I was wrong

[MrSmileyFaceDude]

I posted this over at the Elder Scrolls forums, but I felt I should post it here, too, since I posted the incorrect info here to begin with. Mea culpa.

OK, so I was wrong. If you kill an essential NPC, you have to load a previous game save.

The number of NPCs you cannot kill is a tiny fraction of the NPCs in the world. The fact of the matter is that killing NPCs that quests rely on breaks the game. Many NPCs are so essential to the game world working, with our AI and so forth, that their deaths can cause any number of things to appear as bugs, or not as we intended. The designers do handle certain NPCs being killed in quests, the ones that make sense to kill, but not, for example, the Count of a city, or the heir to the throne. And it was either force you to re-load, or have the designers remove what made the quests entertaining and compelling in the first place. And I think we can all agree that it's better to have quests that are more fun to play through than quests that are artificially simplified because the designers had to worry about every obscure contingency.

But don't worry about accidentally finding yourself in this situation. We'll have a visual indicator of who's an essential NPC and who isn't, so the chances of you accidentally killing an essential NPC will be slim. And if you find yourself in combat with one, you can always attempt to yield.

Anyway, sorry for the confusion!

ps -- the visual indicator is a small icon that appears when you are close enough to talk to the NPC you're looking at. It'll be one color if they're an essential NPC, another if they're not.

 

[Naked_Lunch]

Wow, a new level of stupidity has just been achieved.

 

[Vault Dweller]

I thought it was one of Volourn's latest posts at first.

OK, so I was wrong. If you kill an essential NPC, you have to load a previous game save.

We forgive you. We know you meant well

The number of NPCs you cannot kill is a tiny fraction of the NPCs in the world.

My math skills aint what they used to be. How much is a "tiny fraction"? 5? 10? 50?

The fact of the matter is that killing NPCs that quests rely on breaks the game.

Innovation?

Many NPCs are so essential to the game world working, with our AI and so forth

Are you trying to pin that on that Radiant AI Extreme thingy? Todd would kill you.

And I think we can all agree that it's better to have quests that are more fun to play through than quests that are artificially simplified because the designers had to worry about every obscure contingency.

From Beth's designer handbook: Thou shalt not worry!

But don't worry about accidentally finding yourself in this situation. We'll have a visual indicator of who's an essential NPC and who isn't

You are on a roll today, aren't you? The only thing we like more than forced reloading is moron indicators. Yay!

so the chances of you accidentally killing an essential NPC will be slim. And if you find yourself in combat with one, you can always attempt to yield.

Alternative solushuns!!! You, guys! Always thinking of us, players.

 

[Seven]

Wow, a new level of stupidity has just been achieved.

That's a pretty stupid comment. While I personnally believe that having the game force you tp reload is just stupid (for lack of a better term) I don't think that it's proper to just fling an insult at some one who's always been civil. Not only that A guy like MrSmileyfacedude derserves a little respect by virtue of the fact that he's willing to come back despite the abuse that he gets from guys like you. At least VD's stuff is funny (plus there's always a degree of constructive criticism there). I fail to see the point of you useless abuse?

 

[Deathy]

Why not just make them invunerable?
If there isn't any way to continue the game after they are killed, killing them should be disabled.

It's still a half assed solution, but it's less likely to cause confusion/anger.

In any case, it's highly dissapointing that a supposedly freeform non linear game would have non-killable NPC's.

 

[Sarvis]

And I think we can all agree that it's better to have quests that are more fun to play through than quests that are artificially simplified because the designers had to worry about every obscure contingency.

You DO realize you're posting on the Codex right?

They'll agree with no such thing...

 

[MrSmileyFaceDude]

Moron indicators? Would you rather find out AFTER you killed someone that you needed to reload? Wouldn't you rather know ahead of time? Or would you rather we do what Gothic did, and not allow you to attack them in the first place? Or would you rather we made the quest lines simpler so it couldn't be a problem in the first place? Or cut quest lines so the designers could account for all contingencies in the smaller number of quests? Or significantly extended development time by forcing the designers to account for every possible contingency?

I know -- this all falls on deaf ears. But then again, I didn't have to post this here in the first place, did I?

 

[Naked_Lunch]

Wow, a new level of stupidity has just been achieved.

That's a pretty stupid comment. While I personnally believe that having the game force you tp reload is just stupid (for lack of a better term) I don't think that it's proper to just fling an insult at some one who's always been civil. Not only that A guy like MrSmileyfacedude derserves a little respect by virtue of the fact that he's willing to come back despite the abuse that he gets from guys like you. At least VD's stuff is funny (plus there's always a degree of constructive criticism there). I fail to see the point of you useless abuse?

I was not flinging the insult directly at MSFD (He's a cool guy) but instead the reasons VD listed. If the RadiantAI is advanced as they claim it to be, why not just program different reactions if the NPC is dead? Why not pin a note or a diary or what have you on him like Arcanum did? Now, this wouldn't bother me so much if you could continue to play despite the fact that the main quest is broken, and doesn't automatically force you to continue. That's just dumb.

EDIT:

But then again, I didn't have to post this here in the first place, did I?

And the fact that you did, despite the insults and attacks you would undoubtably recieve, gets a hats-off from me.

 

[Stark]

Why not just make them invunerable?
If there isn't any way to continue the game after they are killed, killing them should be disabled.

It's still a half assed solution, but it's less likely to cause confusion/anger.

In any case, it's highly dissapointing that a supposedly freeform non linear game would have non-killable NPC's.

to me, making them invunerable is as poor a solution as forcing me to reload. oh well...

MrMSFD, thanks for clarifying.you even mentione the moron indicator thingy... personally i would feel insulted for being hand held like this.

 

[MrSmileyFaceDude]

Naked_Lunch -- how do you know that in some circumstances things like that are not being done?

 

[Naked_Lunch]

I don't. Am I right in assuming those are probably parts of quests (I.E. you need to get something from an NPC and you can pickpocket him, bribe him, or kill him etc.)?

That is good, I like that kind of freedom to do that, but I guess my main beef is just not being able to continue playing after killing an essential NPC.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Moron indicators? Would you rather find out AFTER you killed someone that you needed to reload? Wouldn't you rather know ahead of time? Or would you rather we do what Gothic did, and not allow you to attack them in the first place? Or would you rather we made the quest lines simpler so it couldn't be a problem in the first place? Or cut quest lines so the designers could account for all contingencies in the smaller number of quests? Or significantly extended development time by forcing the designers to account for every possible contingency?

I can't speak for everyone, but I'd rather see other, more intelligent and immersive ways of handling it. No, I don't think it's that difficult.

I know -- this all falls on deaf ears. But then again, I didn't have to post this here in the first place, did I?

We are grateful for the info and your company, as for the reaction, it's not like you expected us to be enthusiastic about it. Come on.

 

[Deathy]

Or cut quest lines so the designers could account for all contingencies in the smaller number of quests? Or significantly extended development time by forcing the designers to account for every possible contingency?

Either one of those two options would be a better solution for me, as a player.

But then again, I, nor anyone who prefers quality over quantity is really the target audience for this game.

 

[Sarkile]

To be fair, Fallout had an NPC you couldn't kill for some reason as well.
Just as long as I don't have a repeat of Morrowind where some stupid woman out in the middle of nowhere attacks me forcing me to kill her in self defense and it turned out she was 'essential' to the main quest or something. If they don't give me a reason to murder them I won't do it.

 

[Deathy]

To be fair, Fallout had an NPC you couldn't kill for some reason as well.

Who was that?
If you're talking about the vault overseer, he was killable. Really neat death animation, too.

 

[Sarkile]

Are you talking about the ending where you lose the game or join the mutants? Because you can't personally kill the overseer. So unless you're one of those mutants swarming his chair, which there's no reason to believe, no you can't kill him.
Or maybe I didn't try hard enough. I definitely damaged him beyond the point the Master would've died at least twice.

 

[NeutralMilkHotel]

I can't speak for everyone, but I'd rather see other, more intelligent and immersive ways of handling it. No, I don't think it's that difficult.

While I would like that too, I was wondering something. What if the main quest had you coming to a certain NPC many times throughout your adventure for an assortment of reasons, where you don't do a couple quests then you're done with him forever, yet you kill him in the beginning for whatever reason. Wouldn't it be difficult to do that?

What if every, or alot, or most important NPCs had you coming back to them many times throughout the story, wouldn't that make it very difficult? Wouldn't that be as hopeful as hoping they would make deep dialogue trees for however many important quest NPCs there are in the game, where like you said, no one should critisize them for that?

I'm no developer, so I'm pretty ignorant on the matter, but it seems like it would be more pain than what it's worth, at least in a game the size of oblivion?

 

[Deathy]

When he comes out of the vault to meet with you at the end, you can initiate combat and you have 1 turn to destroy him before the end slideshow starts.

It takes some luck, but it's worth it. I suppose it's more of an easter egg rather than a real implementation of the option to kill any NPC.

 

[Greenskin13]

DrattedTin is back in black.

Are you talking about the ending where you lose the game or join the mutants? Because you can't personally kill the overseer. So unless you're one of those mutants swarming his chair, which there's no reason to believe, no you can't kill him.
Or maybe I didn't try hard enough. I definitely damaged him beyond the point the Master would've died at least twice.

I think that if you completed the game with Bloody Mess or you were evil, you blow the Overseer away. I heard that you can accomplish this by hiting the combat button at the end of the game as well, but I haven't tested that.

 

[Sarkile]

I forgot about that. Regardless, he's invincible up until that point.

 

[Gromnir]

Wow, a new level of stupidity has just been achieved.

what would really be stoopid is for a developer to waste effort to make all npcs killable... and then to makes sure that doing so don't break the critical path quests. the resources required to make such a thing possible in a large game is moronic bordering on troika.

btw, the stoopidist thing we ever seen were posted on a game board were posted here a few months ago. some clown said that a game couldn't be a REAL rpg unless the game were breakable.

HA! Good Fun!

 

[Claw]

Why not just make them invunerable?
If there isn't any way to continue the game after they are killed, killing them should be disabled.

It's still a half assed solution, but it's less likely to cause confusion/anger.

Not really. Since in Gothic fights between humans are not necessarily deadly, reloading may have been less aggravating than being unable to defend yourself against certain NPCs.

I do agree it's half assed, though. The repeated argument that this'n'that would take too much effort just sounds pathetic. If they keep going that direction, some day they'll end up with an FPS that features only a single weapon. But that one will be awesome!

 

[Vault Dweller]

While I would like that too, I was wondering something. What if the main quest had you coming to a certain NPC many times throughout your adventure for an assortment of reasons, where you don't do a couple quests then you're done with him forever, yet you kill him in the beginning for whatever reason. Wouldn't it be difficult to do that?

What if every, or alot, or most important NPCs had you coming back to them many times throughout the story, wouldn't that make it very difficult? Wouldn't that be as hopeful as hoping they would make deep dialogue trees for however many important quest NPCs there are in the game, where like you said, no one should critisize them for that?

I'm no developer, so I'm pretty ignorant on the matter, but it seems like it would be more pain than what it's worth, at least in a game the size of oblivion?

Not really. Here is an example I often use to illustrate that point. You deal with many people on daily basis: your boss, your coworkers whose work you may depend on, people whose services might be important to you: a good accountant, an honest car mechanic, an insurance broker, etc. Would your life be over if one of them dies or moves? No. Someone will replace them eventually and often without introduction. Same here.

Take that fella from MW, Cassius Something. I assume he's fairly important as he gives you quests, promotions, and tips. Let's say you kill him for whatever reasons. Would it be too much to assume that someone else will take his place? Someone well armed and guarded since his predecessor was killed? Do you think it's a lot of design work to make such a character or characters with some minor dialogues explaining that he's taking over? Not really. Nothing else would be changed: same quests, same dialogues, same mechanics, same results, just a different name and few little extras that shouldn't be difficult, especially when you have that uber RADiant AI gadget.

 

[Shagnak]

Thanks for the clarification MSFD.

I think I would prefer unkillable NPCs though (as per Deathy's orig suggestion).
What if you hadn't saved in a while and your only recourse was to go back to a game which was hours ago? That would piss me off.
I know you have "moron indicators" now, so there should be no excuses for killing an "essential npc", but I prefer those to be kept to action RPGs like Sacred where I care less about immersion.

So, if it is impractical to support every possible contingency, I would rather no moron indicators and unkillable npcs, than having moron indicators and killable essential npcs.

 

[NeutralMilkHotel]

VD: Then, if you keep killing the replacement? Just have a generic, randomized NPC to replace them?