FWIW, I don't like death endings, either. It too often feels like a cheap gimmick, especially in a game that doesn't have to end because the one quest line is over.

However, I disagree with not locking the players out of questlines if they do certain things. You don't have to do everything in one play through. That's the beauty of open-world, that you can go somewhere or do something, and stumble into a chain of events that has implications on the world. You can also have another character that doesn't stumble into those events and doesn't trigger those implications, allowing different scenerios to play out. Not having the world recognize what you're doing just makes it feel static and unliving. You should try to avoid thinking there's a "right" playthrough order to quests.. it's a sandbox game, and the way you play will always be "right". That doesn't necessarily mean you can do whatever you want whenever, though.

That said, paths don't need to be closed off for the sake of being closed off. Just because you join the Fighters Guild shouldn't lock you out of the Mages Guild, for example (as long as you meet the skill requirements). But the world should react logically to your choices...if you become a ruthless murderer, anti-murderer groups should respond in kind.


It's not much of a consequence if it can be avoided or worked around, is it?


I would add in "harshly" there, but yes, I agree. Don't harshly punish players for something they couldn't have forseen.

Going to have to go with the bottommost option. Fable has these types of things covered well enough to go around I think.

-DL :chaos:

No they don't. They're called hypothetical situations. Also, thanks for reading the thread. I know you did because I've already explained this.


Yeah you've got a fair point there, although the last question was more for comedic relief than anything. I anticipated this topic getting a little heated.


And that's exactly what I'm advocating...

If the paths are equal and the choice of dying for greater good (or for what ever reason) is presented in the ending, I don't really see how it would be lazy. If the player cares about the story and its outcomes, s/he won't hesitate to choose the option - if the player doesn't care about it, well, then it doesn't really matter what s/he chooses. I'm not saying the death should be unexpected in a sense, that in the ending the character dies by a surprise - but just that it should be an equal choice among others, based on the way one has played the game. Railroading the player to an ending which has already been revealed and forcing a detour to other endings (which would then also be revealed) doesn't, in my opinon, sound too good or do good for the sense of accomplishment the ending should provide. Wouldn't it feel much like watching a movie with a complicated plot and then, at the half way through, your friend tells you the ending? What excitement would that leave for the rest of the movie?

Well most people here have complained that characters should be able to serve the greater good without dying, so the only reason left that character death can be worked into the story is if they simply don't safeguard themselves before going off to fight Alduin, which is suicidal laziness.


That will still end in people raging on the forums because they didn't see their character's death coming. And then you have to let them play after the credits even though their character died to appease them which negates the impact that the story was meant to have in the first place.

Sure, the character should be able to do so. But the ending scene alone shouldn't be the classifying factor of "the greater good", and there are ways to provide "safeguarding" through sidequests which the game recommends but does not force upon the player or fully reveal their purpose. If the player chooses to ignore them, that's his fault, not the games - if the player is guided through a "safe path" saying "come this way, and you will survive", it just feels lame and patronizing (I know I would feel like a kid being led through a themepark, should that be the case ). It leaves very little responsibility for the player, and thus the consequences of his actions would also lower in value.

For a simple example, an NPC prominent to the MQ path gives the player a series of completely optional tasks that "could provide helpful in his journey", the player then chooses to either do them or not. And if the final quest was handled like in Fallout: New Vegas (as in informing the payer that going past this point will lead to the endgame scene, and there is no backing from this quest - and if there is still something the player wishes to do to prepare for this quest, now would be the time to do it) I don't see a problem. Save at that point, see what happens, if unsatisfied by the result, reload and prepare yourself better.



What wouldn't end in people raging in the forums.

What the players wouldn't see, is the choice of dying coming. And as said above, it would be completely dependant on the players own actions whether s/he would be "safe guarded" from it - if you wrecklessly ram through everything, you have to suffer the consequences. Unnecessary cuddling of the player by telling him the consequences beforehand and leading him around them by the nose is just taking the audience as stupider than they might actually be.

I'm still of the opinion that the easiest way to handle this would be to leave the characters fate open for interpretation instead of clearly killing him (as one choice), and make it clear that the freeplay is of no indication about what happened in the story.

You make a very good case and I agree with you now that I can see where you're coming from. Bravo. I would still want my character's death to be fairly explicit if that's the ending I'm given, though, and I certainly wouldn't want to be offered post credits gameplay with my dead character.

But thanks for the input.

Well, it was nice to have a nonflammable discussion for a change. We'll see how the game ends up, and either agree or disagree with the solution.

Yes i didn't want to vote either for the very same reason. When i make a poll, atleast i add an option for everyone (including the ones i don't agree with) and i don't denigrate them for their opinion, you should try the same. Gives you a much better impression of what people really want, even if you don't like the result.

Maybe you should reread both the poll and the OP and perhaps even the thread, as I have explained myself numerous times now.

I have read both the poll and the original post, that should be enough. If you are not able to express exactly what you mean in any of them, then that's your problem. Besides, i don't believ for a second that this is simply a misunderstanding. There is no mistaking when the two last options is "Sure, I agree that character death should be a possibility in the ending. The entire game shouldn't have to bend over backwards to accommodate people who can't deal with consequence" and "I'm going to bury my head in the sand and impede rational discussion by saying that I want to RP a 100% pure character who finishes the MQ but who also wants to do some mining afterwards. Hahahaha! ". You are trying to force your personal opinion on everyone who vote. You can't run from that.

I was trying to provide some comic relief, as you would have found out by rereading the OP. If this thread gets to part two I shall remove the last question since it's causing so much controversy. The rest of the poll is hypothetical, although people seem to be struggling with that concept as well. That also you would have had explained to you had you reread the OP.

Awful idea.

Thanks for contributing.

To disguise it as humor is not gonna cut it. You are just trying to run away from the fact that you tried to manipulate people to vote like you pleased. Some might believ you, but i don't.

This makes no sense.


1. ALL Elder Scrolls games you can play after you finish the story.

2. How do you keep playing after an unfinished story? Did you not kill Alduin or something?

I don't understand. Explanation, anybody?

Then please stop posting in this topic. Neither of us is going to achieve anything by spouting our own opinion over and over again while remaining totally closed off to the other's.


I don't understand what you mean here. Could you elaborate?

Closed for clean up

Nope, not going to clean it up. Too much bickering and we are only allowed to be critical in accordance with forum rules. That is not happening here. I suggest some of you read those rules, especially this one.

http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?/topic/724862-forum-rules-and-general-information/