How "essential" NPCs killed RPGs

[obobski]

I couldn't agree with the OP more, essential characters have made them lazy. For a bit of fun in the imageshare I played through New Vegas killing everyone I met, quest givers, merchants, everyone and the game let me do it, I was able to finish the main quest because every time I killed a quest giver I'd find a note or something letting me continue. The only character that would not die was the Yes Man, he respawned which is fair enough, he's an AI on a network, being able to jump between units makes sense. Bethesda won't let you do anything like that, they put you on rails and won't let you deviate from what they've decided you will do.

 

I think Bethesda would get less criticism if they were honest and stopped trying to pass their games off as RPGs, they're not anymore, the rot started with Oblivion and it's been downhill ever since. Fallout 4 is good if you forget it's supposed to be an RPG, treat it like Far Cry and it's fun enough.

 

http://www.nexusmods.com/newvegas/images/69824/? My rant is stickied at the top of the comments, I wrote it over two years ago and wasn't far out when I said what FO4 would be like.

 

You can do the same in (most of) Fallout 3, Morrowind, and Oblivion as far as I know. I think "the rot" stemming out of Oblivion was in response to some radiant NPCs (remember that Oblivion's big selling point, or one of them, was that the NPCs went about daily routines instead of just standing at a fixed point waiting for you to interact with them) getting themselves killed and it breaking the game, in some cases with the player NEVER being aware (that orc in Skingrad is a popular example, walking himself off a bridge and breaking a few quests in the process, and the player can have no control over it - some of the merchants in Fallout 3 can die with the player never knowing/finding them either). So the idea of essential NPCs "makes sense" there, but on the other hand, I still remember the first time I played Oblivion and ended up in a fight with the imperial guard in the IC, and figured okay I'll just hew them down and escape, and then that went to I'll just escape, and then that went to quit and reload because they're basically Agent Smith - they will just spawn wherever you are, follow you to the ends of the earth, and many of them can't die. Of course you can go in and remove all of this quite easily with the console or with mods, and it may or may not break stuff to an irrevocable way for your specific playthrough.

 

That said, this isn't unique to Bethesda, or a "new" thing, as Vagrant0 points out - I'm remembering Diablo not letting you even draw weapons "in town," and the same being true of every BioWare game I can think of, and many turn-based games its just not even an option - you only get to have combat when the game says you get to have combat. I think its a "fine line" for real-time, action-based games like Fallout to walk where the player doesn't have their movement restricted, but the game still has to have rules. If you're just after mindlessly slaughtering everything that moves, there's always Doom. This isn't meant to impugn Doom or Doom players - its just something different with a different goal.

Edited December 9, 2015 by obobski

[JimboUK]

 

I couldn't agree with the OP more, essential characters have made them lazy. For a bit of fun in the imageshare I played through New Vegas killing everyone I met, quest givers, merchants, everyone and the game let me do it, I was able to finish the main quest because every time I killed a quest giver I'd find a note or something letting me continue. The only character that would not die was the Yes Man, he respawned which is fair enough, he's an AI on a network, being able to jump between units makes sense. Bethesda won't let you do anything like that, they put you on rails and won't let you deviate from what they've decided you will do.

 

I think Bethesda would get less criticism if they were honest and stopped trying to pass their games off as RPGs, they're not anymore, the rot started with Oblivion and it's been downhill ever since. Fallout 4 is good if you forget it's supposed to be an RPG, treat it like Far Cry and it's fun enough.

 

http://www.nexusmods.com/newvegas/images/69824/? My rant is stickied at the top of the comments, I wrote it over two years ago and wasn't far out when I said what FO4 would be like.

 

You can do the same in (most of) Fallout 3, Morrowind, and Oblivion as far as I know. I think "the rot" stemming out of Oblivion was in response to some radiant NPCs (remember that Oblivion's big selling point, or one of them, was that the NPCs went about daily routines instead of just standing at a fixed point waiting for you to interact with them) getting themselves killed and it breaking the game, in some cases with the player NEVER being aware (that orc in Skingrad is a popular example, walking himself off a bridge and breaking a few quests in the process, and the player can have no control over it - some of the merchants in Fallout 3 can die with the player never knowing/finding them either). So the idea of essential NPCs "makes sense" there, but on the other hand, I still remember the first time I played Oblivion and ended up in a fight with the imperial guard in the IC, and figured okay I'll just hew them down and escape, and then that went to I'll just escape, and then that went to quit and reload because they're basically Agent Smith - they will just spawn wherever you are, follow you to the ends of the earth, and many of them can't die. Of course you can go in and remove all of this quite easily with the console or with mods, and it may or may not break stuff to an irrevocable way for your specific playthrough.

 

That said, this isn't unique to Bethesda, or a "new" thing, as Vagrant0 points out - I'm remembering Diablo not letting you even draw weapons "in town," and the same being true of every BioWare game I can think of, and many turn-based games its just not even an option - you only get to have combat when the game says you get to have combat. I think its a "fine line" for real-time, action-based games like Fallout to walk where the player doesn't have their movement restricted, but the game still has to have rules. If you're just after mindlessly slaughtering everything that moves, there's always Doom. This isn't meant to impugn Doom or Doom players - its just something different with a different goal.

 

 

A character that can be hit over the head with an axe over and over again will never make sense, nor will a character that can take 10,000 rounds from a minigun and get up again, there is no reason whatsoever why important NPCs can't be ignored by hostile AI. I'm not interested in what other RPGs do, this is supposed to be Fallout, a game that used to be built around player/character choice, they've all but removed what made Fallout as deep as it was, indestructible NPCs are just part of that.

 

 

If you're just after mindlessly slaughtering everything that moves, there's always Doom.

 

It's not about mindlessly doing anything, it's about choice and having a world that makes sense. Do you want a real example of "Mindless"? following an arrow and doing what you're told when you're told, that's mindless and that's all Bethesda's post-Morrowind RPGs games want you to do, they don't want the player to think and they sure as hell don't want the player to live with the consequences of any choices.

[AJunkMailBin]

I think that the notion of essential NPCs killing role playing is, at its core, referencing the creative tension of RPGs as vehicles for story-telling as opposed to story-creation. This is essentially a question of where are the narrative elements obtained from? Some of the commonly used narrative elements are (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narrative) Character, Plot, Setting, Theme, Style, Form, Genre, Narrator and Tense

 

In role playing we the player (narrator first person) in accordance with the provisions defined by the developer (narrator second person) establish character(s) (narrator third person).

 

We the player (or the character we define) may set goals for gameplay - either in terms of goal seeking or play-style; this in part shapes the character, plot, theme, style and genre elements that make up the narrative.

 

The developer shapes our gaming experience first by providing the form In our case a video game - which includes the technical support for other narrative elements. The game also encompasses the setting, constructing the gaming universe itself and seeks to supplement the other elements; usually they provide a overarching plot which utilises a style and theme, there is also usually emphasis on various genres.

 

 

 

Enter the NPC; this is a vehicle that is used within many of these elements, clearly they are their own Character, they often play a *role* (more on this in a moment) within the Plot or sub plots, they are encountered within the Setting, they act to reinforce or counterpoint the Theme, they may heavily influence the Style, their encapsulation within the Form (game) may heavily influence their capacity to act within a Genre and are an essential tool of the NPC creator (usually the developer) as a Narrator .

 

Simply said, NPCs are written primarily as a vehicle for their creators to convey the story - this is their role. They define in a way that the form (video game) can facilitate, the choices of the player (first person narrator) to effect the plot and related elements. They are there for the sake of enabling a narrative, where the narrator is the creator of those NPCs (the developer). NPC interactions within a highly structured form (such as a video game) are constructed to enable you to experience the defined narrative(s), rather than to allow you to construct your own.

 

Killing or in some other way interacting with the NPC that would inhibit their capacity to act within that role is something that would inherently interfere with the narrative.

 

At it's core, the essential NPC is used to maintain simplicity for the entry conditions into narrative events and to perform the narrative event itself; the essential NPC is there to perform their role ensure that the narrative can continue to be told (as the NPC will definitely be alive) this is often paired with them having limited ability to effect the plot (the event will take place in one of a specified number of variations). Likewise other mechanics are used to achieve this end, for example the replaceable NPC (remove them and someone else can take their place with no real effect on the plot).

 

There are however other reasons that NPCs may not be killable: it may make some content make less sense in the event that they are killed, another problem is that of controversy. For example there is no legitimate reason that a child should not be treated any differently than any other member of their species - is there a reason why they are usually implemented as another race? Absolutely; the screams would be deafening otherwise.

 

 

 

Then we have sandboxes; this should actually be the holy grail when it comes to electronic RPGs. There are two problems, the first is voice acting (it's expensive), the second is... they think they need to tell a plot.

 

The expense of voice acting is a legitimate concern. IF all lines need to be voice acted (which seems questionable), rather than simply presented as text, or generated by TTS (stitched together by an algorithm using snippets of recorded speech and some automated adjustments to pacing / tone) it will be expensive. We may simply have to either cut developers some slack on that end if you want robust choice in dialogue.

 

The perceived need for a defined plot is what makes the developer seem to feel the need to constrain everything we can do - even in a sandbox; this creates an enormous sense of dissonance. Sandboxes should be focusing on their most important, defining concept - the form which enables interaction within a setting. That capacity to interact with a carefully wrought setting with meticulous AI... that is where the emergent gameplay that is essential for role-play is born.

 

Even better if, like Bethesda, they are modding friendly (though if they want to make a pure sandbox commercially viable they will need to enhance their modding tools).

Edited December 30, 2015 by AJunkMailBin

[DudeofWar]

this is so true and the fact that modders can make it better is embarrasing to them and i hope that bethesda one day will learn from their mistakes because if they dont everything is gonna go downhill

[rolann]

By far the most essential character in the game is.... me. I shouldn't die too. Why do I die? I should just collapse, wait about 30 seconds then regain consciousness; none of that die - reload savegame bull.

(joke joke). On a more serious note, I do agree it ruins the RPG experience when companions or other NPCs cannot die, especially if they are irritating to the point you wish to get rid of them in game. I hear you all. Fallout 4 is still awesome though - it is what it is.

[brokenergy]

Who remembers the time where you practically killed the main quest in Morrowind by killing a major NPC? Because I do and this is the time where I remind people that there is nothing wrong with essential NPC as they help propel the narrative forward but you can make a case with Bethesda that they either a) do not create an engaging narrative that attracts the player in the first place or b) the concept of a narrative doesn't match with their design ethos where the player can do whatever they want in the world that they created. Besides I like my NPCs to live or at least be super tough for the player to beat rather than for them to break the game as I kill them.

[JimboUK]

Who remembers the time where you practically killed the main quest in Morrowind by killing a major NPC? Because I do and this is the time where I remind people that there is nothing wrong with essential NPC as they help propel the narrative forward but you can make a case with Bethesda that they either a) do not create an engaging narrative that attracts the player in the first place or b) the concept of a narrative doesn't match with their design ethos where the player can do whatever they want in the world that they created. Besides I like my NPCs to live or at least be super tough for the player to beat rather than for them to break the game as I kill them.

 

The world wasn't as doomed as the pop up suggested, there were ways around the killing the of main quest NPCs and even if there wasn't then there's nothing wrong with having a situation where the player can screw up the main quest, screwing up the main quest was a consequence for an action, having no consequences for your actions which is the case for every Bethesda game starting with Oblivion makes the world feel unresponsive and gives your actions no meaning. New Vegas wasn't chocked full of indestructible NPCs and was better for it, you had to think before doing something because killing the wrong person would have consequences, this gave your actions meaning. "Let the player win" Todd Howard once said in an interview and it's this mentality that makes their games so unfulfilling, there's no sense of achievement when you complete any of their games because Bethesda do everything they can to remove the possibility of failure.

[maxyall]

Fallout New Vegas comes to mind.

Do that game has any essential character? I don't remember anyone being unkillable (companions are killable in hardcore mode)

 

 

this is so true and the fact that modders can make it better is embarrasing to them and i hope that bethesda one day will learn from their mistakes because if they dont everything is gonna go downhill

That is a weird logic you have there. Modding can make EVERYTHING better. Can you name a game so perfect that it has no (improvement) modding potential?

Edited March 21, 2016 by maxyall

[JimboUK]

Fallout New Vegas comes to mind.

Do that game has any essential character? I don't remember anyone being unkillable (companions are killable in hardcore mode)

 

 

this is so true and the fact that modders can make it better is embarrasing to them and i hope that bethesda one day will learn from their mistakes because if they dont everything is gonna go downhill

That is a weird logic you have there. Modding can make EVERYTHING better. Can you name a game so perfect that it has no (improvement) modding potential?

 

Kids are but that's it, there's a workaround for every main quest character in the event of their death.

[Fatalmasterpiece]

I agree with the OP about companions. Essential companions are just stupid and I use mine as a bulletshield/packmule. Of course this is because companion AI in FO3-4 is terrible and they get themselves killed constantly so having them die is almost worse.

 

The problem with FO4 for me is there is less and less to do besides the main story line as far as Bethesda sandbox RPGs go. Unlike the TES series, there aren't various guilds and factions with their own story line to follow. In Bethsoft's Fallout series, all the factions focus on the main story line and almost all dialogue in the game seems tied to the advancement of the primary quest.

 

IMO radiant quests were a terrible idea and are lazy. Pretty much just dynamic fetch and retrieve quests from MMOrpgs.