I have read quite a few posts regarding requests/wishes for alternative endings and guild exclusions. Below are my thoughts on the subject.

As we can tell, guilds are clearly separately designed in oblivion as they do not interact at all, which leads to strange shenanigans, such as the Archmage stealing from himself.

However I can understand that, from a programming and project management point of view, it is much easier to develop and test them as independent modules. Too much interactions between modules (guilds/faction) makes the whole thing very complex and much much harder to test.

If TES is built on story telling, such as JRPG or other linear RPG then they should go out on a limb to make sure each module fits tightly with other, since it's all linear. However TES is built as a open world, this means interactions between modules would actually go against the world design principle.

Case in point is Fallout NV, the game was mainly lambasted for two things, bugs and having a small world. It is mayhaps only half the size of fallout 3 as most POI on the map were uninteresting abandoned shacks and most of the houses cannot be entered.

The main reason is because they had to spend so much time developing and testing and debugging the main quest with all its alternate endings, factions and complex interactions.

So my take is this, while it would be interesting to have interplay between MQ factions (empire vs rebels), to go too deep into it (winterhold vs thieves vs campanions vs DB vs bards) would actually reduce skyrim from open world into a more linear multipath game. That and also the new release date will be 12-12-12.

I'd be willing to sacrifice some of the world and take a few a bugs for the sake of a better, more immersive branching story with choices and consequences. Or even better, a few months longer development time to get both. I liked New Vegas a lot more than Fallout 3. Only thing it didnt do better was the world and cities which were the game's biggest flaws. Bethesda probably does those better than anyone else. Story, characters, dialogue, quests, factions etc in New Vegas were a lot better than anything Bethesda has ever done. I did like Fallout 3 giving my character backstory though and how it made him more involved in the world which was probably the only thing Fallout 3 did better outside the world, cities and those.

I reject false dichotomy and lowered expectations.

This isn't a presidential election. I don't have to settle for "less bad."

You characterization of RPGs heavily based on storytelling being "linear"is grotesque, absurd, and frankly, it tells me you really dont play much RPGs, and you are simply trying to make your self seem "hardcoe"by appealing to a prejudiced dislike of linearity.

The reality of it is, TES is not, and has never been the most "hardcoe"of RPGs, whatever that means, and saying others are linear while open world RPGs arent is a stupid argument that falls on its own butt, givien the reality that TES is the only fully realized open world RPG; so you are basically comparing it with nothing.

All RPGs are story heavy, period. By its nature, TES is less story driven, and if thats good or not, is another discussion.

i think you just making stuff up. the reason the world feels smaller is because they made it into a big loop instead of more of a square like fallout 3 was. if you remove the invisible walls with a mod there is actually alot of extra space to run around in, it just needs to be filled with mods. obsidian did not make the engine so they had to learn from scratch as opposed to bethesda which was already familiar with it from oblivion. not to mention they didnt have as much time to work on it as bethesda did with fallout 3. there is also the belief held by many including me that obsidian is great with ideas they just are lacking in the implementation part.

fallout NV faction relation system is lightyears better than oblivions and fallout 3s and going backwards would only hurt the game. you mentioned that fallout NV was criticized for having a small world and for bugs but then you leave out that one of the things that it was pretty much universally praised for was faction interaction and little touches like being able to wear disguises to get into enemy faction areas. that and quest design was considered by most people to be superior to fallout 3s.

in a previous post i asked the question why the mages guild and only the mages guild was worried about manimarcos return. he was supposed to be the monstrous civilization ending super villian and yet the fighter guild wasnt worried about him, nor the thieves guild or the legion or anyone else. only the mages guild was worried. this leads to unrealistic reactions between the guilds. doing something.......i hate to use the word but i will.........EPIC...........should be recognized between guilds and not just the guild you did it for.

fallout NV is certianly not the first game that had multiple endings in fact alternate endings is a staple of all the fallout games not just NV.

1) I have not actually said Fallout NV was better or worse than Fallout 3, I merely state the major complain points of the game.
2) Fallout NV is smaller if you total all the interior and external world spaces. Many players were rightful disappointed to find many of the POI nothing more than a dead Brahmin and some ooze. Many of the house do not have interior spaces, leading to mod projects just to cover the shortfalls.
3) I have not state that linear RPG or JRPG is bad. I have beaten Ruby weapon, 1-manned Ultimetica and maxed all stats on Ramza. I merely wish to remind the viewers where Bethesda's strength and weakness is.
4) The purpose of this post is to "soften" the blow for viewers who expect Fallout NV levels of interconnecting storyline and faction, the key feature that lets it stand out from Fallout 3. Should the features I have drawn attention to be in the final game, kudos to Bethesda. I will be more than happy to be proven wrong.