Fable games did a very good job with that ...
Lets say some bandits keep attacking and robbing the village, and you can choose to save the village, don't do anything, help the bandits.
If you choose to help the village, you do not get a rewards, village stays the same, and you gain good karma.
If you decide to do nothing, village will lose population, buildings will become old , everything will be dirty and poor.
If you decide to help the bandits, you will get tons of items and gold, and village will be completly destroyed, you will get negative karma.

Yes, but fable three's decisions were too shallow, everyone lives and hates you, everyone dies and loves you, or you use real estate to save everyone and they love you... There needs to be a deeper portion to each quest i think, a la ME and ME 2. Just "question" the adoring fan a bit...

Yes I want more C&C, but what does that even mean?

Actually I would like quests to have more solutions. That's what I'm interested in.

No good/bad karma system (like in Fallout), only choices and consequences. Saving the world from an ancient evil, regardless of what you are doing is generic and juvenile. I expect more mature storyline and therefore, many decisions and realistic consequences.
Shaping the story and world around you is important, as much as customizing your character.

More choice & consequence should govern the entire game. Including guilds! You can't be the jack of all trades in all factions it's ridiculous. At some (early) point you have to choose and that will add to replayability.

Now THIS is something they should bring from FO3 into Skyrim.

Come on don't make such useless polls. Do this while you're at it:

Do you want better TES V?

[ ] Yes
[ ] No


I mean who doesn't want more consequences? Who wants more linear world in a fantasy game?

And seeing how nobody knows how TES:V Skyrim will pan out, how would you word it your highness? :rolleyes:

It's pretty straight forward. Yes I could of made the questions and answers more detailed but how would I know to word them off if we do not know a thing about Skyrim yet. More choice and consequence here is meant to get people talking about ideas on how it could be implemented.

Next time before you go calling the way I make my threads/polls useless, think and give me a constructive response.

To please the general community, I updated the poll with three questions: More C&C for the Main Quest, Faction Quests, and Misc. Quests. This is meant to get ideas spurring on how it could be done. If the poll is a bother still to people, I'll remove it.

I agree 100%

ok here's my constructive response:

You don't need to make polls on the ideas which has been largely accepted/approved by the majority of Elder Scrolls community/Fantasy fanatics. Because the answer's so obvious. I've yet too see a guy complains about how so many choices there are in Fallout 3. I hope i made my point.

The poll might not say much but the thread itself is good so lets get back to the choices & consequences discussion.

I hope we'll see some interaction between joinable factions, like Fighters Guild/Mages Guild, and that supporting one guild can have consequences for the other. In Oblivion all factions lived in their own little world, worrying about their own little problems, without paying any attention to any of the other factions or the Oblivion crisis. It shouldn't be like that.

Now that I think about it there was choice and consequence in Shivering Isles (the many choices between Mania vs. Dementia), so I think it's safe to assume Bethesda has learned what the fans want.

Yes, Yes, Yes! Oh Yes!

It should not be a clear choice/consequence EVER. You should be given multitudes of choices and just as many consequences.

For example:
Simple rat quest
- You recieve quest
END- You kill the quest giver- You are banished from a guild if in one, you grow a red pulsating vein on your forehead, You can get a tattoo of you impaling the quest giver
END- You assassinate the quest giver- Quest ends, you get a red pulsating vein, you remain in guild
END- You poison the quest giver- Someone else is blamed, a battle breaks out in the guild. You can get a tattoo portraying you as an instigator
END- You attack the quest giver- You are removed from the guild
END part 2 V. 1- Another person completes the quest
END part 2 V. 2- You complete the quest anyway, the other recieves reward, you are added back to the guild if the person you attacked has a high liking of you
END part 2 V. 3- You kill the other person- The guild makes you an enemy and actively hunts you
- You go to the person's house
END- You kill that person- The quest giver removes you if disposition is less than 90
END- You attack that person- You fail the quest, you are given another
- You complete the assignment
END- You disgust the person by dragging them around or spreading the blood on purpose, quest giver is dissapointed
BONUS- You do not damage anything
BONUS- You help the owner fix damaged things
BONUS- You convince the person to put in a good word for you
- You return
END- You complete the quest successfully.

You only went after the thieves guild if you side with the bad guy (can't be bothered to remember his name). You could become the head of both thieves and fighters guild in morrowind if you went down the right path. Nevermind that they're not inherently "opposing factions". Unlike the Tribunal and Imperial Cult which didn't have any conflicting quests at all despite being rival religions.

kinda silly poll, who doesn't like choices in an open world rpg?

They could always have another Warp in the West. Or they could do like Lucasarts does with their games... have one cannon ending (the good ending), and have other possible non-cannon endings for people wanting to experience a different outcome. Then the next game can just acknowledge only the cannon ending, because the non-cannon endings didn't really happen.

I would love to see more choices all around, but especially in the main quest. The main quest is the core narrative of the game, and in games that are as open-ended and free-roaming as ES games, it's a shame that the main quests are always so linear. Choice and consequence are the main things that add replay value to a game for me.

Yes to everything we need more choices !

Noble Members of the Imperial Elder Council!
This so called "poll" is to vote wether you want to live or not. Its useless, the answer is already clear and why should important persons such as us waste our time with this? Ofcourse I, Councillor Braskus Ocerallus of the Most Divine city of Anvil, voted yes on all the three questions. But why was this really necessary?

Long live the Empire!

While everyone wants choices, I think there are some players who don't like for their choices to have consequences. Just look at some of the complaints about the consequences in New Vegas. I'm of the opinion that choice without consequence is meaningless, but some want to have their cake and eat it, too.

Please think about Oblivion. Imagine being able to join Mythic Dawn during the main quest, or Blackwood Company during the FG quest chain. This is the kind of freedom I want to see in Skyrim.

And if they refrain from choice because they are concerned about continuity in TES 6, they can choose a "canon" ending and disregard the other ending(s).

I would be okay with it I guess as long as it's not like new vegas. Don't get me wrong I loved the game but the different factions all had you do the exact same quests basically with very small variations. The only real change was the slideshow at the end. :shrug:

I'm hoping for this as well also instead of being the hero you should be able to pursue personal power (villan)

More choice and consequence definitely, but I'm not holding my breath for it, since it tends to be mostly nonexistent due to the rather large workload it creates. Games like Mass Effect are NOT good examples, since the only real consequence of those choices is a different line of dialogue or maybe a slightly altered cutscene if its the end of a quest, and then everything goes on as normal.

Dragon Age provides one good example of how to do it, and how not to, at the same time: