I was wrong

[Sarvis]

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.

One huge flaw in this example is population. A medieval town isn't going to have endless replacements to fill any position where you slaughtered the last person. There might only BE one blacksmith in the town, so if the blacksmith were needed to build you some important device you'd be screwed.

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?

That would depend on how important he was. If some important noble were killed, the effects should be a lot more drastic than simply: here's replacement B. The entire city might shut down, with guards sealing off all the gates and such until the killer is found for instance.

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.

And in the meantime you've reduced important characters to nothing more than hollow templates. It wouldn't break immersion at all for you to have Quest Giver Bob's replacement act exactly like Quest Giver Bob?

 

[corvax]

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.

Isn't having unkillable npcs sort of like having hidden moron indicators? Personally I don't see that big of a difference between the two.

Either way this clarification isn't the best news in the world but it isn't that horrible either.

 

[jiujitsu]

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

So did I. Hahaha

I don't really care if the game forces you to load if you kill an essential NPC. It was like that in Morrowind, so whatever.

 

[fnordcircle]

I don't really care if the game forces you to load if you kill an essential NPC. It was like that in Morrowind, so whatever.

You could keep going in morrowind, you just never finished the final quest.

 

[Claw]

Why not. He had all the personality of a common brick anyway.

Btw, what happened to powerful NPCs that aren't easily beaten by Mr. Adventurer Dude anyway? Oh, I see. Everyone has to be able to go from a clueless peasant to He-Man now.

I personally think the obvious solution would be an "emergancy plan" not requiring living NPCs. Shortcuts. That would make the game simpler, but then again if you decided to slaughter everyone, I suppose you had your fun already.

 

[fnordcircle]

Also the fact that people are making a big deal out of something so small shows how many idiots with a petty agenda are on this board. Is it annoying? Yes. Would I rather get the game in November looking and playing good? Hell yeah.

Why you people who aren't going to buy this game because of your stupid principles spend so much time obsessing on it is beyond me.

 

[Spazmo]

Alright, this is a good first step. Now admit Morrowind was awful and you'll really be on the path to recovery.

 

[Sarvis]

Why not. He had all the personality of a common brick anyway.

Btw, what happened to powerful NPCs that aren't easily beaten by Mr. Adventurer Dude anyway? Oh, I see. Everyone has to be able to go from a clueless peasant to He-Man now.

Because if the Hero isn't stronger, then why doesn't the NPC go solve the problem himself?

That is the usual argument, right?

 

[Shagnak]

Isn't having unkillable npcs sort of like having hidden moron indicators? Personally I don't see that big of a difference between the two.

Heh, it's not ideal. And, yes, the effect ends up the same (Edit: err...except in one you cant kill them even if you try ).
But if they have to have one or another, I would rather not have to walk around this nicely rendered world with people having big symbols dancing above their heads. Unless there is a spell that does it of course :wink:

Edit: oh well, just like jiujitsu, at the end of it all I suppose I dont care one way or another. I'm probably still buying it. I'll leave the whingeing to the usual suspects. :wink:

 

[MrSmileyFaceDude]

The symbol isn't above their heads. It's much more subtle than that

 

[Vault Dweller]

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

One huge flaw in this example is population. A medieval town isn't going to have endless replacements to fill any position where you slaughtered the last person. There might only BE one blacksmith in the town, so if the blacksmith were needed to build you some important device you'd be screwed.

I didn't mean endless respawns. I stated, if you recall, "someone well armed and guarded since his predecessor was killed". After 2 deaths, it could be very WELL guarded.

There might only BE one blacksmith in the town, so if the blacksmith were needed to build you some important device you'd be screwed.

That's easy. A schematic should be available that could be taken to other blacksmiths in other towns. Or a note describing where a similar device could be found.

That would depend on how important he was. If some important noble were killed, the effects should be a lot more drastic than simply: here's replacement B. The entire city might shut down, with guards sealing off all the gates and such until the killer is found for instance.

I assume such a noble is well guarded. If you manage to kill him AND the guards, then guards sealing off gates won't be a problem either. Not that spells like Levitation and Mark&Recall make gate sealing business very effective.

As history teaches us though, there is never a shortage of nobles when you need to replace a dead one.

And in the meantime you've reduced important characters to nothing more than hollow templates. It wouldn't break immersion at all for you to have Quest Giver Bob's replacement act exactly like Quest Giver Bob?

So, when you get a new boss, do you bitch about the company breaking your immersion and replacing one TaskGiver with another? Cassius was important not because he was an interesting character but because of who and what he was representing. TES games can pull "dealing with organizations rather than with individuals" thing off very easily, focusing on creating personality and character of an organization instead of those of NPCs.

Also, I'd like to add that there is absolutely nothing wrong with having tough NPCs, important or not, who can kick PC's ass and show him his place.

 

[Shagnak]

MSFD:

Well, if that is so, and you have to be close enough to talk to them (right?) to see the symbol, then people can easily make the mistake of blasting the individual long distance under the assumption that they are, oh, i dunno, a baddie or something.

But then again if people want to play like that then they suffer the consequences I guess.

I'm not too slutted by the moron indicators then I guess; just gimme bump-mapped nipples and we'll call it even. :D

 

[Vault Dweller]

Better yet replace red circles indicator thingies with red bump-mapped nipples and all is forgiven and forgotten :wink:

 

[Drakron]

I dont care, just further proves my point Oblivion is dumb down Morrowind.

But I want to say this, people dont usually go around killing each other for the heck of it, in Morrowind it was possible to kill a essential NPC if you made a effort for it to became hostile and usually you had to try (and fail) steal from him, use convertation to make him hostile or downright attack it.

Of that only ONE could be made by accident (stealing and failing) as the others required the player to actualy TRY to make him hostile.

Oh and this is making NPCs invulnerable, there is no diference of we see a loading screen because we died or a loading screen because we killed a NPC.

Elder Scrolls next step ... repawning players they get killed.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

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

You want a better solution? Come up with a GAME OVER screen. Sure it's not really any different but if you kill Prince Important Quest Giver, rather than popping up the load game box, have the screen go blank and a big slide come up (ala Fallout). It can be a nice image of the dead Prince and a voice-over saying "With the death of the Prince and no-one left to command the army, the Elves were over-run by the Orcish hoardes."

I know making a game where you can kill absolutely everyone is a hard thing to do. Even our dearly beloved Fallout didn't let you kill your own Vault or Tribe. You could mind you, but when you left that map, the game went back to the intro screen (I think, may have to check that - but either way, it was game over).

Having invulnerable PCs is just as daft as a load game but with a special little game over screen for each important NPC, you add a little something to the game. Hell, you may even get people saving, then killing the NPCs just to see what kind of "bad outcome" it caused.

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

This was the issue I had in Morrowind. Almost everyone you talked to was an "Important NPC". Even if you killed them after you'dd ealt with them and they'd served their purpose, you still got that message up even though they could've died without much consequence. If it's true that each "important NPC" is really, really important, adding a GAME OVER slide for each of them that pops up when you kill one of them is a much better option. It doesn't ruin the game so much but rather "short-cuts the ending" so to speak.

Sure it'd be preferable if you could kill them and still complete the game but if you can't do that, seriously think about GAME OVER slides.

 

[Shagnak]

Better yet replace red circles indicator thingies with red bump-mapped nipples and all is forgiven and forgotten :wink:

Okay, but only on the good-looking chick npcs please.

If it's true that each "important NPC" is really, really important, adding a GAME OVER slide for each of them that pops up when you kill one of them is a much better option.

You know, I like that.
"Finding out what happens" due to the consequences of your actions in each particular case could be interesting.

 

[Sarkile]

Also the fact that people are making a big deal out of something so small shows how many idiots with a petty agenda are on this board.

Did nobody else get a laugh out of this one?

 

[Deathy]

stuff

That's actually a damned decent idea. It's still far from optimal, but it's probably as good as you'd be able to get when having the game broken when certain important NPC's are killed.

I suppose an autosave when you attack IMPORTANT NPC that brings you back to a point just before the IMPORTANT NPC becomes hostile would also be necessary to allieviate the "but I haven't saved for hours, and now my game is over!" problem, and really shouldn't be too hard to implement.

 

[Shagnak]

I suppose an autosave when you attack IMPORTANT NPC that brings you back to a point just before the IMPORTANT NPC becomes hostile would also be necessary to allieviate the "but I haven't saved for hours, and now my game is over!" problem, and really shouldn't be too hard to implement.

Yeah...
Goddammit MSFD is it too late to re-implement this part of the game? :wink:

 

[jiujitsu]

Ok, let's cut the shit! Oblivion is going to be Fable/Morrowind with a different name and better graphics!

Done. Finished. Next game.

err..

Oh, yea.

R00fles!!

 

[Dhruin]

Just out of interest, The Witcher will allow every NPC to be killed. The solutions are something like VD suggested (without the replacement guys) - notes, hints for the location, other NPCs with that information and so on.

 

[Sarkile]

I suppose an autosave when you attack IMPORTANT NPC that brings you back to a point just before the IMPORTANT NPC becomes hostile would also be necessary to allieviate the "but I haven't saved for hours, and now my game is over!" problem, and really shouldn't be too hard to implement.

Yeah...
Goddammit MSFD is it too late to re-implement this part of the game? :wink:

Is that really needed though? It's already got moron indicators to let you know not to attack them. Or to save before you do.

 

[Shagnak]

No, sorry, that was in the context of not having the moron indicators and doing the Underlord/Deathy option of an end screen showing the consequences and then being put back to just before the transgression (me not being clear).

But even with the moron indicators, Deathy's extra would be good in case you really fucked up and decided to kill a certain important person just to see the consequences, but it was late and you were tired and you forgot to save.

Which has happened to me.
The forgetting to save cos I was fucked, I mean.

 

[Deathy]

I've had the "damnit, I forgot to save!" situation several times in different games, and although it's basically my own damn fault for being stupid enough not to save, it's usually a gamestopper. I like autosave features.

 

[Sarkile]

You know, as an apology MSFD should smuggle us a couple of screenshots of dialogue. It's the least he could do.