Perhaps the dialog options don't branch, but many of the quests have multiple resolutions. Not the guild quests, but many times I've been able to turn the tables on quest givers by doing my own thing. You don't always have to do what the journal tells you to.

yup, I noticed this too. Some of the conversations are well...weak. you are given option A and option B...a yes or no option. THAT'S IT?

Some dialogues you do get a choice of intimidation and what not but for the most part conversations have no real choices.

http://selan.jbcomptech.com:81/ev0206/reviews/mw/ScreenShot%2010.jpg

Can you see the branching, and personable dialog options yet?

More "completion" options like.

"I really don't care " would have been nice.

Usually, if I find the quest too "good-two-shoes" for me, I sneak into their house at night and attempt to kill them for wasting my time...

Sadly they turn out to be invincible god-mode NPCs 90% of the time, very annoying.

I don't want that.

Dialogue should be neutral. The problem with using dialogue and quest options to express personality is that it grates all the more for the ones they don't include.

The neutral ones that just agree or don't leave room to the imagination. The non-neutral ones that express personality only work for the limited set. You can become the cackling villain or the hero, but you can't be the jester, the conflicted, or Batman. I get far more expression of character by stabbing people who ask me to do stuff I don't like than I ever got out of "I disagree with your position because I am LE HERO."

It's telling that we've got a generation of gamers who think character is defined by words and journal entries more than deeds.

I was very disappointed by this, but on the other hand, you can pick a side in the war at least! Even though it wouldn't have been very hard to add multiple outcomes to minor quests that don't affect the lore.

The same thing, I was hoping to convince him to let it go, but .. huh, no options, not even a "No way kid".. was very confusing. I should have quit the conversation, but kept going thinking that there must be a refuse option at some point in this conversation.

Atrocious writing and I'm usually defending the game.

There is a "I'm not an assassin" option, and you know, you could always press TAB and walk away.

And because you have a quest, why would it mean you have to do it?

I agree with the "go anywhere, be anything" concept, but I shouldn't be able to do those things as easily as we can in the game. In Oblivion, I didn't like the fact that as a fighter I could join the mage guild, and as a mage I could join the fighters guild. I should have the option of joining in both o those instances, but I should have to be tested before membership is given. For example, I could easily fight my way through the mage guild quests with my sword, I didn't have to cast a single spell.

I'm not a mage in Skyrim, and I only visited the Winterhold college because my ranger dabbles in the healing arts of restoration. I liked the fact that you had to summon a flame atronarch to even get access to the college, so it seems like its more promising. I haven't gone through the quest line though.

On the same account, a mage should be able to join the Companions. But the mage will need to fight (think mage with a knack for swords). A level 5 pure fighter should be able to have enough fighting prowess to be a successful companion, but a mage might have to be 10 or so levels higher because they are focusing on magic, the swordplay is secondary skill that levels slower.

I agree on one point that we need a bit more complexity in the dialog options. I also did not like some of the auto-forced responses. Granted I do not think there needs to be a huge flood of vocabulary choices. Just a bit more of a "this is who I am" kind of options for your character when you speak. I mean some fit but pretty much I hate when I am evil and yet have to say goody twoshoes stuff or visa versa with good, not a deal breaker but it kind of makes me sadish.

I hated how the dialogue system sometimes forced me to take quests without ANY input from my character. At a very minimum, all quests should have the simple option of "no" when they're offered. Instead I was forced into agreeing to do quests that severely conflicted with the character I was playing.

This is both bad from both a gameplay and writing perspective, and I hope they make it better in an expansion or TES VI.

I don't really think that's a fair comparison, since most people here are referring the to dialogue during quests.

However, I agree with people who are pointing out that this isn't really any different than what happened in Morrowind. The simple fact is that if you want to role-play in an Elder Scrolls game, or any game for that matter, you have to prepared to rely on your imagination to fill in gaps and be the voice of your character. A dialogue system just can't provide in the same way your brain can.

And just to point out, you can get out of accepting most quests just by pressing Tab to leave the dialogue before you accept anything.

I'm not sure I agree completely. True, I've seen a number of one-line options and you either exit dialog or submit to the forced questline. On the other hand, I've seen a number of quests where I had a major choice: Markarth has a major one and a minor one (the minor one is not terribly brilliant in its choice - you basically refuse to do what someone suggests and they go away, but leave you the option to change your mind). I've not done the Dark Brotherhood questline so I don't know how that works.

It certainly would enhance playability to have more options and branching quest lines. I recognize it would enhance the work, too. To be believable - and to avoid more complaints about "lame" dialog - a lot more recorded lines would have to be added. Morrowind seemed to have more options (maybe it's just what I recall) but then, Bethesda didn't have to record voice, either.

I know in most quests even if you ask about the work you instantly start it...

Umm, correction: SOME people prefer FO:NV over FO3. Others, perhaps the majority, prefer FO3 over NV, exactly because of the open world exploration aspects. There have been very heated discussions on the forums about this point, so it is hardly accurate to claim only one side as valid.

You think FO3 had way fewer quests than Skyrim? Well, meaningful quests? Certainly more than FO:NV but I thought FO3 had a ton of quests. What I'd like to see is some ingame consequences from quests. If I take on a quest I'd like multiple ways to finish it and I think that quest should then lockout quests that are contrary to the ending I chose. Obsidian is great for that. You cannot do every quest in one playthrough because some people are going to hate you or some area is going to be closed off to you. If you choose sides in a civil war there should more consequences than few dialog quips that have absolutely no effect on the game. Merchants should refuse to sell to me. Some cities should be pretty hostile to me. If I'm constantly a [censored] to people they should turn on me (of course that would mean there would have to be the dialog options to do so as in FO). I shouldn't be able to hold the lead post in every faction in one play through. You get my drift.

I would take a smaller world if it meant the things I do and say seem to have an effect on it. The problem with TES games is no matter how monumental of a thing you accomplish in a quest the world seems indifferent to you.

Then they were probably never fans of the original 2 games. NV was much more of a Fallout game than 3 was. I love them all personally but I prefer the actual consequences NV offered over 3 because it was far more in keeping with the original games. FO3 was a good balance of TES style with a bit of the FO style thrown in. At least you could destroy a city.

I agree. They need to just rename Speechcraft to Mercantilism because that's all the tree is good for.

I think they wanted to phase it out, anyway.

Because Skyrim is a role playing game where you PLAY the role, not talk it out in a soap drama.

There are some dialogue moments that give you choices, and even when all 3 or 4 choices do the same thing, sometimes it's nice just to be able to phrase things a certain way. I had a quest once where I was supposed to investigate some murders, so I had to go looking for some clues. I came across a guy that new where one of the victims had been staying, so I talked to him about the key to her room. The dialoge options were something like this:

1. This is really important! (Persuade)
2. Will this help? (Pay)
3. It wasn't a request. (Intimidate)

I was all over that. Any of the three could have gotten me the key, but I really liked option 3, it felt more in character. I wish there was more of that. This isn't "justifying my character" to the NPCs, as some have said. It's making a choice to respond in character. In an RPG, acting in character is fun, and it's usually the whole point.

Think about it this way:
What was the actual point of the above quest? Is the point to just finish the quest and get a reward? Or is the point more to act out the part of someone in that situation, pretend to actually do some investigating, pretend to take the murders seriously, and pretend to get involved with what's going on?

Obviously the latter was the intent. I mean, none of us would play these games if we couldn't pretend to be someone else in a crazy new world for a while. So I don't see any real value to arguments that claim these sorts of dialogue options add nothing to the game. Not only do they add something, but they are the meat and potatoes of what this game is.

Very well put. One of the reasons I love Daggerfall and Morrowind so much is because they give you so much to role-play with. I miss Daggerfall's language skills where you could simulate talking with harpies or giants or nymphs or lamias. Hey, shouldn't there have been harpies in Skyrim?! I wouldn't think they are a High Rock only creature. (off topic)

Don't do the quest.

When my "good" character stumbled upon the child, I did every "in character" dialogue choice I could, and when the quest popped up to kill the teacher, I just let it be and ignored it.

I -tried- to save the child. He didn't accept. I did all I could do.

Branching? Grey? Moral ambiguity? Surprise ending? Obsidian.

All roads lead to Rome, non-surprising-imma-evil-dude ending? Bethesda.

:facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:

Just stop. Please.

And that's exactly why I prefer the way it's done as is.