Smarm to its fullest.

i meant for Skyrim. The way Obsidean did NV- that was the only thing to do, but it svcked. Skyrim should not do that

bosmer? I play as breton, I don't like those short knife ear folks. I would agree if it were not being able to be in fighters guild because you were in thiefs guild, but getting locked out of the fighters guild because my character's race is the "wrong race" I think dialog should reflect the negative dispositions towards races which are in conflict.

@theuglyguyinthestore, that would be true in NV, but it would not be right to exclude from a faction based on what type a character you pick, that would be like confining female characters to the NCR. I am not saying we should have been able to work for all the factions, but its just not right to exclude gameplay just on what race some one plays the game as.

I think you may have misinterpreted what Todd was saying. When he was talking about factions, I believe it was more so in regards to classes not being locked, whereas social unrest would merely be a flavor.

Although logic and common sense have a bearing on whether it makes sense to be "locked out" of certain quests, etc., based on the specifics of the Skyrim faction quests that we still know almost nothing about yet, there is another element here.

In my case I suppose I simply enjoy RPGs where I have to make difficult choices. Whether it is a difficult choice on character creation or leveling up regarding which skills and perks to focus on, simply because the mechanics are balanced so well, or whether it is difficult choices within quests that result in different rewards or different branching questlines.

If all the decisions are easy, the game is ultimately somewhat less enjoyable IMHO.



I wouldn't be surprised if I have misinterpreted what Todd was saying, but can you elaborate on what you are referring to about classes?

I don't believe any of the classes are locked for any race. In fact there aren't even any classes anymore, just various skills that let you customize your character however you want to play him/her, right?




I meant no offense, just made me LOL when I finally realized he was being ironic.

I doubt factions will lock each other off depending on your choice. Oblivion didnt do that and it wasnt a big deal realisticly. I dont think they even could get away with it, why bother? Pleasing that small minority by making the fighters guild off limits to assassins isnt worth the annoyance to everyone else. I can almost promise quests wont lock off other quests. You may fight other factions, but it wont be choose one side or the other and kill the other

It makes sense as long as it's apparent to the player, that they will not be able to simultaneously advance in two different opposing factions. I think you could join all 3 of the Great Houses in Morrowind (Before Grandmaster rank) if you got yourself expelled. So technically it wasn't locking the player out. If I support the Imperial Loyalists in Skyrim, why would the Rebels allow me to rise in their ranks, it makes no sense. I will concede that the Fighter's guild in Morrowind, was pretty bad. There was no way for any player to really know, getting the Codebook was going to lock the guild for them, and I think that's where a lot of the hate towards faction dynamics and relationships stems from.


I don't understand why a particular person feels this sense of entitlement. You can create a much richer atmosphere with conflict, and increase re playability by having opposing factions. It seems a feature like this is lauded in all games except Bethesda's, and I have to wonder why.

It shouldn't be used gratuitously, but, when you're dealing with an opposition type element with faction dynamics, it's completely ruins the point to allow the player to be the profligate and just dance between whatever alliance he/she wants.



Oblivion didn't have any factions where it would make sense to. If, for example, the counties were at war with one-another, over territory, it would have made sense to only be able to pledge your allegiance to one.

It may upset some gamers if you can't do every single thing on one play through but I would like to see more conflict between the races and especially the guilds. If that prevents me from doing certain quests so be it, it's not like I can't roll another character and choose a different path next time.

With a civil war in Skyrim, the Empire in free fall, and the new guilds Bethesda has a golden opportunity to play all these factions against each other and create some real tough choices for us. Whether they will do so or not remains to be seen.

It would be nice to have to play at least twice to do all the factions. Hell in MW you would have to play 3 time, but I think that is just excessive. Skyrim is giving you more reason to reply the game than the others as far as character builds go, which is awesome(I may finally play a mage for the first time in any single character based rpg). So perhaps they may do something like this also, either way there are quest mods. So I am not too concerned.

Exactly, one thing I would caution, if they choose that route (Which I don't think they did/will do personally), is allow players to sort of "Freelance" up until a point. Similar to New Vegas's main quest, where you're allowed to test the waters before commitment.

That really shouldn't apply to the main guilds, Fighter's, Thieve's and Mage's. They're all technically Imperial guilds with the same interests, while I don't like the idea of a Barbarian who's never cast a spell in his life, sitting in the Archmage's chair, there's no logical reason why those particular guilds should lock eachother out. Again, that was a failure in Morrowind, you should have at least been able to make ammends, particularly through that quest where you wipe out the Balmora branch of the Commona Tong.

He was talking about when picking a race at the beginning of the game that the racism present will add flavor rather than locking you out of certain quest lines.

Terrible idea, the whole point they are trying to make is that you can do whatever you like, go wherever you like. your idea will make the player lose out on some parts of the game and bethesda are 100% against that. They dont want to restrict players in skyrim, but give them ultimate freedom

I suppose we will find out more in June, but I'm hoping we that instead of
generic Mages' Guild
generic Fighter's Guild
generic Thieves' Guild

That we will see 2 or more competing factions in each area, for example
Necromancers, College of Whispers, Synod
Mercenary Warrior groups in conflict with one another
Thief factions and/or Dark Brotherhood




The thing is, for some of us, "whatever we like" could be the feeling of truly committing to a particular faction and going all the way.

If I want to feel like I'm truly part of the Rebel faction, that would be pretty awesome to get some unique Daedric artifact, etc. that you can only get if you complete a certain amount of quests helping the Rebel faction to defeat the Loyalists. It's part of making these choices meaningful. Also makes it fun to play again later and choose to join the other side where maybe the unique reward is very different.

If the Necromancers and Synod were in conflict with each other, if I consider my options after interacting with both groups and choose to join the Necromancers, it could be pretty cool to get a powerful new Necromancy spell as a reward for completing their questline and becoming the Head Necromancer or whatever. Maybe you can only do that by completely destroying Synod's temple, or the College of Whispers, etc. IMO that would be extremely rewarding and fun.

I can always roll a different character in the future, siding with the College of Whispers and complete their quests to become Master Whisperer or whatever.

I was fine with the idea that the game won't lock you out of content because of random "choices", I mean come on this really isn't a cRPG

I do to. Being locked into certain factions would make for great replay value.

im js that the thread title is kinda misleading

What if i wanna become everything?....i should be able to do that in a game that lets u be anything u want...if they made me pick then they would be contradicting themselves

I am hoping I can join all of them. i really don't like playing games over and over again.

The Motto of Elderscrolls is Do anything, Be Anything.



Not

Do everything Be everything in one playthrough......

its crippling some of the remarks one can read on this thread.

"thats removing gameplay options" wut?

Being Smarmy? ah I take it this particular group is of the people who want to still do missions for people who are Dead? or who's factions you crippled? it took extensive modding for Oblivion to even remotely make sense in the faction interplay.

Incorrect. If they make the quest lines all irrelevant compared to the other, you're likely to get a weaker plot. I for one would love to be restricted between some of the guilds, and by doing so making radical changes in the game environment (wiping out another guild, etc). Morrowind and NV were better off restricting many quests. I would take a more complex and meaningful plot line that interconnects with other factions.

I took that as your race wouldn't lock you out of a questline. I,e Argonian's could still rise up the ranks of the Telvanni in Morrowind.

Just because the racism is there for flavor does not mean we won't get locked out of faction B because we sided with faction A, regardless of race. That is a whole different discussion. Unless I missed something.

Really, no offense, but I think you're reading a bit too much into one little thing he said. Surely there will be quests that have you make decisions (like taking a side) that affect what you can and can't do. I think his point was that you don't have to be a racist and choose to "like" the Nords or the Elves, and that the whole racism issue is mainly part of the stage and cultural interactions of Skyrim.

No offense taken - I fully admit that I could be totally misinterpreting what Todd's saying.





I take the part where he says "depending on the race you pick" to mean that basically,

a lot of it [the race conflict related quests] is flavor more than it is locking you off from one thing or another, depending on the race you pick.

In other words, as long as you picked a race that works for the particular quest, then completion of most of these race related quests will not lock you off from one thing or another (i.e., will not lock you out of future interaction or future quests with one of these race-related factions or the other).

I don't think we will be able to play an elven race character and side with the racist Nord faction that hate elves in these particular quests. It would seem to go against common sense to be able to do that.

What (I think) Todd's saying is that if you roll an Argonian or Imperial, for example, and then when you encounter these race related quests with conflict between the racist Nord faction and some Elven anti-racist faction, and if you side with the Elves then you probably won't be "locked off from" future quests or interaction with the racist Nord faction.

I personally hope there is lots of the conflict between guilds/factions in Skyrim, and that i cannot join all of them at once.

I love the faction system in NV (minus the fact that faction NPCs go from snide comments when you pass-by to kill-on-sight with one negative change in status. i wish "shunned" status meant NPCs ignored me or at least, told me to [censored] off). Finally, my decisions not only affected NPC's reactions to me, but who i could quest for and where i could shop!

i don't see how restricting the player's faction chooses after certain events (that force supporting one or the other) limits, or undermines, the goal of a sandbox RPG: total freedom of action in a free-roam world.

what is the point of complete freedom to do what one chooses if your decisions don't have effects? there is nothing immersion breaking about real consequences to player actions. if anything, player actions having no repercussions would break immersion more. lets say, i just stabbed this random lady in face, in the middle of the day, in a town full people who clearly saw me. what would be immerse: the guards, and maybe some brave citizens, trying to kill/capture me, or everyone just standing around like nothing happened?

While i know this example is off-topic, and a little extreme, i think the point is valid. if you work to undermine a faction, it doesn't make logical sense for them to be neutral, let alone friendly, towards you.

conflict is the spice of life. so in a game that tries to simulate life, won't conflict spice it up a bit?

They can't limit you too much. I think it is likely you will have to choose a side in teh civil war, and perhaps some other guild questlines, but you can't make a single playthrough TOO short.