Once again, speculation on your part. You have no idea if marriage will be beneficial or not to gameplay. Even if it is not directly beneficial, it still can be as it's adding something else to do.

Its a lot easier to casually dismiss an argument than to prove why its wrong. People tend to do such things when:

a: They don't understand the argument in the first place
b: They do understand it, but don't want to deal with it, out of fear that it will prove them wrong.
c: They know they're wrong, but just don't want to admit it.

Its called "hand-waving".

http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20090423143046/fallout/images/thumb/4/43/Marie.jpg/699px-Marie.jpg



if it's implemented as a core feature of the game it provides a much more solid foundation for modders to mod. case in point: hardcoe mode for New Vegas, versus all the weird [censored] scripted workarounds that hunger systems for Morrowind, Oblivion and Fallout 3 have had to use.

also you're ignoring the http://kotaku.com/5078237/fallout-3-moves-47-million-copies who will be playing this game without access to mods.



and now we're one step closer in that direction :3



in...what? role-play potential? becoming archmage in Morrowind and Oblivion gives you a [censored] bedroom and some stuff. maybe the ability to steal anything that's not nailed down from any Mages' Guild. after that there's nothing at all.



except, you know, there might be more to it than that. NOBODY KNOWS YET. somebody earlier mentioned political marriages. you said you didn't like that, but guess what - that would impact the game.

...Except not everyone will be a hero? Believe it or not, there are people who logged hundreds of hours in Oblivion, just barely touching the main quest line. Even then, some people might go for a calmer life and settle down, doing the occasional quest but mostly focusing on all the little things you can do in the game. It's a role playing game. Giving choices like this make it more of a role playing game. And just like some will choose to live a basic life in Skyrim and ignore the story altogether, others will become a hero, do all the quests, and be a warrior the whole time they play and ignore marriage and jobs. There are more than just a couple ways to play the game. Not everyone who gets married in the game would irresponsibly go hunt down dragons. Be attacked by one and having to defend themselves? Maybe.

Point is, some people will use it, some people will not, just like in Fable. Doesn't matter how someone else plays, just matters how you enjoy the game.

Sure, and so can working restrooms.

It's most likely not going to be beneficial. At least, not in a way that justifies it being in-game.

I THINK IT'S PROBABLY GOING TO BE THIS WAY is not a legitimate rebuttal because you have no proof that it might be that way vs. some proof that it might be another way.

it's okay to admit defeat. you don't have a REPUTATION TO UPHOLD - nobody's going to remember this argument in the morning anyway.

For one thing, if you haven't realized that about a quarter of the ENTIRE point of Fable is to be part joke, then you are missing a good part of the point. Fable is one fourth British Humour at heart, so if you look at certain aspects of the game and giggle and call it pure foolishness, they have achieved at least part of their purpose. While it will certainly offer quirky and comic moments, ES will likely never go the way of being loaded with farts and ass slapping dances, because that is out of keeping with the tone of the gameworld.

Fable had a lot of shortcomings. The fact that you could get married was not one of them.

Fable III had some of the BEST local co-op, drop in/drop out I have seen in ANY game since Baldur's Gate. Fable had some decent clothing options, and some fun relationship options. Sadly, its lore was shoddy, its quests were short, and the creatures were too few.

Marraiges was one of the things people liked about the Fable Series.

It was not the features the Fable series OFFERED that made people gripe about Fable. It was the things the series did NOT offer. The main quests were too short, the side quests were too few in number, some of the interactions lacked depth, some of the relationships lacked frequency.

Seldom if ever have people been heard saying, "I Hate that you could get married in Fable!!!" or "I hate that Fable III allowed my friend to play with me when he came over to visit!"

You DID hear complaints about how short the game was, how few sidequests were offered, how there were not enough replayable quests, and how there wasn't enough lore etc. But where marraige was concerned, you are far more likely to hear people complaining that there were not ENOUGH things to do with your spouse, than to hear anyone complaining that you could have a spouse. I have been on the Fable Forums. You want to know what people complain about in the Marraige department? The fact that their wives didn't WEAR the clothes and Jewelry they bought them, and wouldn't sit down to eat with them, and didn't go to bed in Fable II and III like they did in I and how it broke the verisimilitude etc. etc. etc.

My point in all this? Simple. The ability to marry and have six and relationships is NOT one of Fable's shortcomings, by most people's reckoning. It is not the thing that made those games fall short of many people's expectations ( I do not say failure, because a lot of people enjoyed those games for what they were, and I don't think you can call a game that sells more than 3 million copies in its first year out a failure).

The relationship feature almost certainly is NOT going to ruin Skyrim or any other Elder Scrolls game. Removing features hurts games. Adding features usually only HELPS, unless the added feature causes other well loved features to be cut, or directly contradicts the lore of the game world.

These games also appeal to female players and if you want the widest base you need to appeal to both genders.

Furthermore, anything that can trigger an emotional response (something to tie you to the game) increases immersion and the character made increases in self value based on the player. Good designers will be able to manipulate the emotional response by tried and true design choices and elements.

So...what happened to Greed? Maybe he just logged off. Or.....? bliviongate:

I would be surprised if they didn't offer various relationship types, homo, hetero, polyamourous and otherwise. Hell, if you can marry Argonians you just aught to be able to marry any damned thing.

And good point about the archmage business. And, brother, let me tell you, WOE betide ANYBODY who tries to stand between me and my Archmage status.

:sorcerer: "AVADA KEDAVRA!!" :nono: :shocking:

this whole argument has actually sort of endeared me to the idea of marriage in Skyrim. where before i was utterly indifferent, now i'm genuinely curious how it'll turn out.

i'm very much hoping there's some questline involving a political marriage, and that the NPCs in-game actually respond believably to the idea of being married (more specifically, that they will mourn the death of his/her lover).

Did I say it was perfect for the game? No, I'm as skeptical as all of you are about marriage and relationships, but at least I'm willing to give them a chance in uncharted waters. And you're "It's optional statement" really, really doesn't make a whole lot of sense. One of the grounds of TES is CHOICE. To go LEFT, or RIGHT. Now, if saying more along the lines of "If you don't like guns, which have no place in the game whatsoever, don't use them" then i get what you mean, but give the game a chance to grow and expand.

One thing I'm utterly sick of is the fact that most people here don't even know what an Elder Scrolls game is. No, it's not about saving the world. It's not about being the hero. It's not about having the most gold. It's not about having the best armor.

It's a roleplaying game. Meaning you play a role. It can be the role of whatever you want. If the player wants to roleplay as a peasant farmer, that's up to him. If he wants to be a noble knight, so be it. If he wants to play as an inbred leper with hearing problems and false teeth then dammit, he should be able to!

If you want to go off do nothing but the main quest, then do it. But don't go around saying "They shouldn't have the option to do anything but going off and doing the main quest!" If that's what you're looking for then go and play some shoddy, linear type action-platformer, not an Elder Scrolls game.

Ahhh, I am still laughing about the kleptomaniac Archmage. How did you know I played as one? lol/ "Hmmm. I need a couple thousand in gold, fast, and. . . . well, aren't these a nice set of Expert alchemy ambelics, that each go for about 300 gold a piece on the open market." *begins sliding entire shelf of ambelics and calcinators into magical pouch.* "That will teach these damned disrespectful bastards a lesson about not bothering to bow when I walk into the building."

And thanks for the console user mention. Everyone who wants the game NOT to offer this or that option always turns to the "just use the creation kit" argument, forgetting that millions (the majority of the game's purchasers, by Todd's own testimony) do NOT have access to any such kit.

Waaaaay to be inconsiderate of the less fortunate, folks. :slap:

The key problem is this, and this alone: A small group of old school fans can't get over the fact that Bethesda's design decisions don't revolve around their own personal preferences.

Newsflash: Its in the game. Nothing you can do about it. You don't like it, don't use it.

Oh and by the way, I've played since Daggerfall.

Maybe the only way to gain important information, complete some quests or assassinate someone is to apply for a job in certain households, taverns, castles etc.

I'm juist gonna say it; everyone else is right, Greed is wrong. Case closed, goodnight.

Yeah, heading off to bed. Goodnight.

ikr. Immersion, lol. Who needs it?

it's an rpg right?

i want to be the dragonborn begger.

I never said you said it was perfect; I choose not to accept this "marriage and job" business.