I was thinking today as I was playing Skyrim, what would a game be like if you could do virtually anything.

Take the Elder Scrolls setting (please, ), what if you could make Potema a thrall, or help bring her back? What if you choose to help Alduin? What if you could be truly evil, not just in a mass murderer kind of way.

The reason this came to mind is that most RPGs you can either be the "good guy" or go off on your own and ignore most of the game. I call it "FAIL!" because your evil choices may break the game.

Unleash Potema and Skyrim changes very much. Help Dragons attack settlements and and soon you have no more NPCs to give you quests or buy your loot anymore. Take over Dragonsreach and become the Jarl of an empty city. Maybe The Companions come out of their complacency and react to the new threat.

Can you imagine the havoc you could reek in a game like this? What are your thoughts?

PS: *I* am not an "evil" kind of guy, so this really has no personal interest for me, but I know there are lots players here that enjoy being bad/evil sometimes. I'd like their thoughts

Well I always found it disappointing that you can have a shrine to the different divines in your homestead, but are unable to have a shrine to the daedric lords. I do agree that evil players are not as well catered for as good players. Black and White catered to both very well, but then that was the whole point of the game. So yes, it would be great to be able to do more evil things, but I guess most people aren't into it so it probably isn't a cost-effective addition.

I think that kind of reactivity is the "holy grail" of open-world game design. The problem is that it's an extremely complex problem to solve without causing lots of bugs and nonsensical outcomes. Maybe someday when we have the processing power to create really intelligent AIs for NPCs. Even then, though, any changes to the landscape, buildings, etc. caused by things happening to the environment would have to be very complex as well...not to mention the ability of NPCs to perceive and process those changes in a way that makes sense.

I suppose it might be fun to find characters that really like each other and force them to fight to the death while their families watch. It would only be gratifying if you could actually hurt the AI's feelings, though...or at least have them behave that way when appropriate.

That's why i like Fallout New Vegas over Fallout 3. In new vegas, there was no essential NPCs, you can side with ANY faction (whereas fallout 3 you cant side with the enclave for example - in new vegas you can get the enclave to join you in the final battle), the ending changed depending on which way you did. There was no real "antagonist" and "protagonist" factions in new vegas (whereas again, fallout 3 had the brotherhood as the protagonists and the enclave as the bad guys). And there also wasnt just a good guy bad guy metre, every faction and every settlement had reputations for the main character.

That's a true RPG. It would be the equivalent of being able to join the 6th house in Morrowind when they give you the illusion that you can side with them at one point in the game (which i wish they did. Though there ARE mods for that).

The only thing New vegas suffered was the deadline they were given by Bethesda, who didnt want the game to come out too close to skyrim (obsidian gets this a lot, unfinished games because of deadlines from their superiors).

If skyrim was made the same way the factions/reputation were in new vegas, i would find it a WAY better game then it is (especially cus the current factions in skyrim are a joke to TES and reputation and disposition system is completely non existant).

My point is, it's entirely possible, not just an imaginary what if scenario that will never see the day of light and personally, i would welcome it very much.

I don't know if we'll ever have true reactivity, but I think even now we could create the 'illusion' of reactivity with a long enough timeframe to work with (probably, like, 40 years depending on the scale of the game). By just programming every single reaction manually.

Probably could if people were willing to pay >9000 for that game.

We just need to convince the government that it's for research.

I've never looked into "Black and White." How did it handle the different paths a player could take?

I found it odd that no matter how evil you were in FO3, you had to side with the BoS. Sure, you have the option to nuke them in the Broken Steel addon but that still doesn't make up the fact you can't join the Enclave, like you said. I agree about New Vegas, as much as I like FO3, the roleplay was a lot better in terms of good/neutral/evil stuff. What was even better is that you can convince some people to do the opposite of what they originally wanted to do (for example, convince Orion and the Remnants to help out the NCR at Hoover Damn, as lopsided as that sounds).

CD Projekt RED's The Witcher 3.

Imagine if everyone wasn't essential and kids could die (or not exist in-game)!

...and pooping! There needs to be pooping.

I looked a little bit into Black and White. It reminds me of the old Populous game.

I think the "essential" tag in Skyrim was a bad move. So what if a players wishes to break their game? Let them. Give NPCs the AI to run AWAY when Vampires and Dragons attack and you have no troubles with them dieing.

In Morrowind, you could kill Caius Cossades if you wanted to. A HUGE message would freeze your game stating that continuing this action would break your game, but it was allowed.

http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Childkiller