So, we are discussing very important thing - should we restrict killing of important characters whose death would broke the game? You all know immortal NPCs from Skyrim. This is necessary compromise, because if you kill some characters, the game cannot be completed. This is not a problem of sidequests. If you kill some sidequest NPC, that quest is gone and its your fault. But its different with the main story. So we have made decision, that some key characters will be immortal and cannot even be attacked (the cursor will indicate their status). But then there are less important ānamelessā NPCs that still can be part of some main story quest and it could be lot of them, so if we made them all immortal, half of the NPCs would be immortal. In some cases, we can make these NPCs disposable - you can get an item or information necessary for thge quest fom somewhere else. We can even respawn some of them, if they are killed. But some of them are so unique, that they would have to be immortal and the question is (please like the following answers that you prefer the most):
1 - Would you prefer them to work like in Skyrim - you can beat them to the ground, but they will not die. Its awkward but it works.
6 Likes
2 - They will be marked as immortal and you cant attack them. Its a restriction, but it prevents all those awkward situations.
28 Likes
3 - Would you like to have hardcore mdoe, where every NPC could be killed at the cost of breaking the game? We would let the player know when this happens and then he can decide if he wants to continue or load saved game just like in Morrowind.
101 Likes
I figure if you were able to beat them into the ground, there would still be some kind of consequence tied to it?
I fully understand the need to have certain NPCs unkillable in order to prevent the game from ābreakingā as a result. There are some compromises like that that just canāt be avoided.
Iām all for immersion and things being as realistic as possible, but in the end thereās still a certain story being told and the greater path has to be followed somehow. If that means āSorry, you just canāt kill this particular guy,ā thatās fine with me.
1 Like
2
Player tryting to attack, character saying āI canāt harm this person, she/he is important to meā.
22 Likes
Yeah it would work this way as well.
a broken game isnāt a fun game in any occasion the player will enjoy killing the NPC at first but when he/she is over the rush it will be difficult to come to peace with your decision so id go #2 
(PS love the game so far lads)
Then you should probably use the ālikeā button to vote for it as requested in the OP.
I was going to support the āhardcoreā mode, perhaps with a āyouāve broken the main quest!ā message like in Morrowind, but I actually quite like Dekssanās suggested solution. Henry isnāt a āblank slateā character, after all - I know a lot of people like to play mass-mudering psychopaths in RPGs, but it just doesnāt make much sense in this particular game. It might also solve the problem of killable children if Henry just refuses to attack them.
I loved how it worked in Gothic 3 - important NPCs couldnāt be killed by accident. They would drop to the floor and get up after a while just like in Skyrim. But if you wanted to kill them you could do that by finishing them off with a special attack when theyāre down on the floor.
4 Likes
I like option number 3ā¦ When someone goes on a killing spree in a game where every action reflects on the world then they need to be planning on loading anyway, since attacking such an important NPC would have pretty much the same impact on the relationship as killing themā¦ Also since we are using Skyrim as comparison, I would get really fed up with some of the NPCs there and not being able to hack them to pieces after quicksave was frustratingā¦
I guess I just donāt understand the point of actually being able to break the game just to kill someone because you can. Maybe itās fun for that moment, but Iād just have to go back to an earlier save if I wanted to actually finish the game.
Option 3 is as Real as you can get. In real life it would not make sense to go kill everyone, so in the game if that were to happen then you would have to live with the consequences just as in real life. Re-loading from a save point is good with me.
IMO the hardcore mode would be the best way to go. The main asset of this game is an authenticity and realism and I would project it even to this thing. It is an addition to the impression of the real world, that itās possible to kill everyone, yet with consequences. For me it would just feel weird in this kind of world, if I somehow magicly wasnāt able to use my sword in front of some specific guyā¦
edit - sry Helena, it wasnāt meant to be a reply to you, missclick
1 Like
I am all for option 2.
I guess the part I donāt get is why go to the trouble of killing everyone if youāre just going to reload an earlier save so you can actually progress forward? Just to do it?
Sure, Iāve screwed around with stuff like that in Fallout when I was bored and just wanted to go crazy for a little bit before bed with no intention of saving what I did. I think thatās different from people who want this game as hardcore and realistic as possible if they just wipe it all away with an earlier save when theyāre done killing the people that would mean breaking the game.
I figure, if you (the general āyouā) want option 3 you should be prepared to deal with the true results of your in-game actions. Of course, you can have option 3 and never go that far.
Certainly option number 3!
In real life, if you are doing a mistake you sould pay for it. and no one is immortal.
warning and loading option will do the rest.
The game will be more open and fun in my opinion.
1 Like
If it were possible, I would like a combination of 2 and 3.
With option 2, your character is able to maintain his own core identity, no matter how much you attempt to influence him. It will not allow for the same type of immersion, but I believe the developers are also trying to tell a story with a somewhat blank slate rather than a purely blank slate. It would not make sense for a young blacksmithās boy to suddenly turn on those close to him, even factoring in the loss of his family.
With option 3, hardcore mode, players would also be given the option to go their own way and would be allowed to do as they please, yet know that their actions could break the game. This option can always be added later, possibly in an update or through a mod.
However, in both scenarios, I believe children and the like should remain off limits to attack.
If people really want an open, hardcore, āI can do anything I wantā gameā¦why set a limit that you canāt hurt children? Because it would be going too far? Well, thatās a restriction, isnāt it?
1 Like