Walpknut
This ghoul has seen it all
They only hated it because it came out of nowhere at the very end, in the case of taking Houses place it would fit pretty well into pre-stablished elements ofthe game.
I think there should've been an option where you yourself take over House's operation without Yes Man, the main character is the only really "essential" character to the story, you would give up your physical form and take over, would've been cool. Go all transhumanist on the ending.
People hated this stuff with passion as a Mass Effect 3 ending, so I doubt it would've been fine in FNV.
tbh they should have done the morrowind thing and punished you with a dead, non-completable game. idk, gaming is so far behind every other art form and it's all because of dumbing everything down in the name of making cash, and a slightly later blooming as a medium. Even heavily post-modernist games like The Stanley Parable are decades behind the rest of them.
I think there's a real design justification for not letting an NPC you can kill fairly early on in the game result in an unwinnable state 20+ hours on, just because people are going to be really mad when they find out 20 hours later that they messed up their game. Probably the best way to do this is to do the "bad ending" thing like Dead Money had with getting sealed in the Vault or allying with Elijah. I suppose a Mass Effect style "critical mission failure, reload?" would also work, but be less interesting.
Not all important quest givers can be made strong or be given guards. Like Caius Cosades in Morrowind for example. He is practically naked and as a spy he can't have any guards. It would be odd to make his very strong, but he is still a very important character to the plot. You could probably find plenty of such characters that are "essential" but can't be strengthened because it wouldn't make much sense in the game world.You can realtively easily prevent the player from killing someone, or at least making it somehow clear to the player that he really should think twice about trying it. Giving the leader of a faction several powerful guards for example. Making a powerfull character ... actually powerfull and thus hard to beat. If players still decide to kill their questgiver ... well so be it! Than it is their choice. But it should be a realistically speaking very difficult task.
...at the expense of actual role playing, depth in gameplay and any ability to immerse one's self.I'm not defending immortal NPCs as a concept itself, because it is indeed a bad one, but I'm not at all surprised that they went with it. It is simply a so much easier way to resolve the issue of important NPCs dying.
You are kind of contradicting yourself here. First you scold people for being stupid and wanting to kill quest-giving NPCs and then you are angry about a feature that only affects well... people who want to kill quest-giving NPCs.
You are kind of contradicting yourself here. First you scold people for being stupid and wanting to kill quest-giving NPCs and then you are angry about a feature that only affects well... people who want to kill quest-giving NPCs.
Also, this is really not a big issue at all. If it is a choice between spending development time to make sure that some trigger happy person doesn't get his "immersion" ruined after he went on a killing spree OR getting something else done, well, I'm not surprised that time and time again they went with the option number 2.
I'm not defending immortal NPCs as a concept itself, because it is indeed a bad one, but I'm not at all surprised that they went with it. It is simply a so much easier way to resolve the issue of important NPCs dying.
I'm not defending immortal NPCs as a concept itself, because it is indeed a bad one, but I'm not at all surprised that they went with it. It is simply a so much easier way to resolve the issue of important NPCs dying.
yeah it'd suck if they gave you a great companion character with a fantastic, dynamic and affectionate personality and then told you that in order to stop, say, a nuclear launch, the dog had to dieseriously what /were/ they thinking aghI mean, I sincerely doubt that the dog is going to give any important quests, and I certainly hope Bethesda isn't going to pull a Fable 2 and make "sacrificing the dog" the way that you save everyone in the end. That was even silly by Molyneux standards.
I think there shouldn't be ANY immortal NPCs in Fallout, period.
If you need someone to hold your hand constantly with immortal NPCs, in a way where it becomes a part of the game design because you KILL EVERYONE YOU ENCOUNTER ON SIGHT BECAUSE YOU CAN'T CONTROLL YOUR SELF, than you are dumb, to dumb to play an RPG, and CoD is (maybe) the game you're craving for.
Tbh though, recently, the immortal NPC mechanic is less for pandering to trigger happy idiots and more as a bad fix for the problem of radiant or semi radiant AI. NPCs sometimes can and will kill themselves traveling from one place to the next in a game like Skyrim for example, causing a player to fail quests for no reason.
If you need someone to hold your hand constantly with immortal NPCs, in a way where it becomes a part of the game design because you KILL EVERYONE YOU ENCOUNTER ON SIGHT BECAUSE YOU CAN'T CONTROLL YOUR SELF, than you are dumb, to dumb to play an RPG, and CoD is (maybe) the game you're craving for.
Actually, CoD makes you lose if you shoot a civillian or something usually, so even in that game you can't shoot everyone indiscriminately.
Tbh though, recently, the immortal NPC mechanic is less for pandering to trigger happy idiots and more as a bad fix for the problem of radiant or semi radiant AI. NPCs sometimes can and will kill themselves traveling from one place to the next in a game like Skyrim for example, causing a player to fail quests for no reason.
Idecided to make a petition about it, even if it doesnt work at least i will try: https://www.change.org/p/bethesda-remove-dogmeat-immortality-in-fallout4