I disagree. Having no sense of urgency or danger makes things dull. Why should I do x person's quest right now, if I know that I can hold it off forever and nothing bad or unexpected will ever happen? Nevermind that they asked me to rescue their family member/significant other etc who is being held by bandits, who realistically would either kill them or be in an entirely different section of the world if enough time passed by.

That's fine but that is your personal issue. You are absolutely free to urgently do things in the game but you remove options when you pretty much force peoples game play. Do what you want (disclaimer: tick tock tick tock).

If they add urgency to the dialogue at all, it'd better be REAL urgency. Have genuine loss happen if the player doesn't take care of the issue in a reasonable timeframe (i.e. have more people die, etc.) Not game-breaking of course... but demonstrate consequences of not hurrying when hurrying is requested. ^^

Of course, when going this way, make sure the hurry bits are rarer and spread out so as not to annoy players too much...

But you are doing the same thing, you are saying its okay for them to force all of us into having the same non occasionally-urgent gameplay, with no dynamics or altering story-paths based on player action or inaction. Because it is your personal opinion, ours is somehow wrong. Don't you think that hypocritical?

No, because if you add in what you want it coerces players into playing a specific way. The way things have been in elderscrolls allows players themselves to decide if they should do something right away or not.

Your suggestion sort of ends the free play part while keeping it the same only ruins your perception of things, something that could easily change.

I think you're just a hypochondriac.

The "Oblivion Syndrome" seems self created. Though you still probably should go see a doctor.

NPC's pushing you towards finishing the main quest seems more realistic than them behaving as if there is no imminent threat to there virtual world.

"I know there is a raging fire in my study, but have I already told you that I saw a mudcrab the other day?"

XD

The point is, maybe urgent quests should be a little more spaced out, for the sake of the suspension of disbelief of players who don't like to jump into the main quest off the bat?

BTW, I looked up Oblivion syndrome, and most people seem to think it means making the game more accessible at the expense of gameplay.

If nothing else, this thread has been an amusing demonstration of how many people don't bother to read through the thread before they write out the response that's already been addressed repeatedly.....

See.... there are a couple of problems with your justification here. Big problem #1 is IT'S NOT REALLY URGENT. No - Jauffre doesn't say, "Go on an adventure for a couple of weeks or months man, I'm sure the city will still be there once you get back." But you know what? If you go on an adventure for a couple of weaks or months, the city WILL still be there once you get back. And you know what else? The daedra will still have just invaded LAST NIGHT, the refugees will still be camped out along the road and Savlian will still be at the barricades, swearing to hold the daedra back.

And do you know why that is? Because it was deliberately designed that way. And you know why it was designed that way? Because the TES series is supposed to be open-ended games in which you can be anything and do anything, including be and do somebody who doesn't do the main quest.

So if you don't have to do the main quest - if you really CAN go off and adventure for weeks or months or even years and it has NO negative effect on Kvatch or the main quest, why DID they inject that sense of breathless urgency? Apparently because they were trying to inject a sense of urgency where no real urgency exists, in order to appeal to the people who want a game-on-rails. So they undermined the traditional open-endedness and freedom of a TES game in order to make it appear to be a game-on-rails, while trying to placate the sandbox fans by not really putting it on rails. And the result was that they pretty firmly failed to do EITHER ONE well.

So what are their options? I guess they could make Skyrim a game-on-rails, but, luckily enough, they haven't completely thrown that away yet. So the other option is to NOT make it a game-on-rails, in which case, please, for the sake of internal consistency and believeability, they shouldn't try to make it LOOK LIKE a game-on-rails.

And that's really the point of the OP and of most of the rest of the thread. The sense of urgency that surrounded OB's main quest shouldn't exist because the urgency really wasn't there, and that by design. It's an open-world game, so the main quest should be presented in a way that's more in tune with the open-world nature of the game. That's all.

I approve of this post.

:tongue:

It's not a story-script issue it's a story-pacing issue lmao. They need to re-write the entire story so the player doesn't feel urged to complete the main quest right off the bat imo.

I have added a new poll, as this topic seems to have devided opinion