So, I've seen all of these threads lately about how Skyrim is turning into Twilight or how Skyrim did this wrong and that wrong. Some of those complaints are legit. Other times, it's just pointless whining. Either way, this thread isn't to address this. It's to address something that Skyrim did so perfectly right that Oblivion and Fallout 3 got wrong. In fact, almost 80% of all RPGs with a choice element get this wrong.

Let's look at Oblivion: What's the central conflict? Mehrunes Dagon vs. Tamriel. But what about the major side conflict? There isn't one. Instead, we get various Guilds and quest arcs with designated: Good, Evil, and Neutral. So a good holy Knight character wouldn't do the Dark Brotherhood but instead do a certain quest arc.

Granted, Oblivion did have a great story. But it's very clear cut and differences between character in terms of what quests and story is almost always standard. Good characters do this and bad characters do that.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Fast Forward to Fallout 3 and we see the same thing. The Main Conflict is Brotherhood vs. Enclave. The big moral decision is whether or not to blow up Megaton and whether or not to poison the water supply. Evil players will almost always opt for destroying Megaton and good players would opt for saving it. Same with water supply.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And now Skyrim. I'm skipping New Vegas since I could go on and on about the same thing I'm going to say for Skyrim. What's the main conflict? You vs. Alduin. But what are the major side conflicts?

Well the biggest one is the Civil War and that's where we hit a standstill. Think long and hard about what the Imperials and Stormcloaks represent.

Neither side is good, nor evil. One can argue just as well that the Stormcloaks are good and the Imperials are evil as I can argue the opposite. And that's where Skyrim got it right. A moral choice that isn't about good or evil. Isn't about the right thing to do.

This is what Skyrim did right. Just like how in the real world, political parties aren't good or evil, merely how your ideological values fall into respective political parties, Skyrim emulates that perfectly. Your ideological values and the perception of dialogue with the characters will influence which faction you will side with.

And that's not all. We then have the Blades vs. Greybeards. Are you in favor of mercy or justice? Mercy isn't always good and justice isn't always evil. But more importantly, what are your perceptions of morality itself? That's what Skyrim did right.

Until you actually play the quests. Then you see what Skyrim did wrong.

im sorry i didnt read this paragraph but come on keep it short. and p.s. i hate twilight

^Very insightful post. Bravo.

I'll agree that out of Bethesda's recent games, Skyrim is probably the least cut-and-dry when it comes to player choice - even if the affected "guilds" are painfully shallow. But your comparisons only went back as far as Oblivion.

Take Morrowind, for instance. The politics going on between the Great Houses and the Tribunal dwarfed any shred of depth Skyrim had to it, and all of that is "side content" - the equivalent of Skyrim's civil war. The coming of the Nerevarine and Dagoth Ur was the main conflict. As (most of) the guilds were directly related to all this, they too had some depth as far as choice and motivation was concerned.

What I'm trying to say is, Skyrim certainly did some things *better* than Oblivion and Fallout 3. But they weren't anything revolutionary, or even all that well done at all in comparison with some of Bethesda's earlier work.