Before I explain the topic to this thread let me first say that I absolutely love The Elder Scrolls. It is by far my favorite video game series of all time. I'm a huge fan of Bethesda in general. With that being said one of the things that has always bothered me is that Todd Howard and the Bethesda team always claim that this is a game where you can "do anything you want to do."

I have to disagree with this. Or at least, say that it is not unique to The Elder Scrolls.

I like the fact that the game is an open-world but our choices are, overall, pretty linear. We do not really have much of a choice on what to do, at least with the main quest. Take Oblivion, for example. What choice did you have other than to help shut the Oblivion gates? None really. Sure you can "do anything" in other areas but how's this any different than any other game?

Red Dead Redemption. In that game I can "do whatever I want to do." I could spend every day playing poker and consider myself a professional poker player. Or go around simply killing people, becoming a wanted criminal. In Grand Theft Auto, same thing. You can do this with pretty much any game. Its nothing unique.

The point of this thread? I simply wish that we were made to make choices that had real, legitimate consequences. Much like how (and I know people hate when this game is used as comparison) New Vegas did. Very well done in that regard. I'd like to see something like this done.

I really hope in Skyrim if you're a member of the Dark Brotherhood you cannot join the Fighter's guild, for example. Or if you are a necromancer you should not be able to join the mages guild. Let's simply have some real consequences so Bethesda's claims can be true.

But then by restricting you from joining the Fighters Guild, you aren't allowed anymore to "do what you want to do."

I think that when Todd says this, he means that you can be a Mage, Warrior, and Thief if you want to. You have no restrictions whatsoever. You're saying that your choices should have a greater impact overall. I agree to a certain degree, but I love making a character where I can join anything and this is what has made TES unique to me.

Overall, I see where you're coming from and I agree to some extent, but I personally prefer being able to literally "do anything you want to."

p.s. (I loved the way New Vegas handled the choice system.)

You CAN do whatever you want to do. If you don't like that the main quest is linear... you don't have to do it. As for being a necromancer... the fact that they attack you is something that they do, not something that you do. Either way, essentially you CAN be a necromancer... with spells that summon and control the dead.

I agree with what you guys are saying but any game could claim you can "do whatever you want". In NHL 11, I can decide to not play defense. In Rock Band I can fail out of every gig if I choose to. I can choose not to carry out any of my assassinations in Assassins Creed and just walk around the city. When Todd makes these comments he assumes that everyone understands what it is to role play. If they do then yes, you can be and do whatever you want.

Firstly, I agree. But-

I don't see it happening. One, it would be self-contradictory, the moment you block a choice you're preventing someone, somewhere from doing what they want to do.

Two, and possibly more important- the firestorm of howling it would cause from:

Those who cite "I don't have time" as a reason why they must be allowed to do everything in one playthrough.

Those who would shriek "OMG no, that restricts my roleplay!"

Those who parrot "RPGs are/TES is about choices" while actually meaning "...choices without consequences."

And so on. Basically I'd love to see it happen, but don't really expect it to. :shrug:

This is the sad cold truth friends.

The fact that I can make a character and find a shack to live in and hunt or go pearl diving to make money without ever doing any quests is 10x more "do anything you want to do" than any other series out there. Questing and being a hero is optional, and that's good enough for me

Btw I only completed Morrowind's main quest for the first time in late 2009, having racked up thousands of hours of play over a few characters. Most RPGs do not allow anything like that freedom.

I agree with this statement. I guess what I really meant is that I wish that we were not able to do everything with one character. In Oblivion I had to role play that my character had a secret life in the Dark Brotherhood and the Thieves Guild.

I do agree with you on that point - last time I played Oblivion I did the Thieves Guild and Dark Brotherhood quests, then did the pilgrimage to reset my infamy to zero and do Knights of the Nine quest, then I was a saint for the rest of the game, all my robbing and murdering wiped off the slate! Definitely I'd like to see a bit more long term consequence for your actions, and factions/guilds being exclusive so that you cannot join everything all in one game, no problem with that at all

Uh...why? Wouldn't not joining them have worked just as well? It did for several of my characters. :shrug:

I suppose. But I always play as a good character at first. I do the main quest, save the world, blah, blah, blah. Then I do the other things like join the Dark Brotherhood. I always have to have some kind of "dark side" moment where I break and fall off/go crazy. In Fallout 3 I became a "bad guy" after the Enclave killed my father.

My problem with that is that I don't like stuff hanging about in my journal (if I'm doing a questing playthrough) - and if I accidentally murder someone then there is a visit in the night and an entry in my journal - if I speak to a beggar about the Grey Fox then there is an entry in my journal - both hanging around on my active quests page - and if I'm doing a playthrough where I have decided to do quests, those entries sit there taunting me.... I'm nothing if not thorough! Which is why the idea of exclusive guilds and/or factions appeals - if you join one you won't get any pesky journal entries from the opposing one (or the entry quest for an opposing one will automatically fail)...

It is true that contrary to what "Do whatever you want to." implies, there are, in fact, restrictions on what you can do, but that's to be expected, it's a game, after all, Bethesda can't possibly include an option for any choice players could possibly think of that they might want to make. The closest you can actually get to "Do whatever you want" is to give you as few limitations in the game as is reasonably feasible, and has the Elder Scrolls reached that point yet? I wouldn't really say so, mainly because while the world itself is pretty open, the quests are all pretty linear, of course you can choose which factions to join or whether to do the main quest, but you rarely get multiple options within a quest, and when you do, these options don't usually have notable concequences, so if Bethesda wants to move closer to living up to the "Do anything you want" slogan, choices in quests is a good thing to work on.



That's true, of course, and it's because in most RPGs, you really don't have any choice in the matter, sure, there are side quests, but you can't advance in the game unless you do the main quest, which often means much of the game is inaccessable if you refuse to do the main questline. In that respect, the Elder Scrolls definitely gives you more freedom than its competitors. While there aren't many choices within the main quest, in terms of whether you do the main quest, there's still a lot to do if you choose to ignore it.

Ah. I've done both ways, and several other to boot. Never touch evil quests runthrough, try and only do evil-type quests runthrough, do everything runthrough. (In both "do evil quests, Pilgrimage to cleanse karma" and "karma my ass, play a do-gooder turned evil and listen to the NPCs gripe" flavors.) With and without touching main quest, blaze through main quest to get Imperial Dragon armor while it's still almost worth wearing for a level or two, you name it why not I'll try it etc etc etc.



Agreed. What amazes me is why they never (apparently, at least) had this simple thought: "Option to turn down."

"No, Mr. Lachance, I have no interest in your organization."

"Oh I see. This Gray Fox sounds like nobody I've got any interest in."

And in both cases, maybe- "Yes, I understand your group is well-informed and will know should I mention them to anyone. I've no interest in facing those consequences, and won't be saying a thing."

I know literally of no other game that comes close to the freeform world Im used to since Daggerfall and what I compare all other games to.
Why is fable 1 a bad rpg? Because I cannot jump on the roofs or deviate in any way from the pre-set path.
It is a narrow thing, compared even to Daggerfall.
All modern so-called RPG's have this flaw. They never allow true free roaming.
I am the pc, this is my rpg and Ill darn well get to that lake via the mountains and not the path. The mountains are there, arent they?
Or are they just scenery and blockage as an illusion that makes the world look larger?

I fear for Skyrim.
Can I really not run over those hills? If I do find a path, will I find an invisible barrier like fallout? Bad level design for an open world rpg = invisible barriers.
So my run speed will be the same the whole game? See my signature. Ai ai.

I do really love games from this studio.
In the advent to Skyrim I bought a fallout game and I am wholly engrossed. I just do not want any of the no jump increase/ no run increase/ false partitioning.

You can do anything you want to?
Yes please.
Please do not restrict through hard caps in enchant, alchemy, etc, no invisible barriers.
This is the premier game. This is the industry standard.
Make it count.

I agree about the running (if there really is nothing for it), but I don't think they will have invisible barriers (except at the map edge). They'vesaid before "You can go anywhere." and "You can look at an apple then look up and see a mountain. And then you can run up that mountain.". I believe what they mean by the fact that you have to go around them is that many sections will be too steep to climb, so you will have to find other more time-consuming routes, and (perhaps, hopefully) moving up mountains will be slower the steeper it is, like in real life. I'm 95% sure you can still climb any mountain area.

They never gave us invisible walls in Oblivion, except that one island with the necromancers that I think was a curse or something and the arena viewing section. And weren't the invisible walls in Fallout just for New Vegas? I think that's something Bethesda wants to avoid.

Just.. levitation. Jump, slowfall.
I dont see the problem. This is my game and my world and I should be able to go anyway I please instead of how a developer wants me to.
It is one of the core aspects of the series, that I dont do what you want, but what I want.

I agree with this guy and the op.

I havn't played dead read redemption and havn't played the last GTA games but I am quit sure from San Andreas to GTA III there was always some kind of annoying quest I couldn't get past, to my really annoyance since in GTA I and II you could fail and blow up quests ...

You can do everything you want I believe that is restricted in each game ....

My cat never argues with me...

Just because you can do anything in the game doesn't mean you have to be able to do it with one character if he's not suitable for the guild or has joined a conflicting guild. :shrug:

Why did this thread make me think of Zombo.com?

if you are a member and espcially if you are the head of the fighters guild for example. why would the mages guild or the thieves guild want to have anything to do with you at all? it has to make sense in the game world. yes you could complete the quest but why should they offer you the job in the first place if you a member of an opposing faction that works against them on occasions. at least in morrowind you had to make a choice between the fighters guild and the thieves guild because they didnt like eachother. apparently the mages guild in oblivion could care less that you worked for the thieves guild or the dark brotherhood or that you could even cast any spells at all..............eh will still give you command of all the mages and resources of the arcane university. its just stupid.

You are skipping your own argument:

Now, please explain to me what does your post claim that in any way, suggest that you are raising the game difficulty by locking people out of guild quests?

You said that locking people out of guild quests make the game harder. Then you try to prove it by saying something completely unrelated all together. Get your story straight.

people that are opposed to guild restrictions are also usually opposed to any restrictions at all. they dont want restrictions on magic or how many skills you can acquire. they want to be able to become uber powerful and one hit enemies later in the game and feel all epic about themselves. the people that want restrictions tend to be the "realism" and "immersion" crowd. those kind of people want restrictions specifically to add challenge to the game not make your character some uber elite invincible killing machine that can do everythign in the game on one playthrough.

we want the game world to make sense and for it to make sense guilds that openly oppose each should not be making the game easier for you by giving you access to their resources. being a member of the thieves guild and the mages guild gives you access to extra gear and extra functions such as being able to pay off fines for half price or selling stolen loot or in the case of the mages guild their loot and gear and access to the best spell vendors and spells like wizards fire. it makes the game easier when you can utilize resources from various guilds as opposed to just having access to the resources of just one or at most two guilds.

hows that for you? should i simplify that anymore or can you handle that?