Yup, I agree I want a two sides conflict and I want both sides to have reasons, very good reasons for what they are doing and why they are going it. Since it is a story these two sides need to be delineated and very broadly brushed....the conflict has to be noticeable, easily understood, and slightly hyped-up . But I don't want a good or evil side.

That is what I always hate in the portrayal of conflict, one side is going good for the sake of good and the other is doing evil just to be evil. The world doesn't work that way! Tyrants always have reasons, often good ones for what they do...oft the reason is to bring ORDER & STABILITY to their world...if that means some people die so be it.

I'd like a game where at teh end if you chose teh so called good side you wonder if you were right. If you choose the so-called brutal side, you feel uneasy about what you have agreed too.

A good example, but vague, would be this:

There are two warlords. One of them has a reputation for brutality and ruthlessness, but will get the job done. The other has a reputation for being loved by his people and for being just. Either way, the region will be unified. The player must choose: Bloodshed and terror that brings order and stability and unity quickly, or the much more difficult path of peace talks and negotiations that may take years. In all, the time spent negotiating means that the skirmishes along borders and the like continue on, so by the time the talks are completed, not only have fewer lives that you might expect have been saved, but now neighbors are only tenuously unified and have inter-generational blood feuds.

However, for even further-thinking people, or for more choices, The bloodthirsty warlord has a physically inept son who is, however, good at poisoning and alchemy. He wants the throne, but promises to swear fealty to the kinder warlord if you help him kill his father, thus eliminating the war altogether in exchange for a single murder of a brutal man.

However further still, the oldest son of the kind warlord is a murderer. By making his father king, you have guaranteed that he ascends the throne. The only way to keep it from happening is to bring in indesputable proof of his crimes. However, that will leave the king without a son, and risk wars of succession in the future as he is old and has severe erectile dysfunction.

Basically, if someone were, like me, a goody-two-shoes player, they would need to do a good eight quests in order to get the "best" ending. However, there are several compromises that could be taken, even as early as siding with the brutal warlord. Each quest, as well, would have multiple paths. If you side with the brutal lord, then the quest to poison him is different, but available, because you have been made his trusted advisor and then the alchemist son becomes king. What then?

Oh, how fun!

Yes, I like that.

Technically a two-sided conflict. But, each player interprets their side differently, creating more than two possible paths.

YES.

My argument is complete.

I agree with Peryite. I want multiple outcomes to quests. But, that would fall into another debate about voice acting...

I agree, this is pretty much all that needs to be said.

It isn't that hard to have multiple endings whilst keeeping the lore consistent; reduce the scale of the main quest and mkae the changes more personal: e.g. the Imperial Legion is invading X, the locals are struggling but its an ultimately pointless fight and your choices revolve about revenging yourself upon someone who via a variety of paths, including joining and fighting for th various factions you either spare, humiliate or kill. It would also be nice to see an rpg game where your side can actually lose.

Many people have been saying they want 2-sided conflicts? why not 3 or more side, with different branches? Like this

(choice1) (choice2) (choice3)
option1/ option2\ option1/ option2\ option1/ option2\

and so on.

Edit: sorry it is so compacted, the forum won't let me have a sufficient amount of space in between.

Because they also want a decent length game, every significant choice increases the amount of content required for everyone to have the same amount of gameplay and although a really short game designed to be played through multiple times is interesting it's not what I want from TES

I am not talking every quest here, I am mostly referring to the MQ and the major guild missions. The starting guild missions and misc. quests I agree, should be 2 sided.

Yeah I know people Want Voice acting and are kind off expecting it But if it get's in the way of the story it must go

Yes that would be an interesting game although I believe it would become to complicated to keep track of everything and it would also become a pain for the developer to execute properly leading to less content on behalf of quality, which isn't always a bad thing but in this case it certainly is.

More quest paths doesn't always mean packing more space-eating content into a game.

If multiple quests have you returning to the same person over and over... like in a guild, you can have a lot of choices without using new interiors/exteriors, creatures, or even new sound files if the dialogue isn't all recorded.

For example, in House Hlaalu, when you start working for Crassius Curio, he has you infiltrate the Caldera mine. The head of the mine has you find out who's been stealing from the mine, which turns out to be the Thieve's Guild.

That's three potential factions to side with in one quest. You can take the money back from the member through persuasion or robbery or fighting, or let her keep the money. If you're a member of the guild or not also determines how the confrontation turns out.

You can turn her in to the mine master, or lie to him, or never give him back the stolen goods.

You have the option of lying the Crassius or turning her in to him as well.

It's a bunch of different choices, but it all involves talking to only three people between three different interior locations. And most of the choices result in different outcomes for you.

Exactly, it saves space and time while still being more than simply moral black and white, and the less you are willing to compromise the more you have to work to get your desired outcome. I mean, there is nothing wrong with taking one of the first two choices. The quest will be complete and the overall objective (unify the area) will be accomplished in any choice path. However, the details add character and depth.