I can kind of understand what you're saying... Having a proper ending has its downsides and its upsides. There are plenty of other games that do offer endings. They're the main type of game that exists. Bethesda is one of the few products that offers something different. Let it be, I say.

If anything, though, once you do finish the main quest there should certainly be some kind of recognition of what you've done and who you are. I am the Dragonborn, one of the most powerful people in Skyrim, I've just saved the world... and you're asking me to do a Fed-Ex quest?

Moaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnn. I won't allow it

It would be a huge step back in TES for my part if they made it so that doing final quest meant the game also ended. Specially when you have other developers that can do this better. DA:O have a ending because the whole story leads you towards it. Morrowind, Oblivion and skyrim doesn't need it because the main story is not the key focus of the game. The game is designed to allow people play as they want without having to feel obliged to finish the main quest or do this or that. That doesn't mean they cannot add consequences based on the player action as there are more ways to do this then have a ending of a game.

If TES games should come with a definitive ending once you do main quest I would be very sad and dissipointed as that meant the one serioes that have stayed true to the sandbox idea was dead.

TES is like a daily soap, nothing ever ends and there is no conclusion and when you finally thought that Maiq was dead...there he is again...

Everyone would complain so much like they did about FO3. Which makes me mad because I enjoyed the added DLC but I also liked the ending where you died

Much like life then?

Actually, Morrowind handled this beautifully. When Dagoth Ur is vanquished, you recieve a global letting the world (for the most part) know that you circumvented a terrible thing. The world remembers your actions and all is right with the world.

Or so you thought...

Revisit the peoples that most don't that you had to meet during the Nerevarine quests, and you learn that:

The Blight did not end. Even Azura lets you know that there are still dangers abounding and people can be infected from the fauna and such that remained.

Divayth Fyr lets you know that your "miracle cure" that transformed you, outright killed any he used it on after, so corprus infected souls will still suffer.

The Wise-Woman of the Urshilaku tells you that now you have the problem of what to do with all the Dreamers and Sleepers that were left as "blank slates" so to speak, as she suggests that you kill them because you don't know what damage they will do. The dichotomy of course being it was easy to dispatch them when they were attacking you in the shrines and caves, a matter altogether different as they just stand there, not moving, simple saying "There is silence....let there be an end to things..." (P).

Even though the world changed, and you gained honorifics, that doesn't mean that your job as Hortator or Nerevarine is over. The houses still fight, and with the expansions, of course there are those issues.

While you're less the hero and more the beat cop in Morrowind after the MQ and expansions, at least you know that the world changed for the better, for the most part, even though it is far from perfect and far from over. The wall comes down. Now there is nothing preventing those creatures behind it at Red Mountain to start traveling downward (save their AI that is..).


But with these ES games, you are not bound to do anything at all:

A dragon attacks Helgen. Never retrieve the dragonstone or get it and throw it in the ocean, and ne'er a dragon will you see in the game...ever. You can still get shouts and words, but you'll never open them up without souls. If that isn't important, you can leave the world in that stasis and do whatever you chose to do. Get involved in the civil war, or walk the land being whatever you wish. People in the game will still talk about dragons and it will still be half of them think it is rumor, the other half think it is true.

Was the same for the others. In Oblivion, close the gates or leave them be. Get Martin or leave him trapped. Yes, you chose how the game is impacted, and you have to live with the consequences. But a more linear approach after you have exhausted all the available programmed optional endings still leads to the same conclusion...an ending. I see no more fulfullment in that than I do a game where you unlock a different character to perform the same actions as the one that unlocked the character. It will still be repetitive and eventually, for me, uninteresting. With Skyrim as it is now, for the most part, while many quests take place in the same area, a good many of them don't. When my wife and I take turns playing the game, I will watch her go to forts or caves for a quest that I had done with another character that was in a completely different location and threat level. This was good, because this also got rid of some of that "comparing notes" staleness that some games can offer when you and all parties concerned know where you are going and at what level. That randomization to me truly saved this game the most more than the new engine for it. That and the way the land and fauna interact. Circle of life and all that.

I can see where some may feel it more an accomplishment with an ending game, but that is more an attribute of playing style really more than the focus and breadth of the games mythos. There is just too much that can be done in the land depending and limited only by your imagination. For every character type and racial type there is, if you plan it well (backstory, ethic, personality of the PC) it really can be different more than the obvious.

Yes that kind of defines it - I really do appreciate how people value the TES sandbox, but the inevitable consequence is you always will be the eternal FedEx boy because all those mundane quests have to still be there waiting for you and there's no way they could ever add reams of dialogue saying "Congratulations on saving the world and all. Of course there's way more dragons now than when you started but thems the breaks. Oh and by the way, would you like to do my FedEx quest?"

It doesn't need to "end".
But the story doesn't need to be so vague as to allow for any possibility in the next titles. Write a story, tell it, end it and account for variations in a similar manner to how they did with Daggerfall.

An easy way to explain away variations is simple - Time isn't time in mundus. The Elder Scrolls predict what has been, what will be, what might be and what can be.
Anything is possible. Just because YOUR character didn't do it, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Each title could well be in a totally different fragment of time for all we as players can tell. History happened, but how do we know its our history?

I actually thinks that the whole "choice and consequences" thing is overrated, Just look how unpopular the paarthurnax is, everyone is like, I don't want to choose between them. They have to be implemented differently because most of the time, the player wants to be able to finish all quests and not be "locked away" from another bunch of quests. Just think about a dungeon where you can take two roads, I get irritated because I think I'm missing out on something if I pick one of the roads.
I know that some choice and consequence is good, but I think it is a bit overrated

But you are bound - that's the point. You can play in the world forever if you like and never have to do anything. But you can't side with the Thalmor, you can't decide you want to help Alduin because the world deserves it, you can fight the civil war but that doesn't really change anything. You can't even just go on the rampage because half the NPCs are essential. You don't have to engage with any story, but you don't have any real influence in how any story plays out. The choice is an illusion because you can do whatever you like as long as it doesn't dramatically effect anything because Skyrim has to remain essentially unchanged forever .

A sub issue is the way the game even forces some stories on you. I recently entered Windhelm to perform a certain assassination. Blood on the Ice was triggered - the game gives me no option to say "oh a murder. Big deal. Not interested" - it just gives you railroaded dialogue. So I'm forced to ask to investigate a murder (or click out of the dialogue in which case a set of NPCs stand there forever and the same dialogue is triggered again if I walk past weeks later) before I walk round a corner and perform one. Skyrim is a great game, but the whole philosophy seems to be "Do whatever you like. Except you can't because the paths you walk are predetermined if you choose to engage with our stories".

That said, I've never played Morrowind and the approach you describe sounds interesting.

So go back and do it differently later?

People complain about a lack of content, then others turn around and say they don't want to be able to find new stuff?
The beautiful part about having real choices and consequences is that there can be multiple game experiences with one title!

Yeah I think that's a key issue. Myself, I like to wrestle with a decision - makes the game more immersive for me. Bethesda cater for allowing everyone to do everything in one playthrough and not make tough choices or have to play again to see what else you could have done. But if that's the case, it's really no use moaning about lack of consequence and resigning yourself to the fact TES will always be superficial as regards decision making.

Exactly.

it doesn't need to end

I wouldn't like that, but I'm not really that into choices and consequences games anyway. For endings, I find summarizing big changes to the world to usually be a bit unsatisfying. I enjoyed more going to The game does have a lack of people resonding to your actions, but I'd prefer if they go for smaller, more individual reactions than major changes that would require the game to end.
On Paarthurnax:

Everyone needs a sense of meaning in their lives, even in a game sometimes.

Consequences of your actions in a game whether good or bad makes you think and consider. This makes it memorable and therfore, enjoyable. many of the best games ever (and sandbox too) know this little secret to a game`s long-term success.

Of course, if a Dev is thinking short term only and don`t know how to tell a meaningful story in their quests, then nothing will mean anything and will be quickly forgotten.

There`s a reason why games like Baldur`s Gate 2 and Morrowind, The Witcher are heralded as Classics today.

Exactly.
What facet of Skyrim really stands out when compared with Oblivion or Morrowind?

I mean, honestly??

A silly post. Getting rid of a whole legacy for the value of a few easily fixable problems is stupid. TES can and needs to stay, all Bethesda need to do is just work on improving...and they are. Really don't see what the issue is. Once again: A silly post.

The problem with that is that it only applies people who play the game for a long amount of time, not the average gamer, the average gamer who does not have a lot of time on his/hers hand will just be frustrated over not filling complete completion and therefore pride. I agree that it helps the replayability of the game, but unfortunatly it is only a small percentage of gamers who play their game more than once. Just to make sure you understand me I do not say that everything should be linear I love sandbox, but forcing the player to make a decision can be too much and that is because maybe the player wanted to do something else than what the quest writer thought.


IOnce again choice and qonsequences does not = memorable games, it can if it is implemented correctly. A game can be very memorable even though it has no story choice. Mario is a classic too and it is not filled with choices, it is just plain good because of the gameplay, and level design.


I agree with you such an option for Paarthurnax would have been good. As I said if the developer could implement all possible choices for the event then great, but because you can't they force two absolutes down on you. Chocies and consequences can be good, but it can also make the game frustrating.

I guess the idea is it would allow tem to do so much more. Maybe there was a quest where you made a decision that affects how things pan out for the dark elves in Windhelm - maybe there's an uprising brewing and you help it happen or do something to defuse it. So then if you help the Stormcloaks maybe helping them leads to a brutal massacre of dark elves by the victorious Ulfric or if you help the Imperials the dark elves take bloody vengeance on Nords in Windhelm. Or if you defuse it there's a chance of reconciliation. You start getting multiple possibilities where what you do really significantly changes things for better, worse or shades of gray - dramatic stuff that just can't be realistically reflected during the game. That's what I'm trying to get across. It just seems weird to me that people have such antipathy to the notion of a sandbox that at some point - they decide when and if it happens - comes to an end and you get "right - this is what happened because of what you did". Maybe your actions led to the Thalmor seizing control. Maybe the Dark Elves took over Windhelm and perversely ended up treating the Argonians worse than the Nords did. Maybe your dealings with a Daedric lord caused untold misery in a town - these things happened because of your actions. If you're not happy, why not try to do things differently - an ending - at a point you choose and never have to have if you don't want it - could make the stories potentially so much richer by allowing them to have multiple consequences that are too dramatic to be seen ingame.

That's what I think anyway!

There is no lack of content in this game, please don't listen to those people. I don't know of another single player game that people can spend hundreds of hours on 1 character.

Then it should be just too bad so sad!

Play the game to play the game. Not to be spoon fed happy thoughts and warm fuzzy feelings.
They might as well just put a big "YOU WIN" sign as soon as they click "start" if they're that worried about making a choice.


There is a lack of meaningful content.
There's lots of stuff to do, not much of it makes any difference though. Even less of it has any real point to it. You just DO stuff. For the sake of it.

But as it is, you have to do what the quest designer thought even if it's out of character and you really don't want to do it. I don't think casual gamers necessarily want to be told what they have to do to proceed a questy whether they like it or not.

You are aware of the fact that playing games is a form of entertainment right? So yes the game should fill you with pride and a happy feeling when you play it, else you failed as a game designer. If doing stuff for the sake of it gives you a sense of pride, then that is great if not then you need to make the player feel that way otherwise. Besides I don't remember doing a quest without having a reason to complete it?