The mantra repeated so often by Todd, Craig, etc,. ad infinitum is not exactly "Be everything and do everything at once," but "Be what you want and do what you want."

While some players might want to enjoy being the head of every guild during a single playthrough, or siding with both the Rebels and the Empire at alternate points during the game, etc., others may want the freedom to choose to fully commit to one faction. For example, the freedom to choose to truly commit to one side of the Civil War and help them actually win the war.

Clearly, the more choices there are, and the more they matter, the deeper the simulated game world.

However, do you believe that some choices in the game should be tough, meaningful choices (with no "takebacks")?

The Confederacy.

Rivalries are very meaningful decisions in their own way. I want 4 different thieves guilds to choose from, and then betray one over the other, and then frame one guild to make it look like they stole from another guild.

I want all our choices have relative and distinct consequences, and we had to choose between different options according to our chosen role and developed character.

I hope we can not become master of all, leader of all, champion of all, and owner of all, by one character and in one play-through.

yes, but it needs to be instituted in such a way that there is no mistake. if the choice aligns you a certain way the choice should only come after repetitive decisions bring about the ultimatum.

i also think that there should be the option NOT to choose. if i dont want to choose a side why should i have to?

I agree with what you're trying to say... But I also think if that Bethesda cannot think of this on their own, then we truly are in trouble, (at least for a story..)


Cmon Beth, don't give me another crap MQ please.

I agree with your sentiment; however, I think it's somewhat unlikely that the devs have incorporated this approach into the majority of quests and interactions with NPCs.

On a pragmatic level, for the choices that really matter in the game, I'm hoping for this "freedom to fully commit to a role" in at least few important guild quests or the Civil War questline.

However, if you don't want to play through all the factions, then just pick out one, I think. I agree with the overall idea of moar choices though.

State's Rights FTW

The world gets shallower if it's only up to you - the NPCs become lifeless.

If you side with one faction, it shouldn't be your decision whether you get to join an opposing faction - it should be that opposing faction's decision and they've got a good reason to refuse you or even kill you. Why would they trust your PC even if you supposedly left the original faction you joined that opposed them? And you especially shouldn't be able to head every guild, that's just absurd.

Case in point, Mages' and Fighters' Guilds. Both an established part of Imperial society, no real conflict between them, no reason not to join both. And no reason why the Companions and the College of Winterhold should be the same. I would not say they should b openly antagonistic toward each other, but enough mistrust to prevent a high ranking member of one reaching high ranks in the other.
The thieves' is a different matter. If you are a successful thief, I don't see why anyone should know who you are. Sure, the mages have their means to access information, but why should the Companions know you are a low ranking member of the Thieves' Guild?
One thing to be excluded from something because it makes sense, regarding the milieu and your character's previous actions, quite another to be excluded because 'computer says no', or because the designers decided it would increase replay value, but didn't rationalise it in game.

The more detailed branching stories get the shorter a game gets. I don't mind it here or there but I like that TES games are so long.

I think this only applies if there is some sort of inter-faction conflict going on.

God forbid, if the College of Winterhold, the Companions, the Thieves Guild, the Dark Brotherhood and the Arena are all super compartmentalized like they were in Oblivion, then there's really no point to limiting anyone from joining all of them, or, over the course of a long playthrough, becoming master mage, then master thief, etc., if that's what someone really wants to do.

However, if the Companions and the College of Winterhold are in a nasty inter-faction feud, for example, that's when these choices become a lot more interesting.

I might be imagining the Civil War to be more epic than how it unfolds in the game, but it seems to me that this epic conflict is going to be an undercurrent to the guild quests. The lines have already been drawn with Windhelm serving as the Rebel base of power and Solitude as the Empire HQ. I don't think it's a coincidence that each of the three major guilds is based in the remaining big cities, Riften, Whiterun and Winterhold.

Each of the Nine Holds are going to have to take sides and each of the guilds or just about any other large organization is going to have to take sides in this war. It might play out where the PC chooses to help the Rebels or the Empire and then must win over the various guilds to support the side he chose. At least I certainly hope it's something that huge.

I don't like the idea of conflicts between the guilds for the sake of it personally. If you want to role play that nothing is stopping you.

Yeah, but the more simplified the stories, the less replay value a game has. I am not going to play through a game a second time if there is nothing in it I missed the first time around. In Witcher 2, I started up my second playthrough immediately after completing the first as some of the choices had actual REAL meaningful outcomes. In fact, the entire second chapter didn't even take place in the same area.

I want to only join 1 or 2 guilds for example if you join the Dark Brotherhood you can join another I mean its not like they know your a assassin or thief. But if you join the mages guild you shouldn't be able to join the companions as they know you are a mage.

That is correct. Yeah, I'd like to see you having to choose between two entirely opposite guilds: However, you should still be able to join a few different ones.

This should easily be handled in the Radiant Story system. For example: if you're character is a pure mage, who only uses magic all the time, then it shouldn't be easy to join the fighter's guild, much less get an offer. Either that, or make it difficult to get promotions. For example, you need to master a certain level of wizardry before you even get offered a promotion within the mages guild. A pure melee warrior should have to do much more than a few quests to progress to the top of the mages guild. You have to actually fit the build to lead a particular guild.

I also doubt that this time around, you'll be able to be a master of everything, so this should cause you to think more carefully about how you progress if you are intending to be the master of a particular organization. Having said that, they will need to make sure that becoming a master is actually more rewarding this time around, or people are going to be sorely disappointed after putting in so much work.

I can see why people would want so many choices...and I do indeed enjoy choice and options, however people must also realize and understand that having too many choices, can and usually will naturally reduce the depth and meaning behind each one from straining the limited resources and dev time to make them all possible.

I thought about limiting the guilds/factions as well, but after all I don't see the need for it.

In the end, nobody is forcing you to do every quest/questline in the first run. I mean, that's also where some roleplay comes in. If you are a hardcoe mage, you simply won't join the warriors guild, or if you are a really good character, you won't join the assasins.
Limiting the ability to become a member of a certain faction feels rather like an "artificial" way to generate replayability. That way, you would be forced to play through the game x times to do all quests.
The way it is now, you can decide for yourself, how many times you want to play until you do all quests ... and in which combination.

I tended to try to do every quest of Oblivion in the first run, until I noticed, that this is stupid, and that I would try out other classes anyways. So in the second and third run I only took the quests I thought might be fun and only joined the guilds, which would suit my character.
In Fallout 3 I directly started that way. "Oh, a town full of slavers ... well, DIIIEEEEE!!!!" (playing a "good" character here ^^).



I personally rather would like to have meaningful choices WITHIN quests. So, that depending on how you decide, the progress and outcome will be different. And of course, that even if the outcome is rather the same, you have still different ways to approach.
We had some of this already in Oblivion and even more of this in Fallout3. So I just hope, it will be similar in Skyrim.

I don't think it's necessary to "force" lockouts just to force lockouts ... but I DO think the world would be a lot more interesting if there were irreconcilable faction conflicts that did force interesting decisions. It's a fine distinction but an important one.

To put it another way, I think there should definitely be lockouts, but they should all be integral to each story and faction, not just for no reason.

The PC should be a messianic figure that transcends petty faction politics who's stature and obvious import in the grand scheme of things should make him and his favor coveted by all factions regardless of past actions and other affiliations.

Completely agree. The more choices and the more varied they are the better. The choices shouldnt just be good/neutral/bad but something more varied and grey. The important ones should also have consequence that matter and for example the faction choices should limit the player and what he can do. If you choose to support the rebels you cant do the empire's quests at some point anymore. Not only the ones that involve the civil war but more trivial ones as well. The consequence of the choice that you support the rebels is that the empire is hostile towards you or doesnt want to have anything to do with you. Also some guilds should be off limits if you are a member of an "opposing" guild. For example you cant join the thieves guild if youre a member of the legion.

I also want more dialogue options and they should be more in-depth instead of one sentence. Every character type should have something to say instead of the black and white, good guy and bad guy options, even if it all leads to the same result. I always hated how in Oblivion I usually just had one dialogue option. Brakes immersion.

I don't think choices should close doors. While I can sympathize with the notion that one character shouldn't be able to become 'leader' of every guild, one character should be able to do all the quests associated with them. Political factions too. I would rather 'faction' quests deal with non-interfaction issues anyhow. Just because you are doing a freelance job for 'the rebels' doesn't mean 'the empire' has to or should be the target of the quest. I'm sure all factions have an abundance of problems that don't originate from other factions and that those are the ones they hire 'heroes' to deal with. If 'the rebels' need help with a dragon then they probably want somebody experienced with dealing with dragons. I doubt they would pass up the services of a proven dragon slayer just because he killed another dragon for 'the empire.'

I don't want to have to keep a library of named saves at every potential choice so that I can go back to it and do it again should the results of any given choice prove to limit my ability to play my game.

Very well put - I completely agree.




Precisely, otherwise we are not being offered the freedom of choice to fully commit to the Rebel side.