I was wrong

[ElastiZombie]

I think it's a completely ass idea. Given a fantasy setting, if you can't come up with something other than a load screen for when a player kills an "important NPC", you've failed as a designer. There's gobs of options seen in various other games, books, what have you.

I personally like the old villian standbys of ducking out a secret door, teleporting away, descending in the elevator throne, etc. before the PC can reach you/kill you. Appropriate taunts would add to the immersion. Not to mention the room turning into a deathtrap once the NPC is gone. Pure class.

 

[Sarvis]

But that only really works for villains... not random nobles telling you to go kill said villain.

 

[Kamaz]

DAMN, you, MSFD, you should really listen to those people. There are ways (and many pretty simple) to handle that. Divine intervention, jesus, why not? Journal? WOuld do. Ghost? No prob. Even game-ending screen would be great, that would add your goddamned non-linearity factor to the game - immagine, you could come up with some ideas what happens if that specific NPC dies. I would enjoy your game even more if that would be an option. You dont have to have some movies, just simple text and maybe some art (gloomy renders anytime). That would require a little of work (less than moron indicators, I guess) and can be done even now. Go get that doing or I am getting a voodoo dall un sheet of paper to draw adventures of you voodoo doll.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

rather than trying to satisfy the tiny majority of psychos that think being able to kill any NPC anytime = TEH ROLEPLAYING.

But discounting the possibility of catering to a given minority who wants to kill anything that moves in a CRPG, you also have a good reason to avoid doing this. I don't think the issue exclusively pertains to players who want to play or roleplay a particularly bloodthirsty type of character, as you can also question this decision on account of it preventing the gameworld from being more open-ended and responsive to your decisions, preventing it from providing natural consequences to your actions and instead removing some decisions or consequences altogether.

Personally, it's not about not being able to kill everyone but rather being unable to kill some; in this case, NPCs labelled as special to the story and continuity of the game. Saint put it nicely when he mentioned that when you're developing a game using a fantasy setting there is no short amount of excuses you can use to explain an NPCs power or invulnerability. Using the game setting's own rules seems more well adjusted than using in-game mechanics as an excuse.

If my actions are to be capped or rendered useless because someone saw fit that Biff the Understudy must be alive in Chapter 3, I'd prefered to be given reasons based on the context of the game (ie, "You have slain the heir to the throne of Heimdall. Try as you might, not even all the might in the world will save you from the irate weapons of the province's soldiers. Your death for this transgression is brutal." or "You have slain the heir to the throne of Heimdall. This will have dire consequences to both you and the province of Heimdall. Do you wish to persist in this doomed land or do you accept death as a just penalty for your transgression? Yes/No/Bite me, fanboy!") rather than ("You killed Prince Wilhem. We're sorry but we could not think of a story past this point. We will now gently reload your last savegame so you can play in a way we want you to. Have a nice day.")

 

[obediah]

SP -- how do you know that some or all of those things aren't all being done in certain instances? It's all a matter of choosing your battles as a designer. Do you want to spend your time making sure you can complete everything in the game even if you kill everyone -- which COULD lead to intentionally simplifying the quests -- or do you want to spend your time making the quests as good as possible? The essential NPC flag removes that battle for the designers, so they can focus on the more important task of making interesting, compelling quests. They always have the ability to handle the deaths of NPCs when it makes sense to do so.

Oh, and as far as the game over screen -- what would you do after you saw it? I know I would reload so I could continue playing

I liked the middle ground, of having a "if you kill this person the main quest is hosed", even an in character "If you betray me, the fate of foogleland is sealed", then after the death an out-of-character "You've fucked the plot, push this button to go back to your last save, or continue playing in a doomed world".

It shouldn't be that difficult to accomodate in your triggers and flags and such (if it is you designed them wrong from the beginning).

The real question for you as the DEVS is do you want to make TES games or do you want to make FPS action-rpgs? Oblivion sounds like a nice game, if it was released under Looking Glass or Ion Storm or Piranha Bytes, you'd get a lot less flack from your fanbase. Every thing said in this forum stems from the fact that Bethesda is abandoning a CRPG niche that they were largely responsible for and are the sole occupant of to pursue a safer, yet much more crowded niche.

Bethesda really wants to dump it's aging, small fanbase for a much bigger, younger, sexier new fanbase. Unfortunately, they don't want to admit that they are shallow enough to do that, and they don't have the guts to break up with their old fans to their face.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

SP -- how do you know that some or all of those things aren't all being done in certain instances? It's all a matter of choosing your battles as a designer. Do you want to spend your time making sure you can complete everything in the game even if you kill everyone -- which COULD lead to intentionally simplifying the quests -- or do you want to spend your time making the quests as good as possible? The essential NPC flag removes that battle for the designers, so they can focus on the more important task of making interesting, compelling quests. They always have the ability to handle the deaths of NPCs when it makes sense to do so.

I think the most damning thing about this statement is that 14 minute video where the guy beats Morrowind without relying on any of the critical NPCs in that game. Apparently the ones who you guys thought were critical in the first one weren't so critical after all. I'd say the same thing will go towards Oblivion.

I fail to see how leaving behind records, or having the NPC come back as a ghost/revenant/etc., or being ressurrected by mystic means, or etc. would get in the way of making quests complex. It might lead to the player not getting certain reward items because the ghost can't just hand something over or might be a little pissed off about his newly found status in the world, sure. I just fail to see how that gimping the players in a fashion like that when there are a wide variety of ways to get around it can gimp the quests.

 

[MrSmileyFaceDude]

Don't you think we thought of all that? We've been working on this game for over 3 years, designers included. The truth is it's not ALWAYS "that difficult" to do the type of thing you're talking about -- and in some cases, the designers have handled crucial NPC deaths in the quests. But why should they HAVE to do it for every single NPC that's related to a quest line? That's what I mean by choosing your battles. It takes a significant amount of time to figure out every possible contingency, account for it, and test for it. Given that development time is finite, there are a few choices you can make. You can sacrifice other quest lines, you can simplify the quest lines, you can just let players continue playing a horribly broken game -- or you can give the designers the ability to mark NPCs as essential and prevent the player from continuing if they die.

We chose to "err" on the side of better quests -- because the designers didn't have to chase down every conceivable permutation of character deaths, unless it was appropriate to the specific quests, they could make the quests more interesting, more involved, and more entertaining.

If you'd rather have dumbed-down quests and the ability to killzorz everyone, you'll have to find another game.

 

[Kuato]

You tell em Saint!

they seriously need a refresher on just what design is ....yeah design

 

[MrSmileyFaceDude]

SP -- how do you know that some or all of those things aren't all being done in certain instances? It's all a matter of choosing your battles as a designer. Do you want to spend your time making sure you can complete everything in the game even if you kill everyone -- which COULD lead to intentionally simplifying the quests -- or do you want to spend your time making the quests as good as possible? The essential NPC flag removes that battle for the designers, so they can focus on the more important task of making interesting, compelling quests. They always have the ability to handle the deaths of NPCs when it makes sense to do so.

I think the most damning thing about this statement is that 14 minute video where the guy beats Morrowind without relying on any of the critical NPCs in that game. Apparently the ones who you guys thought were critical in the first one weren't so critical after all. I'd say the same thing will go towards Oblivion.

I fail to see how leaving behind records, or having the NPC come back as a ghost/revenant/etc., or being ressurrected by mystic means, or etc. would get in the way of making quests complex. It might lead to the player not getting certain reward items because the ghost can't just hand something over or might be a little pissed off about his newly found status in the world, sure. I just fail to see how that gimping the players in a fashion like that when there are a wide variety of ways to get around it can gimp the quests.

Argumentum ad Ignorantiam. You're assuming because Morrowind was a certain way, that given the absence of information about Oblivion, it must be the same way.

 

[TheGreatGodPan]

Oblivion sounds like a nice game, if it was released under Looking Glass or Ion Storm or Piranha Bytes, you'd get a lot less flack from your fanbase.

It would get some surprised looks if it was the first two, seeing as how they don't exist. I bet people would be angrier at Piranha Bytes for this than Bethesda, becuase Bethesda is at least following what they think worked in Morrowind and trying to improve it. I wouldn't get mad at Valve or iD for making a shooter when I want a 2D turn-based empire-building strategy game.

 

[Vykromond]

Not to mention that the ability to beat Morrowind without "the critical NPCs" helping you was an intended part of the game. The 14 minutes thing is so fast because the player exploited a lot more things than just quest progression.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Don't you think we thought of all that?

I may come as a shock to you, but we have no idea what you guys have and haven't thought of. Considering MW and what's known about Oblivion, you'd have to excuse us for not giving Bethesda any benefits of the doubt. What we know is that there is a forced reload, moron indicators, and some unexplained enthusiasm on your part.

But why should they HAVE to do it for every single NPC that's related to a quest line?

A better question is why there are so many NPCs who are so vital to the main quest that if one of them dies, all would be lost. I, as a professional hero, feel less important already. I'm fighting my ass off, and even as I'm clearing a dungeon after dungeon, my only hopes are that one of those bastards won't get a flue and die on me.

That's what I mean by choosing your battles. It takes a significant amount of time to figure out every possible contingency, account for it, and test for it.

Hmm, sounds exponential. Someone call Dave Gaider, MSFD is stealing his lines.

If you'd rather have dumbed-down quests .....

You did play Morrowind, didn't you? Oh, teh IRONY!!!!

 

[Vault Dweller]

Argumentum ad Ignorantiam. You're assuming because Morrowind was a certain way, that given the absence of information about Oblivion, it must be the same way.

The absence of information? Wasn't there like a truckload of previews/interviews praising this and that? In fact when I think of Oblivion two things that come to mind are: Radiant AI that sounds more overhyped than SkyNet and PATRIC STEWART!!!

If Bethesda decided that well designed quests (according to you, of course) are less important than telling the world for the hundredth time that PATRIC STEWART!!! is in and that NPCs can now cook and masturbate at the same time, then I highly doubt that the quests are that well designed to begin with.

 

[Human Shield]

This is just like killing certain scientists in Half-Life, BUT EVEN THAT HAD A DIFFERENT GAME OVER SCREEN!

If the player kills an NPC that is important have the organization communicate with letters, can't kill mailboxes. They can get gold in the mail and send items back and forth if they want.

The guy beat Morrowind without talking to any of the important NPCs, so why the hell did they matter? It seems like Oblivion will have more absolute roadblocks making it more linear.

Very few NPCs could effect the real main quest; doing missions for Curio guy didn't effect solving the main problem of killing the big heart.

You're making sidequests into main quests. You didn't have to help out Shady Sands before you could find Junktown, you didn't even have to get the Water Chip before dealing with the real threat of the mutants.

If you'd rather have dumbed-down quests and the ability to killzorz everyone, you'll have to find another game.

How about a dynamic world that reacts to player actions and has the player actually solving things instead of "good quests" (like Super Mario has a quest) and has the ability to solve a problem with force. Like Falout did 8 YEARS AGO.

The best solution would have the NPC yield in the fight and give any important info or swear that a quest is really important. Then the player would have a lot of control over them and a message saying "I can still use this guy" appears if the player wants to kill him, then if he doesn't matter anymore you can kill him.

 

[MrSmileyFaceDude]

The point still stands, VD -- we really haven't said anything about quests, dialogue, magic, lots of things, so the only thing you have to go by is Morrowind and what we HAVE said. But what's in Morrowind does not necessarily imply what's in Oblivion -- I would have thought the differences between Daggerfall and Morrowind made that obvious. And so it doesn't automatically follow that things in Oblivion are going to be the same way they were in Morrowind when we haven't talked about them yet. Such an assumption is a logical fallacy.

I think this is one of those cases where we'll all just have to wait & see what you think of the game after it comes out. It's really not as huge a deal as some people want to make of it.

 

[Major_Blackhart]

Butters, I hate you with every inch of my body.

 

[obediah]

Oblivion sounds like a nice game, if it was released under Looking Glass or Ion Storm or Piranha Bytes, you'd get a lot less flack from your fanbase.

It would get some surprised looks if it was the first two, seeing as how they don't exist. I bet people would be angrier at Piranha Bytes for this than Bethesda, becuase Bethesda is at least following what they think worked in Morrowind and trying to improve it. I wouldn't get mad at Valve or iD for making a shooter when I want a 2D turn-based empire-building strategy game.

I meant the names, rather than the actual development teams - I intended to make that clear, but forgot to. Hell, Atari has been dead for 20 years, but they still churn out shit. The point was that Oblivion seems closer to SS, DE, or Gothic than Daggerfall.

I wouldn't get nearly as mad if iD or Valve made spelling games for some obscure tribal langue in South America. The point being that there are plenty of people making FPS, so it's not like that itch is going to go unscratched if one developer abandons the genre.

 

[Surlent]

I think this is one of those cases where we'll all just have to wait & see what you think of the game after it comes out

Eh isn't anyone in Beth going to even give examples of those great quests that await us ? Are they guarded secrets ?

 

[MrSmileyFaceDude]

I think this is one of those cases where we'll all just have to wait & see what you think of the game after it comes out

Eh isn't anyone in Beth going to even give examples of those great quests that await us ? Are they guarded secrets ?

Eventually, I'd imagine. Though I doubt we'll release too many details, since discovery is half the fun.

 

[Major_Blackhart]

I think this is one of those cases where we'll all just have to wait & see what you think of the game after it comes out

Eh isn't anyone in Beth going to even give examples of those great quests that await us ? Are they guarded secrets ?

He doesnt know. Shhh.

 

[Drakron]

Eventually, I'd imagine. Though I doubt we'll release too many details, since discovery is half the fun.

Except in the guide ... oops.

Serious, you expect that we are going to belive you guys that deliberate make a quest in Morrowind that shown the potecial of the engine to make complex quests and then resorted to the same gameplay quest mechanics since the dawn of RPGs?

I am not a idiot.

 

[Vault Dweller]

But what's in Morrowind does not necessarily imply what's in Oblivion -- I would have thought the differences between Daggerfall and Morrowind made that obvious.

And we assume that the trend continues. All that's already known about Oblivion: less everything, more bloom - kinda proves that theory.

And so it doesn't automatically follow that things in Oblivion are going to be the same way they were in Morrowind when we haven't talked about them yet. Such an assumption is a logical fallacy.

No, it's not. Those changes from DF to MW happened for a reason. That reason is still there, so expecting changes from MW back to DF would actually be an example of a logical fallacy.

I think this is one of those cases where we'll all just have to wait & see what you think of the game after it comes out.

It's a date.

 

[Major_Blackhart]

He's such a tease.

 

[bryce777]

But what's in Morrowind does not necessarily imply what's in Oblivion -- I would have thought the differences between Daggerfall and Morrowind made that obvious.

And we assume that the trend continues. All that's already known about Oblivion: less everything, more bloom - kinda proves that theory.

And so it doesn't automatically follow that things in Oblivion are going to be the same way they were in Morrowind when we haven't talked about them yet. Such an assumption is a logical fallacy.

No, it's not. Those changes from DF to MW happened for a reason. That reason is still there, so expecting changes from MW back to DF would actually be an example of a logical fallacy.

I think this is one of those cases where we'll all just have to wait & see what you think of the game after it comes out.

It's a date.

Burn down the fourth tower, just like with the first, second, and third towers.

 

[Mithter Thibbs]

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.

Not really being in the mood to wade through four pages of potential crud at the moment, I'll just ask it straight up:

Is there going to be an option to turn this Essential NPC indicator off?

I don't imagine it'd be all that glaring an issue anyway, but it might be nice for those who want to "tread carefully" while they're playing, instead of having a halo around the heads of certain people. I'd like to think that common sense would give people a pretty good idea of who to attack and who not to, but that might be asking for a bit much.