In oblivion being evil was pointless because of the way gamesas handled it. In the main story you where always good, but what if you could of been bad.

Hopefully they have two sides to the plot, save the world, or make the world fall to your hand.

Im sure you get my point here, so tell me what you think

I think it's this thread again: http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?/topic/1166478-playing-an-evil-character-maybe/

I think that there should be one main story, but the actions your character does (depending on good or bad) help depict the reactions you may receive from other people in the cities and friendships you can make.

And what if you start off by playing a good player, and decide to become evil? Does the story twist from good to evil in the middle of the story? No thank you. I think it is a little to much.

They gave you crazy freedom with Fallout: New Vegas so I don't see why they can't try some O'that here.

I'm not really keen on an obvious GOOD or EVIL option. I'd prefer a more mature and morally ambiguous story. Mass Effect is a good example of this

Different "they," as in Obsidian. And Obsidian was only able to do this because the game had a definitive end then used the slideshow to show how your decisions changed (or didn't, as the case may be) the Mojave Wasteland for decades to come.

1: Can you imagine the pitchfork-and-torch party at Bethesda HQ if they gave these "I RP, and my characters are played teh forever!" players a game with an actual "it stops here" ending?

2: Did you see what passed for an ending to Fallout 3 (last one gamesas tried an actual ending on)? :sick:

3: Did you see their reaction to how their FO3 ending was received? (that reaction being the Broken Steel Borked Steal retcon) :sick: :sick:


Yeah, we've seen what happened last time Bethesda tried "some O'that." I'll pass.

Tamriel would be overrun, Mehrunes Dagon would take control and everyone that he decided to spare would become his eternal slaves. It may suprise you, but I doubt he planned to keep his promises of immortality and power once he had taken control.

There's also the question of continuity, TES is a lot more lore focused than other games; so it's difficult for Bethesda to say "This ending is the real one". Last time that happened was Daggerfall, and we got the warp in the west. I'm not this knowledgeable on lore, but I'm pretty sure that was caused by Akatosh. Seeing as how we're fighting him (or his Nordic equivelent at least), I doubt that's going to happen this time.

Of course, I do still like the idea of alternate endings / stories, up to a point; I think Morrowind is a good example of this, It gave an alternate storyline to follow, which had questionable moral decisions to make, and it the long run, it doesn't have a major impact on continuity .

In fact, I have a copy of the OXM right here, and regarding radient story it says "By the endyour version of the main quest could have played out very differently from that of your friends." - this suggests to me that beth's radient story won't just be limited to side quests, so it's fair to assume that there will be certain aspects of the MQ that will differ between characters, depending on your play style.

I don't expect to be able to side with Alduin (nor would I particularly want to, even if I were playing an evil character - the world's where I keep all my stuff) but it'd be nice to be able to take sides in the civil war. I guess technically that counts as "only good," even though "Villain Who Wants To Take Over The World versus Villain Who Wants To Destroy The World" is a pretty classic theme.

On Akatosh and the Warp in the West: The Warp in the West is an example of what's commonly called a "dragon break," an event when linear time, i.e. Akatosh, is broken somehow. He doesn't do it voluntarily, it's a consequence of him not being able to enforce linear time properly. It's looking pretty likely that breaking Akatosh is going to be our goal.

This. I want the outcome to be the same however you can accomplish that outcome by evil or good actions. Kinda like the Paragon/Renegade system in Mass Effect.

Thats what daggerfall did and it was hard for them to make a sequel because of so many endings. So how bout the good guy does the main quest and the bad guy doesn't bother?

More likely it'll be what we get in most RPGs: The good guy does the main quest and is a heroic charming person about it, the bad guy does the same quest with the same results but is a raving ill-tempered reward-demanding insulting dike about it.

I'd like to have two sides of the story and two sides to a lot of the quests hell ten sides of the story one for each race in the game why not ? make me clear the game ten times its not like im going to stop playing the game once my eyes start to bleed. bliviongate:

I would like a game with multiple choices, but with the same ending.

Give the events of Oblivion and what is apparent in Skyrim, I don't think saving the world automatically makes you a good guy. In both games, there were evil forces at work to be sure, but their end goal is that you die, regardless of who you are. Dagon wants to destroy the world, Alduin wants to destroy the world too. Unfortunately, you're a part of the world, good or bad. In some real-world cases, leaders will often release prisoners, who are bad people, to fight in wars because the fate of their nation is still one of their concerns.

Well the outcome of this episode should be canon to the TES lore.

So while i would love more endings, it is hard to put it in. (besides another dragon break)

Well while the war starts you mostlikely can chose sides... but just because you joined the imperials doesn't mean they win the war, just changes which side your on...

Wouldn't have worked in Oblivion. The changes if the badguys win would have been too radical.