First off, I know this is TES and the option to continue after the main quest has become a rooted tradition, and it wouldn't be the same if you couldn't continue after the main quest. No need to tell me that, because I understand that and I for one love the option to continue after saving the world.

However, for some of my characters I wish that there was a way to go down in heroic style. Not that every character automatically dies at the end of the main quest, but that there was an option for a character to bite the dust if I wish him to. Sure, I could just turn off the game and then start another character, but if you want to keep playing you could do the same and just save before finishing the questline. I just want some even ground for both sides, so the option to continue is there while there also is another option to end it there.

Fallout 3

Though, it seems some people don't like moral choices, so then add a choice that has nothing to do with morality. Like if you fight Alduin or whoever on the top of the Throat of the World, and after finish off the whomever it is part of the mountain top starts to fall apart. You could choose to run down the mountain, or just stand their looking over Skyrim with one final epic view before you're squished. Then, based on if you live or die, a cutscene specific for which you chose would kick in. And after, if you lived you start at the bottom of the mountain and if you died your back at the main menu.

I know this isn't going to be popular, but it would still add a lot to some of my character types. I've made a few who are like Boone, or darker killer characters who later regret what they did. It could help quite a few of my character types, and that's why I hope to see something of the sort, be it a moral choice or not. Thoughts?

Edit - for spelling

Very good points, and while I don't support the idea, I see where you are coming from. Although you will probably have to just wait for a mod lol.

I certainly like the idea but I personally would never use it. If you get close to the edge of the mountain or wherever you fight Alduin, then you could send him hurtling over the edge but it would break the edge and you would go down too. Someone would have to warn you though.

Only hard part, the Elder Scrolls games depend on each other for lore. In Fallout, the details are just unclear. The last elder scrolls to have multiple possible endings was Daggerfall, and the excuse then was that a Dragon Break occurred. Time became non-linear and multiple events happened at once. Now, if going down was a trivial detail, and the dovahkiin didn't have any actions after the game (like how the Nerevarine left Tamriel prior to the events in Oblivion) I guess its very possible.

I personally wouldn't mind it, but it might add difficulties if your character was suppose to do something after the "game" ends. (basically when you stop playing for the next one(or start a new game))

You could end Morrowind or Oblivion in a blaze of glory and die. It's roleplaying and you just have to use your imagination.

In Morrowind, Or in Oblivion,

Sure, they weren't hard-coded options into the game, but they were roleplaying options and possibilities.


How about adding some spoiler tags for explaining the end of Fallout 3 in detail?

as long as it remains an option. It would not be fair for me to force some one to not end as it was unfair that obsidian made NV end like it did.

as far as the point about the broken steel end to main quest (you kind of laid out a big spoiler, its been out for a while but I don't think that matters its still a spoiler) but there would have been plenty of people who played a good character who wanted to keep playing after the purifier scene and they would not be happy to be forced to do an evil act just to be able to keep playing so thats probably why you could live on even after entering the chamber.

Well, once you died in either of those options the game would kindly enough reload for you and give you another chance to live. It was possible to rp like that, but I think in this instance the game having the option would be better than just using ones imagination. A nice cinimatic cutscene after you died would add a lot.




I fixed it. I guess the thought of a spoiler never crossed my mind. My bad. :sweat:

I don't see the point here. As Velorien said you can die when you want. I dislike this greatly, even being optional (puting this optional would end up with an unavoidable death in TES 7 or 8, FO1 and 2 didn't kill you in the end after all).

Can't say I'm a fan of the idea. As others have said, if you want your character to die, you can RP that. But if you accidently get the ending where your character dies, that would definitely detract from the game.

Yeah, but doesn't it add the roleplaying experience even more? You wouldn't actually know what happened if you really died!

But I understand what you mean, and I don't think I'd object to this type of feature being included. After all, as I said in another thread recently, it's important not to make any assumptions about the main character, and this would offer an ending for that character without hindering the ending of the main quest in any way. So again, I wouldn't object if it was included, but I have no real interest in seeing it either.

Slipery slope fallacy. Adding an option in one game doesn't make it manditory in the next one. Doesn't even make a lick of sense. And it doesn't matter what the first fallouts had, I was talking about what fallout 3 did. And sure I can die when I want, but the game doesn't recognize the difference between sacrifice and simple death. There would only need to be a few simple tweeks here plus one cutscene and that would allow for it to feal like my character actually did die for the greater good, instead of me having to step out of character for a second to have the character commit suicide.

I personally hate the "It has to stick to the lore" argument. I know the lore is great for TES, probably one of the best ones ever. But hell, Mortal Kombat has a rigid lore and you can beat the game with anyone and everyone. All they do is have one "True" ending. For example, in MK1-3 Liu Kang wins the tournament in the actual correct lore. But you can beat the game with anyone else and it will either have an ending that actually happens and gets carried to the next game (but without them winning the tournament), or it will just be a joke ending like this: http://mkw.mortalkombatonline.com/mk1/raiden/#ending. All they have to really do is throw a book or a single line of dialog in the next game that says what happened. Like if you were supposed to die at the end of Skyrim then put a book in TES VI titled "The Rise and Fall of the Dragonborn".

Besides, in Oblivion you could kill everyone except the about 200 essential characters and still do the main quest. Having saved all of Cyrodiil and there being about 200 people not including respawning bandits for you to kill isn't too lore friendly either

doesn't make NECESARILLY mandatory. A bad precedent is a bad precedent, could lead to making it mandatory or not.

I was stating that fallout series didn't kill you until the 3th title.

The game won't recognice the diference batween anything, you are the one suposed to do.

Maybe I am overreacting here, but I hate those kind of endings, more in the case of videogames. Anyway, out of curiosity, how would you like to chose this in game, in a options menu before the start, near the end in a text box...

Not that I'm against the idea, but I'm not sure how it could be done without shafting certain character types or making the death seem trite. If there's a way for the character to survive, why would the character not take it? It would just be a meaningless death. If the option to die is... encouraged, shall we say... then it shoehorns certain character types into dying because doing what needs to be done to stay alive would go against someone's character (I'm looking at you, DA:O).

What they said. It wouldn't hurt to have the option, but I wouldn't use it. :shrug:

I think actual endings for open world games are completely stupid and pointless. In fact I hate them with a passion. Fallout 3's main quest was horrible. Not only could you skip vast sections of it by going places out of order, it was too short, too boring and just plain bad. It also didn't make any sense. Why did your father have to sacrifice himself? Couldn't you just run in and kill the enclave in the room? And why does the game still end when you send someone else? Then to top it all off they play a video at the end making fun of your play style. If they have an un-optional ending to Skyrim I’m not going to play the game. If it's optional then I'll be fine with it, but the game can't end no matter what we do, I'll kill something if they do that.

I think there should be an end to the main quest and you just have to reload to go back into the world so that both parties can be happy. No DLC needed and you can get the credits in.

That would not make both parties happy, that would make one of the parties MAD, very mad.

Indeed.

If TES didn't allow me to continue after the main quest (not reloading to a point before I finished- looking at you FNV), I'm not sure I would play. It's my biggest gripe with New Vegas.

You're poll is biased, your making those who rather not such an implementation seem extreme in their views and unreasonable.

The game shouldn't need to facilitate such sentimentality optional or not, TES series has for the most part been an open world where the fate of all protagonists in the series have been up for debate and open ended for the players themselves to decide. FO3's kill off the main character bit was exclusive to Fo3 only as far as Bethesda is concerned and wasn't really well recieved, you don't beat Elders scrolls, you play it, you experience the story and play it as you wish. thats why its a sandbox RPG and not a on rails or linear RPG. if you want to kill your character, then kill your character I don't see why you need cinimatics and some backdrop voice to reaffirm this, and yeah killing your character and getting a reload screen is no different from Fo3's ending, you get a reload screen and you start from an earlier save or start a new character, you need reinforcement for this?

no I'll pass. best of all everyone is happy and can do with and think of their character as THEY wish and not have the game decide for them, some people like to play through the MQ and then deal with side quests and other avenues of play, not get cut off and have some much undone and I rather not cook porkchops and collect toy pieces for timmy while Dragons are buring down my door step, but its ok because I know Ill die in the end I might as well play abbated and do as much as I can before starting the MQ. and Im tired of people using the word optional in an effort to make anyone who disagrees to look like an idgit, just because something can, doesn't mean something should that term is such a buzzword around here optional doesn't make it inherently good and all encompassing.

How? You still get to continue after you become the hero, just like Oblivion.

After finishing the game, punch a guard. Problem solved.

I'm back... all I'm saying is, Bethesda would have to come up with an excuse about how you could live or die. That or avoid the subject entirely, say it was lost in history, whatever.

Haha, certainly wouldn't make me happy. Half the reward is seeing the result of your world saving. Personally, I hope they add some more quests as a continuation of the main quest after its climix to show how the world has changed. A weak point in Oblivion was that at the end, I didn't feel like anything had really changed.