An interesting question for me.

A lot of fans have complained it's essentially a choice of evils.

Also, that neither side really addresses the REAL enemy.

The Thalmor, Alduin.

I was wondering if anyone felt it was pointless overall and if there was anything that could have been done to make it better.

Personally, I felt the pointlessness WAS the point.

Oddly enough.

The choice of which side to help may not be obvious. That doesn't mean the conflict is/was pointless. I believe one side does want to adress the real enemy. But let's avoid that thorny issue for the moment.

There is a point in the conflict in as much as the result of either side winning results in very different political/military situation. I can understand why it may seem pointless, however, as we are not given a glimpse into the future and into which choice was the right one for the pupose we hoped to pursue (e.g. fighting the Thalmor).

I'm wondering if the civil war isn't just something on which an expansion pack will be based.

The problem is that every game so far has been afraid of stepping on player's toes and making a decision canon. In all likelihood, something will happen in the lore that will render the civil war moot, so that in the next game books will be vague on which side "won".

They already set it up in the game. The only thing people are going to remember is that the Dragonborn beat Alduin and saved the world. Maybe the next game won't even mention the Civil War.

The Thalmor aren't my enemy. Just sayin'.

They hopefully won't pull a Warp in the West. Maybe the Dovahkiin will re-establish a new Empire? Or something.

Pointless in what way? Things change in the gameworld. Towns change hands; jarls change; guards change, etc. I had a lot of fun doing the quest (I liked the series of battles all over the map) and I liked the emotional messiness of it. I think it's the best questline in the game. It's simplistic, but I was actually emotionally involved in it. The others (MQ and guilds) were too riddled with silliness and/or too short for me to really care about. I cared about the NPCs that disappeared from the game, I like some of the jarls, I hate Maven Black-Brier, I liked killing Ulfric because I don't like him, the issues are interesting to me (racist Nords, Talos worship, etc). I enjoy being around Tullius and Rikke. I'd say having a quest that involves me in the gameworld and involves some of the better parts of the game (jarls, etc) makes it not pointless.

The complexities are all phoned in. You don't even know who will be in charge until after you do all your work, and there's no way to find out sort of the internet. Then you don't even get to help take the actual town...the only fight is at a fort outside of it. It just seems rather phoned in. Granted, I'm not surprised as TES games have never been very big on depth. That doesn't make it good though...I really wish they'd paid more attention to stuff like this in future games.

On the Imperial side you fight for two towns. Whiterun (which I believe also happens when you play the quest for the other side) and Windhelm in which you finish up the fight inside the Palace of the Kings (definitely, therefore, inside the actual town).

Problem with large battles in RPGs is computer power and graphics card power. It gets ridiculous. You get into RTS stuff. The scripting can get very difficult and the results are not always predictable. I tried scripting a large battle in NWN and the holding force would get overwhelmed, over and over again, then I beefed up the holding force very slightly, and then they overwhelmed the attacking force. So then I backed off and only upgraded 1/2, and then it was a 50% deal. Sometimes one side would overwhelm, and sometimes the other side would. Then you get into "essentials" and then stuff gets all screwed up.

Sometimes it's best just to be involved with the small section you're involved with, and leave the rest to the authors.

It makes sense that you don't fight for the other towns. Falkreath's people support Ulfric, the former Jarl supports Ulfric, only the corrupt puppet Siddgeir supports the Empire. Same for Winterhold, although that place is not worth the men to battle for it. And so on.

Imo the civil war isn't pointless but seemed very rushed, and not properly thought out. As a stormcloak I would've had liked if I was involved with every eviction of the jarls in skyrim instead of kicking out just one. For each city becomes intensive, and more difficult to do. Even in master mode it was very simple to do. I like some challenges and It's a shame that I have to download a mod for it.

Anyhow it would've been nice had alduin made his second present in solitude killing off the remanding stormcloak (other than the dragonborn, Ulfric and that other guy who is in second command) while Ulfric made his victory speech. He would then order dragonborn to investgate.

Yes, they put a little effort into two places. But the Riften, Dawnstar, and Winterhold work is pathetic. Can't say that even the two city attacks are all that interesting, since it seems like barely anyone is in these "armies." The whole Civil War questline is extremely shallow in terms of depth of play. Like a lot of things in TES games, really.


That just isn't true. The people, if they comment about support at all, are all over the place in all cities. And it isn't like they comment on how they even get control of those cities. They just suddenly come under control after you take a fort and talk to your leader. There's no talk about whether there was a war, siege, or what, because apparently even the effort to explain what is going on and how that aspect works wasn't deemed worth the time.

I think it is kind of cool that the Civil War IS pointless by comparison to say, Alduin, and everyone in the Alduin quest more or less says as much.

Angeir, Paar, and even Delphine.

It's just that, ironically, everyone wants to defeat Alduin to get back to the pointless war.

A metaphor for life actually.

I agree. Whilst the Civil War and the factions had good writing (for their goals, flaws, strengths, ect.). I feel the Thalmor had a big enough presence that the Thalmor, not Alduin, felt like the real villains. Alduin is the damn side villain, mostly because the main quest had horrible writing.

But for the actual Civil War questline?

I resented that you didn't get to solo Aludin.

Alduin and you didn't get to talk.

Also, that the quest wasn't MUCH longer,.

Having played a lot of games in which Skyrim-level characters fought in Skyrim-level settings by the dozens, or even hundreds, I'm no longer impressed by the argument that it can't be done because of computing power. There are ways to do it; it's a matter of priorities and good programming. It might take a little creative problem solving to figure out how to restrict the setting or define an enemy soldier as someone who doesn't have every septim in his pockets calculated, but it can be done.

Yes it is, from a lore standpoint. The war has caused more problems then it solves, if you do like 2/4 of the quests, all of them in one way or another have an issue resulting from the war. Lack of guards, more dangerous roads, upset balances, disturbed graves, etc. And for what outcome? The Thalmor are to the Nords what the Nords were/are to the Forsworn. Even if the Thalmor are beaten the Nords will take over as the racist, corrupt, a-holes of the game. The Silver-Bloods are full evidence of that. The Imperials are just business as usual second-hand slaves to the Thalmor who care as much about Cyrodil and their 8 divines as the Nords care about Skyrim and Talos.


It's like someone came up to you and gave you the choice to kill a mother and a newborn, or a woman who was 9 months pregnant and ready to give birth. It's an ever so slight difference in which is more heinous, with the same result: Nothing good. I get the feeling Bethesda writers are extremely pessimistic. It's fully possible to write a dilemma storyline where both parties have valid points and causes, instead of making both cruel and malicious as they constantly do.

There's no doubt that they could have done something better with more troops and it would have been worth it even if they had to use lower quality graphics on troops in order to show several dozen of them fighting, imho.

But, Bethesda makes a lot of money and does really well by evolving the game very little with each addition (and in some cases devolving it). So I can certainly understand why they don't bother spending money and time making it better.

Exactly.

I don't care so much about the size of "armies" in the civil war quests, or even the number of such quests. What bothers me about the civil war - which is *the* central, unavoidable conflict in Skyrim in that you'll find references to it throughout the entire game even if you ignore the actual questline - is that the writers just went with this very simplified "Well, *everyone* svcks" attitude.

I'm pessimistic too, in general, and I realize that there are plenty of instances in real life where neither side in a conflict is obviously right or justified. What I'm tired of seeing is writers who think that this is somehow more "complex" than situations where you can actually find some nobility, something worth fighting for.

In the civil war, we have not one, but *two* moustache-twirling villains (with Tullius being probably less nasty than Ulfric imo). Short of teaching us that war is hell (duh!), I don't see how this makes for especially compelling or emotionally involved writing.

Every single civil war is pointless.

I think it's anything but pointless. But the point is invisible because it won't happen till after the time of the game. The Thalmor will strike (I think) if the empire loses, but not the next day. You'd have to wait till the next game to see it. The empire is in decline, even if it survives, but it might totter along for another 1000 years, which is time to find a better solution for the Thalmor, maybe even a lasting peace.

The ironic twist would be if the empire IS preserved and holds off the Thalmor only to become a strong empire under an oppressive new emperor. We really can't know, and that is how Bethesda wants it.

Seems like what beth will probably do is have the current empire collapse after Mede II's death and the dragonborn, with the support of Tullius reforms the empire.

Or. The empire collapses, Dragonborn with the support of Ulfric reforms a new empire.

if they're setting up DLC or future releases the Civil War becomes essential in those designs.

as an RP element it is certainly a quick way to separate the masses on one or the other side of a really tough choice. keep a weak empire because it is still an empire and affords some broad protections that being an independent will not provide or kill 'em all and prepare to fight to defend what's yours without the requirements that membership in a weakened empire in a constant struggle against a very powerful enemy means?

I like that we have it and have found it very easy and still complex enough to roleplay on both sides that I'm glad they offered us this chain.