Not to mention that that ending wasn't epic at all.

They should make it so you become King of Skyrim. Just like Fable 3.

YOUR KILLING A DRAGON THAT EATS CHUNKS OUT OF THE WORLD!!!!!!!!!

i dont think it could get any more epic than that.

Know it's been asked before, but are you absolutely sure you're not Pete Molyneux?

They should give you cake at the end.



Anyway, I don't think it made use of Chekov's gun, with how Martin just arbitrarily gained the ability to become a ****ing dragon out of nowhere. At east i don't remember it being mentioned anywhere, nor were its limits described in any way.
Most of my dissatisfaction with Oblivion's ending is due to the poor storyline. The fact that some kind of daedra/their worshipers were identified as the main villains early on in the game took away much of the mystery which is, or should be, the main driving force of the narrative. The game didn't really succeed in portraying deadra as a morally varied group, with better and nastier kinds, mostly because the vast majority of deadric minions you encountered were out to spill your guts. I think the moral ambiguity of the deadra could have been exploited to make the story less linear. Also, while Martin was fleshed out reasonably well, his character didn't really appeal to me very much. Oh, and the game proved with out a doubt that big battles here aren't really big with the great gate incident, thus: my attitude to the ending was "Let's just get this over with." instead of "Time to be amazed by some intense and meaningful gameplay" followed by "MAAARTIIIN, NOOOOOOOOOO!!!".



Also, "how epic it was" is a really crap way to judge, well, anything. Take for example the ending of Apocalypse Now, was it "epic"? no, was it mind****ingly good? yes.
Actually, I think I can draw parallels between the endings of Morrowind and Apocalypse Now, both containing the abyss motif as a volcano infested with desease ridden ambulant husks and, respectively, a savage jungle. Both endings involved killing morally ambiguous individuals turned insane by their surroundings.

This. And as the good guys will inevitably win in the end, I hope that it takes a massive cost so the ending is actually saddening, even though the good guys won.

I agree kinda, I liked the original ending of FO3.. it was different to what I'm usually used to in such games. Plus it made sense, you can't walk into something equvilient to a leaking Chenobyl nuclear reactor and not expect to either die instantly or dying an agonizing, slow death over the course of the next 48 hours as you succumb to the effects of fatal radiation poisoning.

Not many games have good endings. I actually can't think of 1.

The Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver games (taken as a whole, not game by game).

You could be given the choice of giving up your Dragonborn status and using that part of your soul to remake the Amulet of Kings bringing Alduin back to his Akatosh aspect.Or You could allow Alduin to eat the world and you take over as the aspect of Akatosh in the next age of Tamriel.This would need no Dragon break since whatever scenario they use as the setting for the next game would be true to itself.

What I hope is that Skyrim's main quest ending is involving enough. There is no doubt that we fight Alduin in the end...but what makes Alduin so different? Throughout Skyrim, most players will be fighting dragons as it is to learn shouts and delve deeper into the storyline. By the end of the game, we'll already have so much experience with dragons that, if not done correctly, Alduin's return will seem like a letdown.

What Alduin needs to show is surprise: Instead of using his immense power (what we would expect), I would much rather prefer Alduin "taking over" the body of one of your allies....sort of a psychological battle. Is it epic? Not exactly, but what is so good about an "epic" ending anyway? Shouldn't the entire game be epic? Just research a good portion of Greek epics, such as the Odyssey, and you'll see how endings should be handled.

But I have faith in Bethesda as, after so many games, they'll know how to handle a World-Eater.

I want to ride on a dragon, in the night with a black sky and no moon. It will be raining and the ground below is covered by fighting armies and fire. And then, I want to grasp my sword and take a leap from the dragon and dive towards Alduin whom is watching the battle from above the ground, yet below you.

Bricks would be [censored].

The story line in Bethesda games hasn't always been steelar.They get the job done and thats it for the most part.

What fools you are. He's a god! How can you kill a god!

:wub:

If only I could get Dagoth Ur and Mankar Camoran together to form a super cult...

Mine turned out to be "sit and watch and wait to CTD" :spotted owl:

What will the PC have to become to fight a god?

+1

I quote Pinhead (Hellraiser: Bloodline): "Do I look like someone who cares about what God thinks?"

the 70's weren't kind to you were they?

I give your beard a 8/10, well done.

At the pinnacle of the final battle in the civil war. Alduin should show up and bust in the middle of the battlefield. and while everyone else is caught up in their war U fight Alduin. Thats epic.

Alduin is a world eater...he gobbles up chunks of the world whole

How will Bethesda implement that?

How can a human being defeat a world eater?

Get Mehrunes Dagon to help.I believe he has stopped him before.But Azura might not like it(being the mistress of dusk and dawn and not the pleasant yawn stretch grab a cup of coffee kind more the death of one age and the start of another)So she might show up.But Jygg might still hold a grudge for being trapped as Sheo and want to kick both there arses.Sheo will show up because somebody said there would be cheese.and of course Talos and his gang will show up because they like to be seen at the big events(Media [censored]s)

That might be epic

I assume that Skyrim will top Oblivion in terms of story but I do think that Skyrim will not have as much replayability.