Yeah really i don't want to have to rush through the MQ only to have everyone know my name, when i'm trying to role play a rouge or something.

Then you probably shouldn't play this game. Because if you choose not to deal with dragons for some undetermined amount of time, they will surely seek you out and deal with you.

Learning dragon shouts is part of the main quest.

If you don't want to learn dragon shouts or fight any dragons, just run away from them. That is a realistic reaction for role-playing most types of characters.

Personally i think that would go against what TES stands for, after all isn't their motto "Do what you want, be who you want."?

I've played every game since Arena. If the dragons become too irritating, I'll start looking for the mod that scuttles 'em. THAT is the beauty of sandbox games.

Actually, in Oblivion, you don't even kill the end boss, he shows up and Martin takes care of him through the power of deus ex machina, which is part of why I found Oblivion's main quest's ending rather unsatisfying. Sure, Dagoth Ur may have made for a rather underwhelming boss fight, but at least I got to take care of him myself. Hopefully, though, Alduin makes for a more satisfying final confrontation.

Unless of course you mean Mankar Camoron, but he was still not much of a satisfying boss to fight.



When did I ever say encountering dragons was a punishment? I actually like what I've seen of Skyrim's dragons so far, however, we already know dragons can attack randomly, that's not what I was referring to. What I meant is to say that this thread is suggesting adding some kind of penalty for not doing the main quest quickly enough, and when I think of that, what I think of is not dragons attacking, when I think of being punished for taking too long with the main quest, I think of towns being destroyed, characters being killed, or just having certain parts of the game's content entirely closed off, or even just outright losing, THAT is what I mean when I speak of punishing the player for taking too long with the main quest, not being attacked by dragons. As you said yourself, dragons are supposed to be part of the appeal of the game, if fighting them becomes a punishment, then we have a problem.

Only in the process of main quest, and only if we have an option of not starting it. I see it like this - certain events should be put in to motion by the player for the dragons to arrive, if we ignore the quest at that point something bad happens. But if you just don't get involved with the main quest nothing does - no one sad that you get arrested right before the big trouble now, don't they? It is possible that your character arrives in Skyrim, gets arrested, escapes, lives there for let's say 10 years, and only than the trouble start full scale. The time at witch the trouble hit the land should be indirectly determinate by the player, by the player choosing to follow certain quests. Than I can agree that once the dragons show up something has to be done and preferably not in the next century

I can see the possibility of consequences for dawdling once you reach a point in the quest where there is sufficient urgency in the storyline. Just so long as it is easy to ignore the quest in a new game and avoid getting to that place so that you don't have to deal with it every play-through.

Spoiler!! Sorry Bootysweat.

I mainly don't want another Kvatch, like say the Dragons destroy a town that's scripted to happen in the MQ and it's doomed for the rest of the playthrough...That would be bull poo!

Thanks very much for clarifying this.

I highly doubt Skyrim will lock off any content or make us "lose the game" if we dally a long time before completing the main quest.

In numerous interviews Todd has stressed that he knows there are two types of players, those who might rush into the main quest, and others (like me) who have been playing Oblivion for years and never even scratched the surface of the main quest, and that they designed the game with both types in mind.

What they tried to do with Skyrim is entice us to progress at least a little bit in the main quest by giving us words of power to learn and a reason to hunt dragons (to absorb their souls), ultimately so we can learn new dragon shouts. Each time we do this, we are progressing a little bit in the main quest.

I have no idea whether some NPCs might get killed by dragons, however if that turns out to be the case, personally, I think it adds something really cool to the game, a bit more believable game world. After all, there are dragons in this land and they are dangerous creatures. That is not something that would ever make me rush to complete the main quest.

I will never complete the main quest of any TES game until I've been playing for at least a few hundred hours and I'm ready to retire the character and "end the game." Some people might enjoy finishing the main quest and then continuing to play, but personally, I feel like the game is over at that point and I enjoy putting that off until I'm good and ready, perhaps 300 - 500 hours after I start the playthrough.

No...guys...just think about this. It's really NOT that good of an idea. A Bethesda game that tries to FORCE your to do that main quest, well let's just say I think it would be better for Beth to avoid that. It would go against the whole, be what you want", do what you want concept. If you decide that your character isn't interested in doing the main quest, dragons to win, want's to live as a normal citizen, or just doesn't care either way, being FORCED to do the main quest will probably get Beth plenty of negative feedback and backlash. If they implemented that feature, well, I wouldn't rush out to save the world. i'd either do it WHEN I wanted or let the dragons win as would MANY others here.

I just read the the title and knew exactly what I wanted to say for this:

WORST. IDEA. EVER. (today).

Why should there be a penalty for waiting to do the main quest? This is the Elder Scrolls... you're supposed to be able to forget there even is a main quest... (without penalty).

Being able to ignore the main quest is an ES MO

I don't really "hate" this idea, because it would add more realism to the game, and we all want more realism. But, I do think this would take away some enjoyment of Skyrim for me and for many others. I think BGS is finding a good balance for the amount of realism in their game. Do I really need my character to have to pee. I don't think it's necessary. I also think I'd like to just enjoy the world they've created and try out everything in it. I've seen many comments from other posts about how TES is becoming too linear, and this would definitely be making the game more linear. Basically pushing you towards the main quest is removing much of the "Be who you want, do what you want" motto that TES adheres to. I still think it's a good idea, but don't feel that style of gameplay fits with any open-world RPG, let alone TES.

REALLY?! To those people I have to ask, how the HELL is the Elder Scrolls becoming linear?! It's pretty much 0% linear. I wonder if some people even know what they are talking about.

There is an unlimited amount of great, deep stories where the protagonist doesn't have to save the world ('saving the world' is as unoriginal as a story can get anyway). Especially not from a direct threat, like dragons or Daedra attacking. And that doesn't mean the player has to be a nobody and has to do boring stuff like managing a chicken farm. Unless the only type of movie/book you watch/read is something like 'Independence Day' you should know there are enough stories to prove my point.

The problem is what I described in my other post - if evil creatures spawn everywhere and attack everyone on sight (and if everyone even talks about it as if the end of the world is near), yet nothing ever happens unless the player chooses to advance the quest then how can you feel threatened? Did you ever feel threatened when you played Oblivion's main quest? And instead of saving the world could walk around collecting Nirnroots while the world was supposed to be destroyed by a huge army of Daedra in the meantime? I certainly didn't. It was ridiculous and with dragons in Skyrim it will be exactly the same. They appear and kill people, everyone talks as if the end of the world is near, yet nothing meaningful ever happens if you choose to ignore the main quest. Dragons will be nothing but hot air, just like Daedra in Oblivion.



How can the boss impose a threat to the land if you can simply ignore him?

I think what's confusing about this thread is that the OP is half suggesting that Skyrim will have some kind of penalty for waiting to long to address the main quest and half suggesting this as a new idea to add to Skyrim.

So some people are responding to the OP by saying no way that is never going to be in Skyrim, or if that is in Skyrim they will be disappointed.

While others are responding to the OP by saying, no way, that is a bad idea to add to Skyrim that doesn't fit with the essence of open world TES games.

There just really needs to be some internal consistency.

Like for example if an NPC tells you outright that they wont last for more than a few days trying to hold back a group of bandits, you better believe that town will be sacked and populated by bandits 1 or 2 days later.

No for me, thanks.

I meant in my post earlier that there should be some quests that cause you to finish that quest while some shouldn't be so urgent. (I'm ok with some parts of the main questline causing me to finish that specific quest otherwise there will be dire consequences: the "if you don't seal off that gate enemies will eventually overrun Skyrm [but not like Oblivion where they are almost unnoticeable])

When I meant that the "end boss should impose a threat to the land" I meant in the sense that it will change skyrim + the people inhabiting it (a change in Npc actions and behavior, small + largescale attacks/invasions/battles [not scripted, or at least semi-dynamic where they are not important battles that are part of a main quest to finish that battle]

Rather than only at the end where he is nowhere to be found until the last 5 seconds of the game, It would be better/more interesting if their presence is noticeable but not necessary to finish in order to do what you want. (ie. bad things are happening around you, but you still have the freedom to do what you want)

It would be interesting I think, if Alduin shows up and makes his presence and influence known almost from the get-go of the main quest, but you are simply not powerful or prepared enough to take him on until the end.

In my opinion forcing the player to do the main-quest is a bad idea.
Rather make it that interesting and rewarding, that everyone actually wants to play it.

NO

that defeats the purpose of a sandbox style game.

HELL no.

I only favor positive reinforcement thats done subtly.

For example, my Oblivion install has an economy mod that makes all the merchants a bit poorer during the Oblivion crisis and richer once the realm is saved. That encourages me to get it done so I can profit more from my other activities, thats OK. But certainly not wrecking towns and things like that. :brokencomputer: