It just gets to be an annoyance when people post things like that and leave nothing in the wake that's valuable to the thread... seems like post padding.

Regardless, at first I was not really for the idea. I hate realizing that the choice I made was in error, especially when not much information was given about my choices...

Then I realized that TES wiki existed... no reason to be anxious about the result when I can do a quick quest search. And yeah, I knows its kinda cheating :whistling:

Dalayed consequences? Sure, it would make the world feel more alive and realistic(as far as possible in a fantasy setting).

you should make this a poll :hubbahubba:

I don't see how delayed consequences would be any harder to implement, or more likely to produce bugs, than instant consequences. So I'm in favor.

Yes, completely yes, thats really enhance mostly linear quest from TES.

In short, yes.

I wouldn't think of vampirism as something like this, considering that up until the point you actually turn, it's reletively



I don't either, the only real reason I could see to object to it is that some players might WANT to know the concequences of the their actions immediately after making them, so they can reload until they find the choice with the outcome they like. And there's nothing wrong with having such an opinion, just as there's nothing wrong with having it's opposite, but I can't really say I agree with it. Reloading when you lose is pretty normal in a game, but we're not talking about winning or losing, this is a matter of role-playing, and that's not supposed to be a matter of getting the best rewards, but of doing what you're character would do, even if that might not give you the best possible reward. But people being the way they are, I'm sure that a lot of players will just save and reload until they choose the choice that gives them the best outcome, unless you design the game in a way that prevents this. So I think I'm in favor of delayed concequences for choices, so long as said delayed concequences make sense. Not only does this helped to ensure that players will live with the concequences of their choices, I feel it also makes you think more about said choices because by the time you actually see the concequences, it's too late to go back. The Witcher, for example, seemed to benefit from this quite a bit, it certainly increased the impact of my choices when I knew I couldn't just go back and reload if I didn't like an outcome.

Yeah. Oblivion's consequences were so delayed they didn't happen until after I stopped playing the game :rolleyes

I made an attempt at doing choices and consequences in my Blackwood Company mod, ostensibly to 'show Bethesda how it could be done' since I was so disappointed in the complete lack of any choice of any kind in Oblivion. That was a conscious design decision on their part by the way, since Oblivion had such a large number of quests that the designers were outright told to not create choices for them. My Blackwood Company mod created each quest with a single choice within it. As well as the initial difference in consequences (usually just a different reward) I also attempted a couple of delayed consequences based off choices.

The most comprehensive example was that the choice made in one of the contract quests would determine whether the Fighters Guild outpost in a particular town would willingly submit to you, or you would have to fight them.

Another example was one quest where you were meant to pick out who was a mole in the organisation with three potential choices. If you picked the wrong person then the leader of the Blackwood Company would be arrested and disappear after a certain quest. If you didn't pick a certain character then he would appear in a later quest as an agent of the Dark Brotherhood (in effect there were two moles). If however you did pick him as the mole then he wouldn't appear in that quest. If you picked the correct mole the the leader of the Blackwood Company would not disappear and would give you the final quest.

Another example was whether you chose to have a character follow you on a quest to a cave or stay behind in another cave. If you chose to take him with you then he would survive, if you left him behind he would be killed by the Fighters Guild. Though technically this consequence occured at the end of that quest so it wasn't really delayed.

I've been told that Skyrim will have quests that have multiple ways to solve them, although so far our wonderful game reporters have chosen to focus upon graphics, menus and asking about features that Bethesda won't talk about until they show them off in a demo first. Apparently some of them have asked about choices and consequences but you wouldn't know if based off the previews they write. The funny thing is how when Fallout 3 previews started coming in all the same reporters were going on about how 'amazing' and 'excellent' it was for Bethesda to be creating quests with multiple options. It's probably no coincidence that the reason that they all wrote about that is because Bethesda really pushed that in their Fallout 3 previews. Since they aren't pushing it for their Skyrim previews the reporters all fall into line and write whatever PR line Bethesda pushes on them. Free and fair press indeed.

I really like the idea of delayed consequences.

Not the same thing . . . but one of the things that I like about Mass Effect, is that you are limited as to when you can save your game (such as not during combat).

.. and all of the other lil' things you say in other posts you want to see in-game, those aren't variables or can't add bugs?

As for the OP, abso-freaking-lutely.

someone said to make a poll so boop there it is......

Briiliant ideas are so often the simple ones.
Maybe nothing as major as ignoring the letters in Daggerfall, but something guild related maybe, do a job for one, the other lot kick you out, three quests, and too much game to reload a pre-decision save, later. Anything that makes your choices matter is a good thing, imho.

Indeed Oblivion has some interesting quest but in overall they are so streamlined and linear there almost no consequences or requirements in them, thanks you for work on http://www.tesnexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=14560 mod it was really good in fixing some absurd things in Oblivion fractions quests.

I say sure but only on small things, simply so it isn't a HUGE problem.

For example:

I would fine with it, if it was like you do something, and a few days later, it causes someone to go somewhere different or something.

I would NOT be fine if it you do something, and then several hours into gameplay, three towns are completely wiped out. That would be too much.

That's the kind of consequences I wouldn't want. If you had no idea who the highway man is, what their situation in life is, or none of that, why would you (figuratively) slap the player for making a "wrong" choice? Why even give a choice if you don't give the information needed to make it? "You killed a highway man trying to rob you. You cruel bastard, now their family is starving. I hope you're happy." or "You let the highway man get away with your money. Now they went and murdered an important character, and it's all your fault. Good going."

Delayed consequences in general are fine, but not that. Especially if it's always a "bad" consequence regardless of your choice. No thanks.

It really depends on the atmosphere of the setting. I for one would not have a problem with a 'damned if I do or damned if I don't' result, providing the consequences stimulate a visceral reaction or my sense of responsibility.

Starving family? Well it gives me an opportunity to put things right by giving them money or asking the local chieftain to look after them. Mass-murderer on the loose? Okay I'm going to hunt the man down and bring him to justice.

In both cases something 'bad' has happened in game, but it has served to intensify my emotional and (a)moral connection with the game world. As a player that's a win in any situation.

This was the biggest selling point for Dragon Age: Origins, and for many, the only reason to play through more than once. It really added tension to the choices that had to be made, turning a pretty okay RPG into a really good one.

So I voted yes.

sounds interesting, but yeah... too many variables, things could get REALLY screwed up if things dont work right.

i mean, the fallout games havent exactly been STABLE... i'd rather they focus on making skyrim as stable as possible than adding in things some people would find cool, but could add to the instability of the game.

Only if it's done right. Surprise twists like that have to be handled very carefully, otherwise it creates a disconnect between the player and the world. If I know my choices aren't going to do what I want to do when I make them, what's the point? To turn it around, imagine trying to play an evil character who wants to disrupt the world and make everybody miserable... but everytime you had to make a decision, it resulted in good things happening for people.

I still remember trying to make Alastair happy by reuniting him with his sister in DA:O. That turned out well. Almost any time you tried to do something good in that game, you got sand thrown in your face (either as a direct/delayed consequence, or as a disposition hit from your companions; Yes, Morrigan, how dare I want to rescue a kitten from a tree... especially when I need to go to that "tree" anyway for the MQ). Kinda hard to make me care if I know I can't make a decision with the desired outcome.

This was an excellent feature in the Witcher. Would love to see it in Skyrim.

I think (but am not sure) that when the OP talks about delayed consequences, he specifically means secondary, unforeseen effects which in themselves are inherently unpredictable. But yes of course, it has to be balanced carefully so that it fits the setting. Not all decisions in life end up the way you predict them, or cause an unexpected domino effect. So it would be nice if some actions had future beneficial effects whilst others result in darker consequences. Normally you should design quests/events to have a mixture of both, perhaps even neutral, ambivalent results too.

If you murder someone, the Dark Brotherhood will come to you when you sleep. Completing the quest from the Gray Prince has a delayed consequence. Refusing to help Glarthir has delayed consequences. If you leave items behind in the tutorial dungeon, there are a number of actions that can prevent you from collecting them later. If you make extensive, early use of skills such as acrobatics, athletics, speechcraft, or mysticism, you can find yourself noticeably weaker than your opponents in the leveled world around you. Those are a few examples of delayed consequences. There are others, possibly quite a few others.

As long as you know that you have made a significant choice in advance where the consequences are understandable, then it would be good. If it's done badly and you are punished or rewarded apparently randomly for something as insignificant as picking up a flower, then that wouldn't make any sense.

The choice should really be a moral one and therefore the "correct" answer can always be found out in advance (otherwise it wouldn't be a moral choice), except then based on other events the consequence turns out to be a reward or a punishment (e.g. in the STALKER example, where you are punished by trying to help out our fellow man) and it should be balanced, so sometimes by doing what is right you get a reward and other times you don't.

The consequence should probably be unpredictable as well (to stop gamers who purely go through the game picking the answer that gives them the best reward) and they should add together in some way.

I'm not utterly sure you understand the concept of a delayed consequence - it's something that the gamer doesn't realise will occur as a direct result of a choice until much later. there's a certain degree of unpredictability about it, the consequence should be unexpected and only makes sense in hindsight. Your examples demonstrate this lack of understanding.

"They say that when you murder someone, the Dark Brotherhood visits you in your sleep." is an in game quote, I think from a loading screen or random rumor. - The game developers inform you what will happen in advance, so you make the decision knowing the consequence. That's not delayed. It happens later, but you know it will happen later.

Completing the gray prince quest (if you have been given it, you know that by killing him you won't be able to complete it. You make the decision to complete it knowing that otherwise you won't be able to complete it.

Refusing to help Glarthir has immediate consequences, for me he instantly disappeared off to kill Bernadette, and then ended up very dead.

Items left behind in the tutorial dungeon are made inaccessible immediately, and what's more, are not of particularly good quality, so not worth keeping.

Your uncontrolled leveling is a closer example. As major skills, Acrobatics, Athletics and mysticism give you the ability to evade and avoid enemies and damage and don't level you up particularly quickly. Speechcraft while useless in combat, doesn't level up fast enough to make you underpowered.
Alchemy is a terrible skill, as choosing this gives you extreme uncontrolled leveling when you make lots of potions. This caught me out on my first run through of the game. On the other hand, I made lots of $$$, and only stopped playing the save because it was on the xbox 360 version of the game I hired from time to time, and I couldn't transfer it to PC when I bought that copy of the game.
The change from a powerful closer quarters combatant to a terrible one is immediate but gradual and so you gradually have to alter your playing style to match the change.

In other words, most of those were not particularly good examples of delayed consequences. With all of them, the consequence is immediately obvious, except for the bad leveling, where the player is forced to gradually change their style of play anyway.

The consequences should be ovbious, or at least determinable before hand even if you have to think about it.

A cause (choice) is logically followed by an effect (consequence). A dragon burning down a village is not a logical consequence of picking a flower, unless you were warned before hand that picking a flower may anger a dragon who will take out his aggression on a village.

A highway man going on a murder spree is not a logical consequence of paying him off. A family going starving is not a logical consequence of killing a highway man.

A crazy psychopath with an itchy trigger finger, who happens upon you and asks for money, however, could be logically followed by a murder spree if you let him go. A penniless beggar who needs money for his family, and decides to be forceful about it with you, could logically be followed up by a starving family if you kill him.

It's all about peception, and being able to make an informed choice.