Fallout 3, similar to earlier Bioware games had quite a few choices to make but a lot of them were quite clear cut "evil/good."

I'd like to see more quests that involve choices that aren't just simply cut and dry good or bad, but things that might unfold unexpectedly. Maybe one of the characters lied to you, maybe things just didn't play out how you expected, maybe there really isn't just a good "Right or wrong" answer to the choice you have to make in a quest.

I also hope that the consequences for what you choose aren't simple but rather things that have a lasting affect, even an early choice in the game might have a ripple effect that comes back much later.

The conequences for your actions shouldn't be immediate (IE you shouldn't be able to simply save your game, make your choice, then play 5 more minutes to see "what happens" but rather you make a choice and the consequences are long lasting and the affect your choices have might not be felt until much later in the game.

I'm not opposed to having clear moral choices, but I can still get behind all of this. It's really hard to do significant consequences in a game this large, so I'm curious to see what they'll do.

I wouldn't mind grey morality choices in the game, so long as they don't do the same thing every other RPG that attempts to have grey morality does by making both endings virtually identical, thus ruining the point of making a choice.

For example(Witcher 3 spoilers)

SUCH EPIC CONSEQUENCES! Not.....

Yeah, more grey morality would be great in Fallout 4.

The only really grey choice I can remember from Fallout 3 was Tenpenny Tower. At first it looked like a black and white choice, but it turns out the ghouls really are murderous and dangerous, but at the same time, the residents of Tenpenny Tower are racists. Basically, everyone involved is a huge [censored], and you are better off not getting embroiled in everything.

But I thought it was a nice touch for Bethesda to present the player a choice that seemed clear-cut - "Those Tenpenny residents are discriminating [censored]s! I'll force them to accept the ghouls!" And later you find that "Surprise! Those ghouls are ALSO racist [censored]s - except they had weapons."

Can you remind me of what were the choices? Because I don't remember all that many and I certainly don't remember any with some real consequences. Let's try avoid talking about the one obvious example.

Have you forgotten The Pitt? Seems to me that was a bad choice either way. I don't remember there being any good choice to that.

Oh yea....

....this is what FO4 needs.

I believe it is not essential to have such a sense of unknowing in your choices, it does enhance the experience ten-fold. One thing that I have come to regret about Fallout: New Vegas was that truly, nothing mattered. Yes you had a nice slideshow after the endgame, and yes the companion quest you did changed there stats, but nothing in general really changed. I enjoyed the slideshow for what is was and nothing more.

I would like to help someone, and see later that the world was affected. What if I cleared out a potential base, and then later it was inhabited by vagrants? Or maybe I cleared out said base, then ran across mercenaries or just wanderers who were looking for a home? Boom, they got one. More quest open up because of my choice along with the stereotypical "here's a discount, thanks!" card. I would also enjoy a friend system, where all the points are tallied on everyone with everyone you do. Peeve off a "rich" man? Hes hunting you or closes his store to you. To sum it up, I want a fully immersive world where everyone reacts in some way (if they know about what was done) to everything.

More Grey stuff definitely, like the Pitt for instance, love that choice.

I had forgotten that. Boy did I feel bad. Thought I was having a Big Damn Hero Moment ?by killing the bad guy, then I walk into the next room and realize I'm an awful person. Well, played Bethesda.

I love those examples. I know you could get bounty hunters sent after you in Fallout 3 and NV for being a goody-two-shoes or a villain, but it would be great for it to be specific NPCs that put out the hit on you. Maybe implement a Radiant Quest system like in Skyrim that involves tracking down the people who put the bounty on you, and convincing them to call it off, or offing them to solve the problem.

The Pitt and Tenpenny tower are the two best examples of moral ambiguity in Fallout 3 (maybe throw in point lookouts mainquest as well).

I hope Fallout 4 doesn't have an evidently good vs evil quest like power of the atom, one of the worst quests ever in a game, it provided nothing more than "Expplosionszzz1!1!!1" and the most underdeveloped good vs evil dichotomy ever.

Nuke a town because it's an "eyesore", much moral ambiguity, such sophistication...

This is before we get to Moira Brown...

Yea there should be a lot of choices, black and white, but also a lot of gray ones. Choices and the way they affect the game are one of my favorite parts of any game...

How about, for example, the choice of having to save one person who is "useful" (such as a pilot or someone with a specialist skill) vs a number of other people who are perhaps more vulnerable? Especially if there are broader implications with regards to how you will be viewed afterwards. You could also have several key points along the main storyline where your choices would affect which side quests would open up to you and which would be permanently closed off. Just a thought.

Choices aren't often black and white, if they were we wouldn't have disciplines such as moral philosophy and normative theories such as utilitarianism, kantianism and situation ethics etc trying to formulate the "right" actions to do in situation.

Sure, they need to get good at writing first though.

Often times for me when there are grey factions I find myself deciding "screw this, you're both bastards and I'm out of here" and just not do the quest. Because I like to help factions I actually like, not help factions because they might svck slightly less than the other side.

What I want more than Grey vs. Grey or Black vs. White is White vs. White. Heroes on both sides which have sadly come into conflict due to whatever circumstance. I don't want to choose the lesser of two evils, I want to choose the greater of two goods. I want to like and care about both sides and feel agonized when they come into conflict and I often find it difficult to care about grey factions.

If you're going to pick a choice in W3, and purposely pick the one without immediate repercussions you're gonna have a bad time.

A better and more mature attempt would have been pointing out any of the side quest that involve specific spell casters.

They are all the same

No matter if you get Triss to stay, or if she leaves with the other mages, she still vanishes from the game. At least until the Khaer Moren battle in which she serves very little purpose beyond being yet another NPC on your side in a fight already drastically level in your favor.

Same with that other mage chick in Velen, always forget her name, she either leaves forever, or leaves for most of the rest of the game only to show up for the battle and then basically leave again right after.

It's so utterly trivial, even doing things like picking the new king/queen of the isles changes nothing in-game except for an ending slide.

Though this isn't a problem exclusive to the Witcher series by any means. we still really haven moved beyond the rather infamous Mass Effect 2 letters in terms of in-game "consequences" for your actions.

So, hold the phones. What games have actually been really good at portraying "choice and consequence"? I certainly never got that vibe very much from New Vegas.

The only game I can think of is Dishonored with its low/high chaos system, but to be honest I haven't played a vast majority of popular games. And Dishonored isn't even technically an RPG.

A lot of RPGs have the illusion of choice. I can't think of one with choices that actually matter.

Nicely stated! I'm with you on that.

For what reason ? Being asked to choose between the ghoul and the brain ? You might have some base to make a decision if you were given a bit of characterization for those characters or some reasons for these conflict. Here, things were way too much random to give any credits. It is like entering in a room in which two person (that you never met) are arguing in a foreign language, and you have to pick a side right after you entered. If you do pick a side, it will be for a random reason, not a moral struggle.

I would like to see side quests give extra options to grey vs grey main quests.

I鈥檒l give you an example from FO:NV (How Little We Know and Bye Bye Love).

[spoiler]

In How Little We Know you have the option of helping Cachino take over the Gomorrah or turning him in to Big Sal. Now Big Sal and Nero are scum but Cachino is also scum and the first time I did the quest I looked for a way to betray Cachino after we got rid of Big Sal and Nero and put someone else in charge and killing Cachino at the end of the quest did not do anything. Ok that svcked a bit.

But after a latter play though and doing Bye Bye Love before How Little We Know I would have liked to double cross Cachino and install Carlitos and Joana as the new management. Now that svcked a lot.

Now if you had completed Bye Bye Love you could have had the option double cross Cachino at the end of How Little We Know that would have been a more in depth option and an encouragement to explore more side quests.

[spoiler]

Hmm... Interesting I think they need to change it up a bit other than that it's not a bad idea.

I hope the choice stuff would be balanced enough not to make each playthrough short.

Each choice means an alternate path. Which means, general speaking: content is blocked from the game. Such as a quest (extra hours). Or items which are exceptional.

I'm not against choice. Just try not to deduct hours from each playthrough by to many forks in the road.

I'm not sure how factions would be implemented in this game. Or if there are any that will use a reputation system.