No. It was silly to be the leader of all the guilds since some hated each other. I want vampire quests and since this is the nordic homeland i want werewolf quests. New vegas did a good job of joining 1 faction results in the failure of the other faction. This will cause multiple play throughs and keep things fresh. But if it does end up being an open ended content like oblivion, there will always be roleplaying.

Edit: as stated, bring back skill requirements. It was funny to be an arch-magister and not knowing magic at all.

It depends on the number of factions I think. I prefer to play Elder Scrolls games as a few long games than a bunch of short ones. If there's only like, one guild for mages and one for fighters and they hate each other, then if I'm a battlemage I'd only have one group to join.

Maybe individual quests would have conflicts that would force you to be more committed to one or the other, and maybe you can only get to the upper ranks in one of them. So there would be new things to see on your next game and quests that you can do differently, but not by locking you out of most of the game in each one. Even getting booted out of one guild for making a disloyal choice would be more interesting and make for a better story than just being turned away at the beginning for being part of another guild.

I guess I don't see what you mean by "Bethesda is moving away from this." Bethesda produced Morrowind, Oblivion, and Fallout 3 recently. Morrowind had competing factions, and you could only join a few in a single playthrough depending on how you played it. Oblivion moved away from this, allowing you to join every faction without consequence. In Fallout 3 there weren't any factions, just kharma, so this was moving towanrds even more linearity in my opinion. New Vegas was published by Bethesda, but it WAS NOT PRODUCED BY BETHESDA. Therefor, I argue that Bethesda has been moving more toward linearity, as far as factions go. Hopefully they will end this trend in Skyrim, but the current pattern shows linearity rocketing.

If people want to role play restrictions let them, but I don't support shoving those restrictions on all others.

One of the key things I loved when I was first introduced to this series with Oblivion was the freedom. "Requiring lots of prior planning" is another way of saying "tedium" for me (such as the awful in my opinion +5 bonus requirements for example).

I don't support restrictions all because some people take issue with how others play a single player game. My Oblivion character has 140+ hours on him. That is my choice.

No, that was one of the things wrong with Oblivion IMO. Quests and quest lines felt more like levels in an action game rather than actual elements of a world. You join the fighters guild, complete all their 'levels' and become the guild master, then you move on to the mages guild and complete the 'levels' and then the dark brotherhood and then the thieves guild etc. You didn't have a role, the player was everything. No matter who you chose to be (fighter, mage, archer) the game would play out the exact same for everybody. Compare that to Daggerfall where if you joined a guild while in another guild your first guild would expel you or at least lose respect for you, thus each playthrough was vastly different depending on your class and choices.

I bet there is a joinable tribe of naked nords

but seriously, I agree that there should be rival factions. Pretty weird If you can be a goody two shoes in a legion and a criminal scum in some obviously opposing faction at the same time.

Actually New Vegas WAS Produced by Bethesda - you need to read up a little more on the game, Bethesda had a Major hand in making New Vegas possible.

That said, and listening to all of the podcasts from Bethesda and following them closely, they have said many times that one of the game mechanics they really enjoy/embrace is the concept that the Players Actions have a real impact on the world. Todd Howard has said this himself, I can't remember which of the 5 podcasts it was in, so I encourage you to listen to them all if you really want insight into their overall thinking.

But yes, the general trend by Bethesda is moving AWAY from linear games that force the player through a rat maze - and much more towards games in which the players actions have real consequences for the game - just as with New Vegas. The "main quest" in Fallout3 was fairly linear, but the entire rest of the content was not - it was very open to what the player did. And within the main story in Fo3 you had options on how to handle things - right up to the end where you either sacrifice yourself or your friend. You can "miss" a ton of content in Fo3 if you don't explore the world. We could argue this and reasonable people can disagree on that point, but everything I have read and heard is that Bethesda is moving away from Linear story telling.

As I said, listen to the podcasts - they reveal alot of their opinions and views on game development that are very telling for the next game(s).

Miax

I voted that it should be possible but would require considerate amount of planning.

I liked how it was in Oblivion being able to join all the factions but I wouldn't mind something like Morrowind (Not New Vegas) where you could only join either the Fighters Guild or the Thieves Guild.

That was not a Bethesda Game Studios game, it was made by Obsidian. Bethesda Softworks DID have a major hand in making the game possible, NOT Bethesda Game Studios. TESV is being made by, you guessed it, Bethesda Game Studios. You cannot show that BGS has been moving away from linearity and use New Vegas as a source. Morrowind is the best example I can give for being like New Vegas in terms of factions/guilds. I was arguing that, on a purely guild/faction based standpoint, BGS has been moving more toward linearity in their most recent games. I think there is an issue with communication here, and I will be the forst to admit that I was not being as clear as I could have been in the post you were responding to, but I feel that BGS games have been moving away from "All Actions have Consequences" system and more toward the "Whatever, it's all good, you can fix it later" system of factions.

Now in terms of being able to miss content, that is a substantial part of linearity, but not what this thread is about. This thread is more about consequences than anything, especially concerning factions, and I apologize if that is not what this thread seems to be based on the name (I have just started making threads myself recently, and it is a trial and error experience for me). And as to your inquiry concerning my listening to the Podcasts, I have listened to all of them, and even read the speculation concerning them. I found almost nothing substantial concerning BGS's future game, but if you would kindly point me to a specific podcast or quote I would gladly examine them.

Please please please no. This is an RPG for gods sake.

you shouldn't see all of it, you should just see most of it otherwise people would get mad that there isn't enough stuff, they should however specify things to classes

Part of the problem in Oblivion was that there were so few factions that I'm not sure that it would have made sense to not let the player join all of the. Hopefully, though, there will be a return to more factions, making restrictions on how many and which you can join a more reasonable game mechanic.

And yes, please, bring back skill requirements to join/advance in certain guilds!

I'd like to agree with you, but unfortunately non of it is like that.

Bethesda is, from what we've seen, not moving away from it, Oblivion was much more linear than Morrowind was, it was a gameplay backstep. Only good step was action.

Also if linear games are the past why are we having more and more of them?

I think a well planned character should be able to experience most of what there is to do, but definitely not all of what there is to do. There should be some quests, events, and activities based on race, class, and maybe even six. Some factions should not accept you if you are already a member of a different specific faction.

I liked Morrowinds system. It was cool that you actually had to be a good mage if you wanted to get far in the Mages guild. And how you coulndt be in both the IL and the Thieves Guild

The only reason to play the game again is to go a different path. There has to be consequences for your actions. You should not be able to join multiple guilds, or factions, without having havinng some prerequesites.

I voted yes but I would be happy to start over any time if I could keep some or all of my skill levels and loot.
In that case I would be ok not being able to do all in one game.

Actually...no, that's not true at all. It is perfectly possible to create meaningful consequences without "walling off" sections of content. Difficulty level, for example: if you join up with Faction A, then Quest X should become much more difficult to accomplish because the group or faction providing you with Quest X disapprove of your association with Faction A. They could force you to "prove" your loyalty by assassinating an important (but nonessential) member of Faction A, and until you do that you cannot proceed through the quest. At that point, you can attempt the assassination, but if you fail or are discovered in the act, then you lose access to Faction A.

That's just one example, but what I'm essentially saying is: players should always be given choices, be given chances - that way, when they do make a mistake and lose access to some block of content, it has meaning, permanancy. There should never be any motivation for you to regress into a "quicksave" mentality, where you're loading up your last save to "fix" a choice you made. There should always be enough of a "way out" to motivate the player to stick by their choices and explore the outcome. Otherwise, it becomes a metagame of "save and see which choice has a better outcome, then load up the save and pick that option". That destroys immersion more than this percieved "linearity" ever could.

Just to be clear: I am in no way saying actions shouldn't have consequences. I am also absolutely against making it easy to access every quest in one playthrough. All I'm saying is, with enough skill, it should be possible to access all of the content in the game in one playthrough. Otherwise, you're not actually risking anything by making decisions - you're riding a predetermined flow chart.

Well, I was basically going to post this exact same thing. I also believe there should be skill requirements. As others have stated, you should be a incredible mage to become the Arch Mage.

I would like some replay value. Allthough that didnt stop me from playing Oblivion for 4 years.

I agree with that concept, wholeheartedly. I think making certain tasks more difficult to accomplish adds meaning to them - so that, if you're friends with Faction A and Faction B, you'd feel much more satisfied if you managed to complete both their questlines right under the noses of the opposing group. The content would still be different, in the sense that quests might be harder or tweaked to accommodate the differing story structure, but it'd be similar enough that if you and I approached the game in two different ways, we could have similar experiences while still having enough differences in our stories to make discussion of what we chose to do interesting.

I think it comes down to balance: how do you make the game different enough to be interesting without making the game significantly shorter or longer for some players? It's certainly a challenge, but you can't assume that simply removing content is the solution.

That is a very interesting concept, and one that I think could work well in Skyrim. There would be enough consequences for your actions to please people like me, who want replay value and realistic consequences, and those who do not want any content to be walled off. Thank you ConfusedCartman, your insight is always welcome.

A minor clarification:

"How do you make the game different enough to be interesting without making the game significantly shorter or longer for some players?"

You mean being forced into a much longer experience unintentionally, based on aligning with a certain faction? I, for one, want as much game as possible, so I think I might want a significantly longer game. Perhaps you could elaborate, oh confused one?

No

I think they got away with it in Oblivion because the faction, though fun, were not particularly important and mostly did not care about each other. In Morrowind it would have felt even worse than it did in Oblivion if they did not have factions respond to the fact you were working with their enemy. I mean a large portion of the game centered around the political strugles within the region.

But yeah I would like to see it handled more like it was in Morrowind - at least if those restrictions make sense. I mean if you join the dark brotherhood or Morag Tong then it's not like the fighter's guild will see in branded on your forhead. Of course if you join the Morag Tong (I know that's not all that likely) then I can imagine the dark brotherhood approaching you while you sleep with a very different tone then when they are out recruiting.

But yeah I would like to see factions "matter" like they did in Morrowind. The danger is that restrictions feel artificial and forced - IE if they have restrictions because of conflicts then they better ACTUALLY have conflicting interests. They did that well in Morrowind - but I would hate to be told "I'm sorry, blah blah blah, we don't like that other guild even though they're right next door to us in every major city. No joining for you" without the conflict actually being something that plays out somwehere in either guild's storyline. There were a couple times in Morrowind where there was not so much a "restruction" that said "No guild for you X-guild member!" but rather a mission was assigned that was often nearly (but not entirely) impossible to pull off without gaining permanent enmity in one or more rival groups.