Agreed. Also, I hope they don't overdo them, which is becoming an RPG standard - you must make a moral choice now. And now again! I kind of enjoyed the Jaws of Hakkon DLC for DAI because it was pretty much a "go in and hack everything to bits" DLC, which was quite refreshing.

Mate, seriously? Not only you completely decide the fate of the main settlement, and you influence the geopolitical landscape with your actions, not to mention all the minor things. I don't know what more would you want in an open-word adventure game. Of course it's not going to be Alpha Protocol where almost everything you say has an impact of some sort.

One thing about grey vs grey that p1sses me off is when there is an obvious better choice but you only get the grey ones that the writers force you to take.

It would be practical to have really tough decisions like blowing up the citadel in f3. Giving you a big reward for being bad but sacrificing your reputation.

There shouldn't be too much of this player choice, because I don't want content blocked from each play through.

This right there is why we can't have nice things.

yeah because its permanently cut off in an alternate reality

I'm asking about games where you can actually experience the consequences of your actions in gameplay, not just change the ending. If I can keep using Dishonored as an example, as you kill more people the world becomes noticeably more bleak; more rat swarms and weepers appear, some of the choices you can make are different, people react and talk about you differently, and yes, the ending was more depressing. Some people would probably say that's still not enough, and it's much easier to do it in a linear chapter-by-chapter game than here in Fallout.

Changing the Jarls in Skyrim's Civil War is another great example, but that's probably the only notable example from Skyrim.

Huh? Did you read what I wrote and you quoted?

Apparently I didn't understand what you meant, sorry. Could you be a bit more clear? New Vegas's reputation system didn't really change much of the world except for locking you out of main-quest branches and those annoying death squads. It had moments, certainly, but it wasn't exemplary.

The game practically starts with a quest where you decide the fate of Goodsprings. Then there's the BoS, Helios One, Primm... That kind of stuff is sprinkled all over the place. If the rats of Dishonored impressed you, you should be more than impressed with what New Vegas does.

I think it's cool how things seem good,bad or evil I find it really wacky and fun.

Bethesda is writing this game, so no... All your choices will be black/white.

If we are lucky, they might remove water beggars, so you won't reach max karma after killing everyone....

Not everyone, BGS likes to make people immortal for arbitrary reasons.

All of those quests are isolated to single areas, though. Once you complete the quests in Goodsprings or Primm there's little reason to ever go back, and the rest of the Mojave doesn't really care what happened. Helios One gets props for having the Legion take over if you use ARCHIMEDES to obliterate the NCR there, but diverting power does nothing to the world but net you your choice of reputation points. The rats of Dishonored are part of a larger picture; I'm talking about how the entire tone of the narrative shifts a little based on your actions. If Bethesda can make our actions do that on the scale of an open world game (and tie it in with a meaningful karma system?), I'm sold. Broken Steel barely scratched the surface by adding a tinge of hope to the wasteland (I never took the evil path of Broken Steel, so I can't speak on that side), but we don't need to go into detail about the many problems with that expansion's plot.

Another way they could do it that would be cool is to have your actions change future choices in a questline; if it's easier to just kill someone to get what you want early on in the game, maybe keeping them alive will come in handy much later on down the line. Or maybe if we complete a side-quest in a certain way, it opens up a new path in the main quest or another quest. I love that kind of stuff.

The only worthwhile consequences in a game are the ones you experience through game play. What happens after play stops isn't meaningful as a consequence, it's just a narrative that doesn't really impact your game because you are done. When the results of deciding the fate of the main settlement is seeing this slide instead of that one when play is over, it's certainly not consequential to me.

My understanding was that it was to keep quests from getting broken by npcs getting themselves killed by falling from somewhere or a creature attack. And were there even that many essential npcs in Fallout 3? I remember once years ago I went on a killing spree in Megaton and I'm pretty sure I was able to kill everyone except the kids.

There are a lot of "essential" npc including many that aren't even essential for the main quest.

I hope they will reduce the number down to zero in next titles.

Who were all these essential npcs in Fallout 3 then, not counting the kids of course? Because I'm pretty sure I was able to wipe out Megaton, Underworld, Tenpenny tower, Bigtown, Canterbury commons, and probably more, at least from what I can remember, not counting any kids. So who were the essential npcs in Fallout 3 except for the kids?

As much of a black/white choice that the power of the atom is, I actually want to point out that it is a great example of quests that visibly change the world.

More of this.

I'm fine with quests that alter the game-world if they make sense.
I am however against The Power Of Atom as the evil option is absurd and nonsensical.

I don't have the full list in mind but i recall a mere trader in Rivet City and the head of security. Neither of those is involved in the main quest.

Nice idea, but you'll end up with a lot of bugs, and I mean a LOT.

The more of these there are, the more variables involved. The more variables involved, the more buggy the game will be. I'll happily sacrifice the killability of some NPCs for a playable game.

I would honestly like a clear example of a morally grey scenario. By this, I mean a situation that you find neither good nor evil. See, morals are what teach us right from wrong. Different cultures may have variations on this, but they are by definition black or white.Good or evil.

Lets be clear about this. Morally grey doesn't mean that just because you dont feel bad about doing something it makes it ok. Morals are just as much about how other people view your actions as much as you do. Thats why they say there's no such thing as a victimless crime. Morally grey is an oxymoron I wish to god people would stop using when they actually mean deeper or more meaningful choice.

Now, choice is a different kettle of fish. Sure having choice is great but not every decision in a game has to have the fate of the human race tied to it. "do you want 1 egg or two"? Simple answer. It doesnt require you to check the news to see if the war in Angola is still on or whether petrol has gone up in price.

Oh, and while its fresh in my mind.You want consequence that matters yet when you are given it like at the end of Fallout 3 you all rage that the player dies at the end? Really?

Which mod did you use ?