I really don't think you should. there could be multiple endings, but character death shouldn't be in elder scrolls. It really wouldn't work.

Part of the freedom of choice is having the freedom to choose when to do things, especially in what order. If you do want to do the Fighters Guild questline, but are really interested in MQ, you shouldn't have to do the Fighters Guild first. It'd end up being ridiculous.

And for anyone who's played Half-Life 2: Episode 2, you'll know how a properly sad ending is done. And the only thing that saved me from breaking the disc in half was the knowledge that episode 3 will come... eventually.

Finally, it should be up to the player to decide when the character dies. When I killed everyone in Vvardenfell, for example, my character drowned himself - and then I uninstalled the game. People can roleplay far better than computers.

I said sure cause if ppl want to die why not let them, but i would never pick for my character i put in 80+ hours in to die right when he completes the most epic part of the game, and if it is implemented it should in NO WAY be the DEFAULT ending, definitely would not be TES

Most games end? Well TES series never was "most games". For me Morrowind woun't end for years yet - I'm still playing it. And I'm sure for many people Oblivion ends not a minute before Skyrim comes out, and maybe not even than That's the beauty of the series

If the player isn't going to go on after the storyline, would it really matter whether it is a suicide or not? And more over, if the player is given the info about him dying, and he still decides to go for the way of death, isn't that in the end as much of a suicide as when if death was not the "default" situation?

I don't really disagree with you on this on the general level, there should be moral choices to reach certain outcomes, there should be consequences for my actions. But the way I see it, death shouldn't be glorified at the expense of the other possible endings. A certain route takes you to the ending scene and dictates the possibilities, a different route might give other possibilities in an equal manner which the gameworld both approves and disapproves without giving away any essentials. Don't give the player the idea that s/he has to take a detour around something. It's more rewarding and makes the choice in the ending more intriguing to the player if s/he is allowed a route there free of pre-judgement, and free of premature revealing of what happens under certain circumstances (if you know the choices and the outcomes of the choices beforehand, would it really be a valid or thoughtprovoking choice anymore in the situation in which they are given?).

Completely agreed : I was thinking quite along the same lines - that while people here all want "choices", they absolutely don't mean the same thing by that. Explains a lot of misundertandings in that thread : at first, I could not understand that people could talk of choices and refuse point-blank a suggestion that would implement the opportunity of making some important ones, and have them matter.

As you said, there are those who want choices as in, choice and consequences : "I chose to be a stealthy character, that means I don't get to get away with berserk combat, nor can I be, say, member of the mage guild because my magic isn't high enough, or of the fighter's guild since it doesn't make sense they would tolerate a sneaky bloke in their midst". Branching quests, that make you pause and think before you decide on a course of action, because you know it's going to matter, and that you might lose something with no going back.

And there are those who want "choice", as in, having to do the possibility to do everything in one run, like you mention - claymore-wielding, fireball throwing thief. Problem is, you don't get to do that if you remove absolutely every consequence to your actions. Completely unrealistic, of course, but I can respect it, I guess : you play a fantasy game, you fashion yourself into a semi-god without having to deal with the usual limitations of RL. It's just I don't enjoy that, myself. To me it's like playing in god mode. Fun for about five seconds.

It's one of those issues where Bethesda will have to go one way, or another. There's no doing both. Makes me kinda sad, cause I have no doubt of the outcome.

It's true in general for Morrowind. If you search for a highly moral ground there, you were out of luck. :lmao: For all his demented dreams of destruction, there's a lot of what Dagoth Ur was saying that rang true.

Gravitas is an overused term and I'm pretty sure its use is incorrect within this context.

I believe the game is too far into production to have this, like many other ideas on this forum.

But we like to daydream don't we?

It would be a thing to think over for the next sequel possibly.

I dont believe i feel like semi-god if i can keep on playing or do i feel like im playing god mode as long as there are enemys that are some what of a challenge and cave's,ruins to explore,break into house's,,randomly generated quest's,,etc and im sure in skyrim there will be consequence to some of our actions like witch guild to join or witch ones will i wont be able to join if i get in this one,etc IN a well done rpg the player makes the story of his or her character to some degree.back to consequence im sure it will be a factor in this game.The only games i felt i was a god in was Assassins creed( all of them),all the fable games.

'Default' is a loose concept. There is a huge difference between 'the majority of players experience this "default" ending' and 'the majority of players will avoid this "default" ending'. I am advocating the latter. The rest of your post I have reported you for and I won't rise to your absolutely pathetic contribution beyond this.


And all of that I support in TES games and don't want to take away from people. Spend ages levelling to become a god? Sure, why not? Do whatever you want post credits? I don't care! But at least let me have my perfect ending. It really wouldn't be that hard to implement.


Well there's a difference between choosing to sacrifice yourself out of honour and morality and sacrificing yourself out of laziness. The latter makes very nearly no sense, which is why I support the morally ambiguous way around character death.


I see your point, but I'm trying to come up with an ending variation involving character death that doesn't annoy people who didn't see it coming, and unless potential character death is outlined fairly clearly in the game then people are going to [censored] and moan (with good reason) if their character dies unexpectedly and they can't play on after the credits.

If you make the death-avoidance path blindingly obvious, then doesn't that make anyone not taking it lazy/suicidal? Unless you don't allow certain character types to take it (ie, the morally good), which just makes it an unfair option and will make people [NUMMIT] and moan anyway. Either way, you're not getting what you aim for there.

FWIW, I was around the Dragon Age: Origins forums when the game came out. People [NUMMIT]ed and moaned to high-heaven because they couldn't get their morally-good character out of sacrificing themselves, and that was a game known well in advance for being morally gray.

They did character deatth in FO3 and people hated it.

Meh, whether or not I can't play after the main quest I'll just use mods to fix that. The character should die from their actions. Be smart, stay alive. Be dumb, go and die. Or something like that...

Well anything is better than nothing. Let's say for instance that Esbern warns you that you may not have time to go chasing after your own salvation. We as players know that we have all of the time in the world, but I can play a character who doesn't know that. I would still prefer the morally ambiguous route, but you take what you can get I suppose (and boy is everyone trying to stop me from getting anything).


As stated before, there is a level of stupidity and short sightedness that should not be catered to in case you alienate everyone with two brain cells. Fable 3 anyone?


They implemented it really poorly in FO3 though, and they offered no way around it until Broken Steel. Hopefully they'd get it right with this idea.

That's a generalization. I didn't mind it. I knew that going in there could kill me. I could choose to send in the super mutant in my party if I wanted to. I could send in the girl if I wanted too. But, I chose to go in myself, cause that was for the best. So I could finish what my father and mother started. That, I had no problem with.

Then we wake up somehow perfectly fine a few weeks later. I was kind of bumbed about that.

I understand people wish to play after the main quest. I often do as well. But the option, or a few paths that do lead to death wouldn't be such a horrible thing as people seem to think. The death of a hero may be done to death. But I don't find a problem with it. I want to play after the mq, but if the main quest could be deeper, and more gripping if the possability of death were real, I would like that.

Ah ResistanceKnight, my level headed companion. What would I do without you?

The "god" example was just a way to qualify the desire to move in a world where we can do just about anything - a world without consequences. In a way, if the main quest goes on as traditional, it will be god-like : we will save the day again, but without having to make any difficult choice, without sacrificing anything. No consequences, yet again.

You do agree about the idea that you shouldn't be able to join all guilds, that your initial choice will have consequences that will close doors to you. What is the problem then with the idea of having multiple endings ? It's not like you will automatically die : it has been suggested in this thread that you could easily avoid self-sacrifice by either compromising morally, or not easily, by figuring out a very clever way out of either physical or ethical suicide. You can keep on playing by using either the easy or hard road. The point is making the ending - like the guild choice we've discussed - actually matter. Sure as hell didn't feel all that involved in Oblivion's main quest, especially with level-scalling. Blah-blah, I'm going to save the world, yeah, huzzah. -_-

Oh and incidentally, if the death of the hero has indeed been done to death, I'd much rather have it than "the hero saves the world and rides in the sunset, nobody dies nor lost anything". You might as well add rainbows and fluffy kittens in that picture.

LostInSpace is level headed too and I like them.

Not at all. I don't want to be forced into death just for the MQ to look dramatic and I don't want to be forced into death and then have the option of ignoring it through some quest because it breaks immersion and it's an irritating feature. I hate being forced into doing things during RPGs. It's really annoying when you get forced into things. Consider the Pitt, (DLC for Fallout3) I had to beat that whole damn thing in order to just go back to where I wanted to be initially and that svcks.

Erm... I haven't advocated 'forcing' anything. If anything I'm advocating greater choice in the MQ.

No, i do not want an option to have my char die, having choices would just bring up another incident like "The Warp in the West" that occurred in Daggerfall.

But what if BGS made the MQ something you didn't like? Or it was as lame as Oblivion's? The Warp in the West is actually one of the sixiest parts of TES lore.

I don't want to have doors close on me when I open certain other ones. TES is not a linear game and I should have as many options open to me as possible all the time. Maybe you don't want to be a GOD but sometimes I do so if your idea is to hinder RPing in order to add a sense of realism then don't play an open world RPG like the elder scrolls.

Personally, I hope we see less of that. That really bugged me in Oblivion, how they made a big deal about something that's going to happen "soon", but you're free to take your grand ol' time.. the world will wait for you, with no consequence.

Great poll man. :rolleyes:

I don't want my character to die in the end regardless of any decisions I make. I'm not going to take a lot of time to explain why because I doubt you would respect my opinion (that is, if your poll is any indication of the way you think). Suffice it to say that I have my reasons and I think they are good ones.

Did you play Morrowind? Being in the Fighter's Guild destroyed your Thieves Guild reputation. The Mage's Guild conflicted with House Telvanni. That game closed doors for every one you opened, but it's talked about like the Holy Grail by most here.

Now let's look at Oblivion. It had the system you seem to be advocating. One of my characters was the leader of the Fighter's Guild, Mage's Guild, DB, Thieves Guild, Champion of Cyrodiil and the new Sheogorath. That is ridiculous. I wasn't attached to that character at all. And that isn't necessarily 'TES'. That's just what Oblivion did. And it svcked.