Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Fallout 4' started by Fizzycswag, Jul 16, 2018.
Maybe Karma totally eliminated any aspect of moral ambiguity. Just spitballing here.
Or they rather want every npc to suck your d**k even if you killed them a dozen times. No one should say crap about Kevin489023LO0T.
Actually they don’t want npcs to suck your dick. They got rid of confirmed bachelor for Fallout 4. Too easy?
They don't go on their knees and kiss the little bro.
I know... It was a joke
Oh... I was having a fine day until I read this thread...
Have a fine day, too, good sir .
The most annoying thing about how Bethesda does their essentials, is they fucking half ass it.
They'll make a couple people essential in a faction, the rest (some of which include important quest givers for location side quests, debatably more important than the essential ones) are free game.
So you end up with the locations breaking in terms of quests, ruining any point of going there, but annoying twats will remain there forever.
It's like you can make entire locations into limbo-zones, it's bizzare.
For example, you can massacre everyone in the Vault 81, of course, no one gives a shit, they'll forgive you in a day. But the "Hole in the wall" quest will never start, because Bethesda couldn't just make ONE more character essential.
They seriously need to just go complete Stalker and make 'safe zones' where you can't draw weapons, or just go full morrowind and go 'fuck it, kill everyone, enjoy'.
Yeah, that is a fair point. I think I read somewhere that in Oblivion, Martin Septim kept dying straight through the tests of the game, because rogue elements like bad AI or bugs, then they made him essential.
NV also did that. You cant kill the brainbots in Old World Blues, only in the ending. Ed E cant die in Lonesome Road.
but that does not explain why the hell I can not kill someone like fucking Marcy Long for example.
Honestly, I think a big part of it is their general world design.
You look at games like Skyrim (especially Skyrim) and Fallout 3 and 4, it's meant to be open enough to allow characters to interact, but also have elements of randomness in regard to spawned encounters for the player.
In general, this can lead to weird things like enemies chasing you into places and attacking NPCs. So, they just set characters to be unkillable so a player can't accidentally break their game. However, they extend this concept to just not being able to accidentally miss content so they make practically everything unkillable.
It's not an elegant solution and really isn't needed imho, but I do think that's why it's changed to be like that in their newer games.
They do it mostly because it's too much work for them to add extra dialogues, scenes and scripts to handle the death of a NPC that has a significant role in one of their quest lines. Also an important NPC may also die randomly due to engine glitches which may prevent the player going further in the quest or in the game. Bethesda, as usual, chooses the cheapest and simplest solution... Lazy mofos...
Pro-tip for people looking for a good RPG: Don't buy the game if it has essential/unkillable NPCs.
Case in point, the BoS member who's essential (haha) for Liberty Prime's movement... and whom Bethesda didn't bother adding the essential tag to.
Oh God yeah, I remember that when it came out. Jesus Fallout 3 is a giant Joke.
Everyone's essential except for one guy literally required at the end.
Isn't that the same MATN series that had either Flak or Shrapnel wandering the wastes as an immortal killing machine because he has an essentials tag for no bloody reason?
Yep. Honestly, his Fallout 3 kill everything run is still one of his best series. Sad that he's moved away from content like that now. Still waiting on his Fallout 4 YOLO, that's one I really want to see because of just how garbage that game is with shit like random damage and rads. I'm amazed he managed it with NV and FO3 (especially 3), but I really think 4 will be the one to fail. If he ever bothers :/ Too busy shilling Fallout 76 atm.
i know these are old posts but i just noticed that everyone is praising morrowind for allowing the player to kill essential npcs. how is this better than having immortal npcs in fallout 3? they didn't make any effort to build the story around it or to include consequences of such act, they were just like oops, you killed an essential npcs, go and reload the game now
Because you can do it in the first place. I know some people that continue playing after killing an essential npc.
Essential npcs are just insulting, it makes the world feel artificial, like you can't affect the world in any way except for the dev intended way. The devs think they are protecting the players from themselves instead of just allowing them to do whatever they want and live with the consequences.
the same as in morrowind - you don't affect the world by killing an important person because the devs were too lazy to make it flexible, they just tell you to reload because you fucked up
They tell you to reload or live with the consequences. You can choose NOT to reload and continue.
the game becoming broken because of lacks in the story is not a consequence in an rpg
if you join the slavers in fallout 2, many characters will not be willing to speak to you and you lock yourself out from many quests - that is a consequence
The game becoming broken IS a consequence.