Why does Bethesda make everyone essential?

Fizzycswag

Fizzycswag

First time out of the vault
Does anyone actually know why Bethesda decides to always make everyone unkillable? They always claim to have consequences in their games but you can't really have that when you can't even kill the secretary at the detective agency. Meanwhile in Fallout New Vegas you can kill every faction leader.
 
They're afraid the player might engage in wrongthink and kill someone they deem essential to the storytelling. Imagine the horror if you somehow kill mama murphy for example. How will the game continue without this character? No no, best to rip away the free will of the player, as to protect them from their own decisions.
 
Ayelander said:
They're afraid the player might engage in wrongthink and kill someone they deem essential to the storytelling. Imagine the horror if you somehow kill mama murphy for example. How will the game continue without this character? No no, best to rip away the free will of the player, as to protect them from their own decisions.
Click to expand...
Lmao Bethesda in a nutshell
 
It's a damn shame... this was a very interesting aspect of Morrowind, but ever since Oblivion they have been adding an increasing number of essential NPCs to each release. I've also noticed that recently they have been adding very irritating NPCs like Rolf in Skyrim and then making them essential for no apparent reason other than to piss people off.
 
This was the first thing that bothered me with Oblivion, as a result causing me to download it for PC, and mod it out. Then I just gave up on caring about modding all the shit out that is egregious with their RPG's. Now I play games that don't need 150 mods to be fun.

Fun fact: Egregious used to be a positive word meaning good until the 16th century when sarcasm took hold. So no smartass Bethtroll can come by and say I said it was good. Heh.
 
TorontRayne said:
This was the first thing that bothered me with Oblivion, as a result causing me to download it for PC, and mod it out. Then I just gave up on caring about modding all the shit out that is egregious with their RPG's. Now I play games that don't need 150 mods to be fun.

Fun fact: Egregious used to be a positive word meaning good until the 16th century when sarcasm took hold. So no smartass Bethtroll can come by and say I said it was good. Heh.
Click to expand...
Y'know, I think you made this post just to vent over the word egregious.
 
Morrowind - Can kill anybody
Oblivion - Can't kill people essential to the story
Skyrim - Can't kill randomly selected annoying characters that may or may not have any use left like maven Black-Briar because Bethesda was too lazy to code in responses and consequences to their death
 
Because Bethesda no longer believes in consequences and think they are protecting the player from themselves. Which is condescending as shit to begin with.
 
Fizzycswag said:
Does anyone actually know why Bethesda decides to always make everyone unkillable? They always claim to have consequences in their games but you can't really have that when you can't even kill the secretary at the detective agency. Meanwhile in Fallout New Vegas you can kill every faction leader.
Click to expand...
With all due respect, it’s how they operate. They want to control the story, and not have the player going off killing folks that would ruin their perfect setup. They’re like Will Ferrel in The Lego Movie. They have all of their toys set up to be observed, not played with.
 
I'd take out the essential status altogether but keep the NPC's "wounded state" if they'd get too injured. I'd rather have that over the "cherry-tap to death" NPC's experience in earlier Bethesda games and New Vegas. Example, Marcus probably won't die from a single Cazador attack but several over time will certainly kill him, which is bad due to the spawn point of the Cazadors for Jacobstown.
 
Well, if the point is the player agency, why not let the player choose ?
If he want essential, the game set a 1 over all the would-be essential characters. If he want no essential, that an essential=0 for everyone. (and maybe add some intermediate levels)
That seems pretty easy. But player agency is not their priority.
 
naossano said:
They don't want you to kill any npc that might possibly have any kind of interaction with you other than fighting.
Click to expand...
It just seems really random though, like for example you can kill the Black Briar daughter in Skyrim, but you can't kill that prick that you meet by the gates of Windhelm. Why? Do they think we're retarded?
 
Fizzycswag said:
It just seems really random though, like for example you can kill the Black Briar daughter in Skyrim, but you can't kill that prick that you meet by the gates of Windhelm. Why? Do they think we're retarded?
Click to expand...
But that prick has one of those brawling minigames. Players just cant go missing something like that.
 
naossano said:
Well, if the point is the player agency, why not let the player choose ?
If he want essential, the game set a 1 over all the would-be essential characters. If he want no essential, that an essential=0 for everyone. (and maybe add some intermediate levels)
That seems pretty easy. But player agency is not their priority.
Click to expand...
That's actually a great idea they could easily implement but Bethesda couldn't give two shits about fixing things they're always criticized about
 
In Morrowind you could kill a living god if that was your desire. In Skyrim you can't even kill a member of Thieves Guild. All it does is takes away options and makes your character look like a wimp.

Also their essential system is hilarious. In FO3 you've got Shrapnel, Doc Preston or unnamed BoS guy in GNR that are essential despite not being involved in any quests (BoS guy doesn't even have dialogue).
You also have Paladin Vargas. He isn't essential. But he's tied to Liberty Prime's movement in Take it Back, so if you play on console and he dies at some point before it then you're screwed.
 
Alphons said:
In Morrowind you could kill a living god if that was your desire. In Skyrim you can't even kill a member of Thieves Guild. All it does is takes away options and makes your character look like a wimp.

Also their essential system is hilarious. In FO3 you've got Shrapnel, Doc Preston or unnamed BoS guy in GNR that are essential despite not being involved in any quests (BoS guy doesn't even have dialogue).
You also have Paladin Vargas. He isn't essential. But he's tied to Liberty Prime's movement in Take it Back, so if you play on console and he dies at some point before it then you're screwed.
Click to expand...
Lmao I remember that guy with the moustache at GNR and I've always wondered why you can't kill him. The essential NPC system is not only broken, but takes away player choice
 
Bethesda don't want anybody to play as a bad guy , that's why they removed karma , made it so you can't turn the mm hostile, even if you become a nw raider,
Fallout ain't a rpg anymore
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top