Not if its properly explained that they will die if they go out there and that Martin wishes to handle it alone. If they want to live, it'll be clear that they have to sit this one out. Besides, Martin would act such a way anyway. He's tell you it would be crazy to go out there, and that he wishes to handle it alone. We're all ready considered a hero when we just sit back, only those who were ready to die would go outside. A heroic person wouldn't go because Martin all ready said he was on it, and that they should just stay back an watch. I think it would work well enough.

Possibly working in a second dialoge line from my past example where the hero would ask if Martin is absolutly sure he can handle it on his own, and Martin being truely adimate about him being able to do it would give a hero type enough reason to stand back I think.

Then why would anyone go out, knowing they'd live if they stay in? That just makes it so the character's death is meaningless.

You both forgot one character type. The Glory-hound.
Such a character would likely ignore the warning of likely death, just to have a go at upstaging Martin.
Unfortunately Bethesduh decided for players that:
1. Martin and Dagon are perma-scripted invunerable.
2. Martin gets the Glory of taking out Dagon.
3. The player is to be given no chance to even attempt to take out Dagon.

Jenifur Charne

Well second worst 1:1 timescale is the worst...

It has been confirmed that there will be playing after the main quest.

That's not true. The story just bends a little to allow for the option. If you choose to stay in there's no ritual needed to summon Akatosh and you just watch Martin go all badass. If you choose to go in then Martin mentions he does need a little extra time to preform the ritual to get Akatosh over here though he's still reluctant about you going outside. Just a little misconception and a tiny little difference in the story would make it plausable and believable.



Well, if the glory hound is willing to die for his glory I don't see a problem. If the glory hound wants to live then he would back down and pick his battles. If nothing is more important than glory then death shouldn't really be a problem, right?

Good. I'm not sure I've yet to play a game where a forced ending has been a good idea or worthwhile in any way. Even if I just spend 10 minutes wandering about a bit afterwards, I prefer it to end at my own pace than having an imposed ending; but usually when I play, the MQ tends to be almost incidental to the side-quests and exploration anyway.


No, escort quests are the worst. And timed quests, they're also the worst.

This is a pointless thread... No offense to the OP... And the people that voted yes, are probably just trying to be 'individual' or more likey joking because they know that this is pointless because pretty much 98% of the population that plays TES will want to continue after the main quest... Wrong time to do it guys.

Edit:

Added a little bit, Also, again no offense to the OP.

Yea, sure, no offense, but who in their right mind would vote yes?

omg...

no just no fallout 3 really pissed me off with that...

I'm fine with endings that change the world in significant ways as long as I can continue playing afterward. I think fallout 3's ending was fairly weak but it did let the player continue playing the same character. Oblivion's ending was the best system to date I think, where at the end of the game Oblivion gates no longer appear, but everything else remains intact.

It doesn't matter much to me really, if they were to use an ending that killed my character I'd be a bit impressed and just start a new game or load a previous save. I don't think that's likely, however. Having a loose ending that lets the player continue playing seems to be a stable of Bethesda studios.

Elder Scrolls usually allows you to keep playing after the story line.
Although it wouldn't surprise me if they make a permanent end to the story, and then make you pay to continue playing in a DLC.
I've heard people say Bethesda made a "mistake" by permanently ending Fallout 3 at the storyline's finish, but I'm a little suspicious that their "mistake" was actually just a smart money making idea. How many people wouldn't pay extra to continue playing the game after the story line is finished?

NO, NO, NO, NO AND NO.

The Elder Scrolls Series being a free roaming game, where I could continue my journey post main quest, has always been important to me.

I like to believe that my character's fate is determined not by his bloodline alone, but by how he shapes the world in his choices and actions.

Thus I do not believe that there should be a final game over. It doesn't suit the characters I build, unless I'm role-playing very specifically.

Sorry i would hate to have the Legend of Zelda ending.. WOO YOU WIN!! Color Fade "Game Over" turn off system turn it back on

Could continue? You had to continue. The only way to not continue was to turn off the game right after the final cut scene or get ingenuitive right after/before the main quest ends and then turn it off. Kinda svcks, for quite a few of my character types.


But wouldn't adding the choice of death allow players to actually have a choice in the matter, instead of forcing them to live(or get creative if they're dead set on it)?

I've played with a lot of characters who were like Boone. Some had even worce lives, they're a lot more fun to play as when being the standard white knight gets old. The option to go down in flames could be a cool little puncuation mark that they can put on the end of their lives to accent who they were and what they had to live through. Maybe I want to just go boom like Vegeta too much, but I still think it would be an interesting addition that really wouldn't take away from everyone elses fun.

At any rate, I know this isn't going to be added but it's still something I'm probably going to keep fighting for because I hope to see it added eventually.

I never play main quest in oblivion, I just roleplay my character ... But I did passed it few times, and I for sure don't want my game to end, EVER. So NO NO NO NO

Yes there is a permanent ending...if we delete the save file...

THIS^

just wanted to join in with the crowd

Its not true though. Daggerfall had an ending were you do infact die. Its not exactly what I'm hoping for, because you don't die for glory but rather selfishness...but its a common misconception that all ES games allow you to continue after the main quest.

you can play after the end of the MQ
CONFIRMED

I voted yes because this isn't world of warcraft

Why the hell would you want one?

Because it could add some believability and another option for my character types who tend to be more like Boone something to choose. Same reason people want evil options in the main quest.

Oh right I misunderstood your post. I thought you meant an option to turn a perma-end on or off, not a separate option in the quest itself. Still though, people could unwittingly choose that path and their character is doomed. Not sure how there could be an in game warning about it without spoiling it.

That only thing I loathe about a RPG.
Especially FO:NV which has a quite short main quest line.