, and in Morrowind the main quest NPCs encourage you to join guilds and do other things to build your skills to improve your chances.

I don't like to rush through the main quest, or ignore it for long periods of time, but if they send me across Skyrim for something I'll take a few stops along the way. If you're expecting to be facing a dragon god someday, getting as much of an edge as you can with free training and the resources of a guild could be justifiable as worth spending time on.Yeah, it'd have to be shown as a possibility rather than something set in stone in case of that. I was trying to come up with a compromise that'd let people keep playing, but also be able to show repurcussions of doing certain things. It's kind of an "out there" idea, so it'd probably be like the Warp in the West: could be cool for one game, but maybe not something that'd make a permanent solution.

Why does a final set ending make if more fulfilling? That is what I don't understand. I have played games like Half Life and others which have final set endings and I don't find those any more fulfilling than the ending of Skyrim or the ending of any other TES game.

Someone mentioned Red Dead Redemption. In that game you have a final ending PLUS you could continue in the game. Now I'm saying the game force me to kill off my character that I have spent 150+ hours to build, but there is a way that with the final battle that you can not only make it more interesting but also make it so I don't have to give up on my character that I have spent 150+ hours on.

There has to be a way to add more consequences to your decions without actually killing of the character. It's one thing to kill off a character in an FPS or and adventure game or some other game, but it's another thing to ask someone to kill off their character or keep their character from a final battle because they have so many hours invested into building up the character.

I've explained my reasoning several times already on the thread.

Yeah, this game is rather apocalyptic. The overall design of 'you can do it when and if you like' is one I'm sure we'd all agree needs to stay though whatever the case.

I think the notion of 'you have multiple choice endings but you can still play on anyway' is a potential winner that would allow far deeper player choice of quest and outcome and not bring the game to a halt. As said before, it would render the post MQ gameworld nonsensical, but the gameworld makes little sense regarding outcomes already.

I think it's all a moot point - I think they'll always stick with what they do now. I just think overall Bethesda make really damn good games and if those games were able to bring in more choice of how the stories pan out and give you the sense you make decisions that really matter they would be truiy awesome.

They didn't pick off where Van Buren ended, most writing in New Vegas is completely new.

There are many different types of vehicles on the road. Sedans, trucks, motorcycles. Each is a product that caters to the particular needs and desires of a particular segment of the consumer base. Would it be reasonable for me to start lobbying Harley Davidson to change their motorcycles to sedans because four wheels makes the vehicle more stable and sedans are warmer in the winter time? No, because there are an abundance of products out there designed to fill the needs of those who want sedans aready, and those who want motorcycles are no less entitled to have the product they want available to them as are those who prefer sedans.

The vast majority of games have hard endings. The games that actually allow for open ended play are a distinct minority, much like motorcycles are on the roads. However, many consumers of fine gaming products prefer games with open ended play just like many vehicle operators prefer motorcycles. Clearly, products that fit their open ended play needs should be available if there is a market to sustain them, same as with any other product.

Those who prefer hard endings have an abundance of products to choose from. In fact, most story based games fill that particular need. So why try to convince the makers of one of the minority open ended play products that they should join the rest of the field and offer what everyone else offers instead of their current product at the expense of those consumers who desire a product that offers open ended play?

I'd rather they worked on having more consequences in a post-MQ world than ending the game at that point. I understand your point, and you're right, there would be a lot of issues, but I don't think Bethesda are incapable of doing it.

Of course the big flaw in that argument is not having open ended play is simply not an issue here. That's what I can't understand people not getting their heads round. Having an ending would not change the current format in any way except it ends when/if you choose for it to happen and not before in which case you can learn the consequences of your particular choices. you don't lose a damn thing. But you potentially gain from them being able to structure the game with more possible outcomes than they could realistically show you. Thus addressing the popular complaint the quests don't allow for real player choice and are basically a linear experience you're railroaded down. How is it preferable to an OPTIONAL ending with real consequences of genuine choices to have no (or extremely superficial) choices and nothing changes anyway? Seriously - in this game what is the point of defeating Alduin? Ok you save the world in some abstract sense but that world is going to be a static zone plagued with endless dragons for all eternity - or until you switch it off.
Also, if a vehicle had a feature people were emotionally attached to but made the vehicle underperform it would be irrational not to raise it as an issue.

I totally agree. Except for them being capable of doing it (unless they get oodles more development time)
I would be very, very happy for them to prove me wrong.

I agree that your decisions need to have more of an impact on the world but why should there be an ending?
We had that with Fallout 3 and people certainly didn't like it.

NO WAY, Skyrim is not Action/Shooter game aka "10 hours /played - game over and END" Elder Scrolls is TRUE RPG - Free Open World - that u can play FOREVER

You killed big evil guy in the end of game? Tamriel have 700000000 evil guys left to kill, You explored whole Oblivion map/Morrowind map? No problem there is alot DLCs and Mods that add tons of new landscapes and maps.

TES games is "fantasy real life" simulator - and Elder Scrolls Games NEVER need to END. Never - "Ending scenario" will ruin Elder Scrolls Experience after u finished main quest or something, when u finished all main quests lines in TES its not over, its just beggning of real gameplay.

As I keep banging on about, each choice raises a set of variables that the world must reflect. The more variables, the more complexity. As it is, NPCs are barely aware when the civil war is over. How could Bethesda ever realistically give you quests with multiple outcomes and all these outcomes be realistically incorporated into the gameworld? New Vegas sidestepped this problem by giving an ending IF AND WHEN YOU WANTED IT TO HAPPEN (something people seemingly struggle to comprehend) - so they could tell you in quite a lot of detail what you made happen and give you several factions to side with. If it had been m\ade like TES, it would have been impossible to side with Caesar's legion, the NCR, House or go it alone because showing these outcomes dynamically in the gameworld would have been impossible in practical terms.

But people are bizarrely wedded to the notion that if there's a set point they choose to initiate to end the game this is the most awful thing imaginable - hence even if they wanted to Bethesda will never be able to give you a range of factions to support and a range of potentially world changing decisions. They won't realistically be able to move beyond crude choice like the civil war whereby half the NPCs don't even know when it's finished - because they could not put in enough extra dialogue to do it justice. I think it's ambitious they even did that one. So whether people like it or not, it is highly unlikely quests - partivularly the main one - will ever get very if at all beyond being on rails. People think they're getting free choice by demanding something that ultimately prevents it.

An OPTIONAL ending would be a dialogue box that popped up and gave you the OPTION of seeing an ending cinematic or the OPTION of continuing play from there if you chose. This isn't what you are advocating. You are advocating that the world revolve around and exist only to support 'The Big Story' and that after the conclusion of 'The Big Story' the curtains simply close because the world is no longer needed, having done it's job serving as a setting for 'The Big Story'.

I'm not wanting to buy 'The Big Story' which just happens to be set in a world to explore. I'm wanting to buy a world to explore that just happens to have many stories found inside for me to experience and the capacity to add many more stories to my world via mods and DLC. The world, a playground, is the point. The stories are just the games we play on the playground. I don't want to tear down the stadium just because the game is over, I want to play more games. Play more stories.

I'm buying a setting, not a narrative, when I buy an Elder Scrolls title. If I want a narrative, I'll buy Deus Ex or something.

Yeah and look what we got - a DLC that made the ending totally pointless and utterly lame and rendered the supposed gravity of the situation totally redundant. And for what? So people could run round the capital wasteland forever which they could already do anyway. They just threw their toys out their pram because that meant saving the final sequence til last which they simply could not bear to do. After all, it did have a giant robot in it. You can't wander they capital wasteland forever before you've seen the giant robot can you?

Actually, that is pretty much what I'm advocating yes. I'm advocating the 'big story' leads to a definitive ending and I don't much care whether or not you can physically play on after that if that meant the consequences of real character decisions are built into the game and shown by that ending and if you play on it will probably be a bit nonsensical because there's no way they could show you all those changes. But people still have their everlasting sandbox and determination not one scrap of content be kept until the end.
I'd be well happy if the character choices were reflected in a meaningful end sequence accpompanied by a popup bex that asked you if you wanted to continue in a world that fails to recognise what you've done. I'd stop playing, you'd carry on. Everyone's happy.

I disagree with you. But wait. Do you mean the whole Elder Scrolls? Or just The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim? Your title is bit confusing :/

i was labouring under the strange assumption people might actually read my OP.

You do bring up a question I hadn't thought about. Which side goes into the lore as the winner of the civil war? How can they create an Elder Scrolls history if the player can change it?

The devs decide what's canon.

Hell, if they had multiple possibile outcomes, they could even poll the community to see what people prefer. Or look at Steam etc stats to see which option is most often chosen.

The devs have changed the lore before with Oblivion they can change it again. Hell, they rewrote the whole Pocket Guide to Empire just to make Cyrodill fit in Oblivion.

With regard to the original post i have to say i disagree, personally i don't want endings from my games, admittedly i am a sandbox fan first and foremost, if Elder Scrolls had always had an ending as a series it is doubtful i would have purchased any of them, it is this sandbox aspect in the ES that appeals to me and an ending would limit what i see as replayability, story for me is something i make up as i play, i enjoy static background-lore in a world but i find the linearity of scripted story to adversely affect the "game" part of my game.