Why does Bethesda make everyone essential?

Discussion in 'Fallout 4' started by Fizzycswag, Jul 16, 2018.

  1. mef

    mef Where'd That 6th Toe Come From?

    Dec 29, 2014
    it's like saying that a bug is actually a consequence because the player did something to trigger it. the devs didn't expand the story and didn't let the player affect the world by killing an important person, they just came up with the prophecy or something and called it a day
  2. L.M.Valentine

    L.M.Valentine Windows 95

    Jun 30, 2016
    So, everything has been said about how it is still a consequence, and yeah, I'd prefer if it had a concrete "bad ending" rather than just the "doomed world", but even that is better because it acknowledges player actions.

    I respect and enjoy a game that's upfront and says, no, don't kill this person please, they are plot essential, but gives me the opportunity to do so, and discover that myself after choosing to kill them, than a game that just cockblocks my kill.

    I found it annoying when I couldn't shoot the damn overseer dead and fail the game when he wanted to send me back out the vault in Fallout 1.
    Of course, he gets his in the end, thanks Bloody Mess

    I find it infinitely more annoying when it's every other character, and many that aren't even gamebreaking that I can't kill.

    And fuck children. Let me kill children, children can fuck off.
    • [Rad] [Rad] x 1
  3. Risewild

    Risewild Carbon Dated and Proud
    Modder Orderite

    Jun 14, 2014
    The thing is that the game does not become broken. You just can't fulfill the prophesy and can't finish the main quest.

    That is the consequence, not becoming the Nerevarine. The game doesn't break, it's just programmed and scripted to not allow you to become Nerevarine. Which is a real consequence and we can see the game was made to not break if you choose to do so.

    It is not broken. But in fact it is intended to be like that. Since the main character only becomes it if the player chooses to do so in game. The prophesy does not say you're it, you just fit a description of it, but not even perfectly.

    It breaks no quests. It allows player/character choice. You're only Nerevarine if you want to be, and the world adapts to that by barring you from becoming it if you don't want to or actively work against becoming it.
    • [Rad] [Rad] x 4
  4. Norzan

    Norzan Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!

    Apr 7, 2017
    I'm fine with unkillable npcs when they are absolutely crucial and i mean the highest priority of crucial and when i can't even attack them. Several games have unkillable npcs but they don't even allow you to attack them.

    The second you allow me to attack a npc but that bastard doesn't die because of a tag that makes them unkillable, to me that's extremely insulting. Insulting and the game also teases you because maybe you hate that character. I sure do hate a lot of essential npcs from Oblivion and onwards.
    • [Rad] [Rad] x 1
  5. R.Graves

    R.Graves Confirmed Retard

    Apr 21, 2016
    because allowing the player to do anything (like in an rpg) they would then have to account for that action and the-- Developers --conductors don't like you leaving the rails. for all bethesda's praise for player freedom there is almost none in their games. the most freedom you get in a bethesda game is being able to choose which direction to go next. its embarrassing when people say these game have player choice in mind because nothing in the game accounts for it. honestly invincible NPCs are in the game for the same reason that when you don't pick up dogmeat at the red rocket gas station (real classy joke beth) that he just shows up next to you when you meet the synth detective. because thats what they wrote and you have no control whatsoever.
    • [Rad] [Rad] x 3
  6. hindenburg

    hindenburg First time out of the vault

    Dec 17, 2008
    They're terrible writers, and the engine they're using isn't set up to work well under complex situations.
    I also thought the alternative Bethesda solution was also bad. IE: In Morrowwind, if you killed an essential NPC it would say "oh jeez pal, you dun fucked everything up and now the main quest is broken."
    In both cases, imagine a pen and paper game where that happened: you kill Bob, the local shop assistant (or try):
    A) Bob stands there resolute, he gets back up after you fireball in him the face. He's totally fine, but he doesn't like you as much now. You can't talk to him now, and he just stands there scowling at you.
    B) Bob is dead, suddenly the heavens part and the gods say "okay, you fucked up really good and now you can't get a magical boon I wanted to give you and your destiny will never be fulfilled. NO QUESTIONS, NO RESOLUTION, NO ALTERNATIVES. HAVE A NICE DAY." The DM turns to you, "well, you heard the god, you can roll a new character if you want but you can't do X anymore."

    Either the consequences are too ridiculous or relatively non-existent. Both strip your agency away.
    RPGs are supposed to get as close to PNP as possible. There was just a point where they prioritized graphics over gameplay and story, then it flipped to being gameplay and lore over story, now it's just a spastic mess.
  7. naossano

    naossano So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs

    Oct 19, 2006
    If you really want to use some plot points, you can also use replacement characters, like in Fo2 and FoNV.
    • [Rad] [Rad] x 1
  8. FreedomStalker

    FreedomStalker Still Mildly Glowing

    Apr 22, 2016
    I"m guessing they don't want to get flak for making games that let players go on a rampage with the killing of almost every male, female and child NPC. We live in a society of people who get triggered easily nowadays, people who feed off making things look worse than they are and people who see games as entertainment that can change people into violent psychopaths. Just being way too cautious, I'm guessing. OR they are SJWs who think it's horrible to make a game that lets you be a villain because it would turn gamers into villains or something laughable like that.
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2018
  9. RangerBoo

    RangerBoo Simp Slayer

    Jun 15, 2015
    I don't think its that. The reason why is because Bethesda is lazy. If you kill a quest essential character then that means that either Bethesda has to make a alternative choice for the player to continue the quest or (shudder) the player fails that quest or can't join that faction. To put in more quest choices is a lot of work and Bethesda doesn't like to put a lot of work into their games. Its about getting them done as cheaply and quickly as possible and letting modders make quest with branching choices. Also, you can't kill characters that are essential to factions and have those factions lock you out of joining them. That would be unfair to the player to give them consequences for their actions. That was, like, the worst thing about New Vegas. How dare Obsidian lock me out of doing quest for the Legion if I am on good terms with the NCR and helping them! That is like bullshit! /sarc/
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2018
  10. Alphons

    Alphons National Beholder

    Aug 9, 2017
    Essentials in Bethesda games (especially FO3) feel like they were assigned by a bunch of different people.

    At the beginning everyone was killable, except for children. Three Dog can be killed and is replaced by another DJ, you've got different responses if for example you've killed targets in You gotta shoot 'em in the head before starting the quest, you can kill Moira before even starting her quest and there is a dialogue between Burke and Roy if you decided to blow up Megaton after helping ghouls take TT.

    Then Emil added tags for plot character and set pieces (I can't call Janice Kaplinsky a character when her whole role is getting shot by Autumn). You can't ever kill James, Dr. Li, Janice or Owen and Sarah Lyons.

    Then someone in sidequest and DLC design got lazy and added essential tags to Zimmer and his bodyguard, Desmond (Point Lookout), Pinkerton, Midea and Werhner (Pitt) and guy that gives PA training, until they are no longer useful

    Then someone drunk got his hands on CK and started giving tags left and right. Harkness, Abraham Washington, Daniel Littlehorn, Regulators' lady, that unnamed guy at GNR, Rivet City doctor, Rivet City guns vendor, Citadel bouncer and unnamed guard are essential forever.

    So at the end you've got some plot characters that are essential to "story", characters that are essential until you complete their sidequests and characters that are essential because.

    You also have plot characters that can die and there are some minor changes to the game (Overseer, Three Dog), characters with massive side quests that can be killed without a hitch (Moira, Reilly, Paradise Falls slavers), traders that die from broken spawns, quest givers that die from broken spawns (Arefu, Andale, Big Town, Temple of the Union and Lincoln's Monument), companions that can be killed pretty easily by broken spawns (except for Fawkes, because he has a billion HPs) and a character that breaks a game if he dies (Paladin from Lyons' Pride is tied to Liberty Prime's movement in Take it back!)

    At least they fixed this issue in Fallout 76...
  11. Post-War Tribal

    Post-War Tribal If I'm salty, u probably deserve it.

    Nov 8, 2018
    Cus Beth think we're mentally challenged
  12. Rose

    Rose Keelah se'lai

    Dec 5, 2018
    I can't even kill characters who's absence should not effect the game in anyway (someone mentioned Valentine's secretary?), but I can kill all the vendors in Diamond City? Also, last time I played this game, I was unable to kill a former companion despite them being flagged as a enemy and they now show up in random spots, shooting at me. I once turned Hancock hostile just for the hell of it and all I could do was shoot him on his ass. Really? He doesn't even have a companion quest! I could maybe understand some companions being essential if you decided you wanted to help their faction before making a final decision, but I'm really just trying to come up with any logic as to why the hell I can't kill that NPC.

    Maybe they think we can't separate fantasy from reality?
  13. Norzan

    Norzan Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!

    Apr 7, 2017
    It's honestly random how they give essential tags to npcs. You have some behind some quests that can die before you even do them and then you have some that are completely pointless that are essential for some reason.

    There's honestly no thought process for a lot of them.
  14. Cobra Commander

    Cobra Commander Water Chip? Been There, Done That

    Dec 6, 2016

    I was reminded one day that I was once playing Skyrim and I found this Khajiit dude, who identified himself as assistant to the Gourmet.

    I did not like him and I decided to kill him, because this is supposedly an RPG "Do what you want, go wherever you want"

    But he was essential. There is absolutely no reason for this, the guy is not even important, not even on the mission where you have to kill the Gormet. In fact, it is so unimportant that I can not find any information about him on the internet.
    • [Rad] [Rad] x 1
  15. Rheios

    Rheios Mr. House's Employee of the Apocalypse

    Oct 22, 2018
    Or Baldur's Gate, if you want it to be a bit humorous. Remember Biff the understudy? You could get Biff to join you if you offed certain companions. It was a gimmicky goof way of handling things but even it showed more cleverness than BGII or Bethesda, imo.

    Honestly the mentality and view that Bethesda has helped to create and reinforce in people's minds about what an RPG stands for - even Western compared to Japanese/Eastern - is probably their greatest crime to me. It's bad enough they ruin every franchise they touch, but they have been helping lead to the decay and regression of an entire genre. Alongside MMO's, some action games, and after a certain point JRPGs. If it were just for video-games it might even be tolerable but even modern TTRPGs have a lot of power-fantasy, never dying players, and unwillinginess to acknowledge that you can't just reskin things without it impacting the world. I literally saw someone suggest to a poster who was asking about an all pet class to replace their attacks with "attacks" from their "dogs" and just wave off all the additional implications that might occur during, I don't know, a fireball. That's just D&D but the idealogy isn't isolated there. Many of the modern releases seem to be getting lighter and lighter about the importance of anything but player power, free of consequence.
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2018
  16. tgawt

    tgawt ye ass

    Jul 9, 2018
    its weird because morrowind solved this problem pretty easily; it just let you kill characters and you had to reset your game if you wanted to continue the story. i guess this would never fly in a mordern triple a because retards arent smart enough to restart there game when told but y'know
    karma is dumb because it assigns a number to 'complex human emotions' and correlates everything u do with some morally correct view of everything. like; killing the ghouls in fallout 3 (the game that introduced this mechanic) who want into tenpenny tower is a bad thing and so is siding with tenpenny even though the ghouls violently rampage through tenpenny killing everyone inside (which is a good thing according to the game) unless ur correlating karma with reputation because theyre different and ur stupid
    • [Rad] [Rad] x 1
  17. Ayelander

    Ayelander Big Man

    Jun 30, 2018
    That Khajiit would later go on to found the culinary school of magic. His essential status has MASSIVE implications for the deepest lore of TES.
    • [Rad] [Rad] x 1