I prefer “open” games that can punish player really hard for being stupid. Be it jumping from cliff at the edge of the map or killing important NPCs. I think that there should be game that punishes kill-everything-that-moves-and-loot-it playstyle. I could live with it being optional hardcore mode, but you can not do everything optional.
If there is option to save game anytime (and I hope so), players could save game before killing NPCs, though I still think that killing NPCs simply because one can is stupid and I hope that players will be discouraged from doing so, however it will still be possible.
PS: Damn, I can not save edit, because “body is too similar” error. Of course it is similar, I am fixing a typo…
I would go for option number 1, but just add something like acknowledging your superior combat skills, something like " you’re better than me" or anything that can fullfil your ego and then to change the agressive stance towards you. Unlike Skyrim where he would continuously try to fight you… that was too ridiculous.
Or even punish you by spending time in the prison or some sort of things…
Maybe with option 3 you should take away the player’s option to save (thus forcing him to load an earlier save) and also have consequenses like an entire garrison attack you for doing something stupid, like shooting an adventurer to the knee…
Yes. And yes, it is. Because it’s hurting/killing children in a game and I wouldn’t support a game like that ever. A general no-no in any game, likely to alienate more than half of your audience.
I agree that it’s generally out-of-bounds to hurt or kill kids in a game, but I think it emphasizes where people are willing to draw the line in a game many want to be as realistic as it can get. To me, that realism would include the OPTION of harming women and children, because it happens in real life.
But then, this is part of the criticism George R.R. Martin has faced from some people for writing as harsh a story as he has with his Song of Ice and Fire novels. It’s not fantasy with limits. It’s fantasy where anything can and does happen, which underscores the brutality and cruelty of war and what men (and in some cases women) are capable of doing to others.
From my point of view it’s all about freedom of choice, even though it’s somehow theoretical, since you have to load a game in order to continue in the story. It should be a player who decides whether to do stupid things, not a game. And especially not this kind of game. Do you want to kill a friend of yours who’s with you since the beginning of game? Fine, but guess what’s going to happen…
Also I can imagine an absurd situation, when you pull out your sword and the immortal NPC would go like “oh, you scare me, please don’t hurt me”, while you actually can’t do it anyway…
The children-killing thing please adress personaly, I don’t get it either. Limits on killing children would bother me too, but this is a different issue. It’s not a simple game design decision, but more like a political thing (rating etc…), so I can understand that. There is a dedicated thread about that.
Yeah, I’m kind of more playing Devil’s Advocate with this part. I have no interest in killing kids in a game, and I agree with the political side of having that in one.
I’m for the option 1.
Allow to beat the NPC possibly to the brink of death, but restrict the permakill option. For story-crucial NPCs and children. This option actually offers the perfect compromise, IMHO. (Which brings about another idea… how about a general system of killing anyone solely through a special finishing move once he’s beaten?)
Option 2 is unnecessarily restrictive. In theory, if this game wants to be truly authentic, nothing should prevent you from attacking just about anyone. BUT… There is a couple of other things to consider.
First- it’s pretty hard to determine what a man really can/can’t recover from (as far as we talk about combat injury), unless you virtually behead him, or pierce his heart through. In some cases (rare, but still) people are able to survive unbelievable odds and injuries (ehm… Henry?).
Second- this would probably count for really only very important characters like the king Wenceslaus, who usually shouldn’t be alone, so that even if you tried to assault them, you would immediately have a lot of trouble and attention on your shoulders and it’s hard to tell if you would have a chance to make sure that the job got “finished” properly… provided that you manage to survive yourself and flee from those that you just pissed off.
It would actually be great, if this could have been covered somewhat gamewise… the VIP-NPC having the beatability/immortality just as a failsafe, but also being very skilled fighter itself (or having an extremely skilled guard) so that you would have one hell of a tough time to even actually really defeat him. The Darkest Dark Souls style.
And option 3… an optional game mode? I really don’t know. I’m just not really excited about an idea of a failure mesage occuring to me all of a sudden while travelling in the countryside … that since now my game is frakked only because the stupid king just got himself killed by a boar somewhere in the woods (Game of Thrones pun intended) even if that was historically absolutely not supposed to happen.
I voted for number 3 because I have never been a fan of immortality.
I could go with option number 2 IF when that character has played it’s role it becomes mortal. Meaning you can’t kill them before you’ve done “his/hers” part in the quest.
don’t see point of killing everyone you come across. so to me that’s not a meaningful gameplay addition. and i bet lots of people are going to start crying because they think it’s not a big deal to break their game, then find out, oops, can’t progress.
i chose 2nd option. with dialog like the one dekssan suggested
I’d prefer if the victim was the one saying that, if it would be at all meaningful (and the NPC can clearly see I am much stronger than them and there is no way the NPC could get out of it alive) and the player could reconsider and back off or attack anyway, knowing the consequences. That way drawing a sword and starting an attack would become a game mechanics in the area of dialogues with NPCs. If the character is important for us, he/she can try to persuade the player not to kill him/her.
Or maybe the game itself can warn the player:
You are about to kill an important main quest NPC. Doing so would make the game unbeatable.
Do you really want to proceed?
o YES o NO
._.-;:q=._
.' j=""^k;:\.
; .F ";`Y
,;.J_ ;'j
,-;"^7F : .F _________________
,-'-_<. ;gj. _.,---""'' .'
; _,._`\. : `T"5, ;
: `?8w7 `J ,-'" -^q. ` ;
\;._ _,=' ; n58L Y. .'
F;"; .' k_ `^' j' ;
J;:: ; "y:-=' ;
L;;== |:; jT\ ;
L;:;J J:L 7:;' _ ;
I;|:.L |:k J:.' , ' . ;
|;J:.| ;.I F.: . :
;J;:L:: |.| |.J , ' ` ; ;
.' J:`J.`. :.J |. L . ; ;
; L :k:`._ ,',j J; | ` , ; ;
.' I :`=.:."_".' L J `.'
.' |.: `"-=-' |.J ;
_.-' `: : ;:; _ ;
_.-'" J: : /.;' ; ;
='_ k;.\. _.;:Y' , .'
`"---..__ `Y;."-=';:=' , .'
`""--..__ `"==="' - .'
``""---...__ itz .-'
``""---'
Definitely the second option for me (which I did “like”). Nothing worse, imo, than trying to continue a quest or story that goes nowhere because you happened to “kill the wrong person” or made a bad choice or mistake. For games that carry achievements, it stinks to have to replay a game like Skyrim all the way through to get that one final piece of your last achievement. Same goes for the order of things. If they are made to be done in a certain order, you shouldn’t be allowed to do them any other way, causing you to not be able to complete it.
The Morrowind System was great! Don’t know why they changed it for Oblivion and Skyrim.
Please use this System. In my opinion you could even use it for the most important characters.
Option 3 - let players really “feel” the consequences… if they decide to go berserk or shüt happens.
Death can be a result of other actions then players. How did you solve NPC brawls, fights and accidents? Could they be knocked out of the game? Or important NPCs do not fight or rather go out of their bed?
If you kill someone, they’re dead. If you attack them, they’re going to be antagonistic to you. If you tank your game as a result of playing at violent psychopath, congrats. Live with the consequences.
I’d venture a guess that it simply cannot be. NPCs die only if the player kills them or if the story requires it, never otherwise. Just my speculation, could be wrong.
If it is indeed as I described, I wonder what happens if you somehow manage to push an NPC to a place where it is not supposed to be and it dies because of it (fall from a cliff, get run over by another NPC, luring a bear into the town, …).
Some games react to such players with a warning first and then with a plain and simple Game Over. Assassin’s Creed comes to mind, but there are other examples. It is certainly a good solution to the childslaughter problem. Allowing the player to kill too many NPCs in the world is bad experience and there aren’t really any good story driven reactions to it that are guaranteed to put the game back on track.
Gladiator’s pit
An alternative to a Game Over can be something I call a gladiator’s pit. If the player starts destroying the game by killing NPCs, possibly move him into a “special level” and/or have the game send after him wave after wave of knights, wild animals, bloodthirsty chicken and so on. Just like arena in Witcher. The player will not be allowed to return to the main game, so it is essentially a Game Over, but a fun one.
I am sure that the letsplayers of YouTube would love it, especially if there are some fun or weird enemies. Speedy Gonzales, anyone? And letsplayers love translates into sales.
I’d call it less pejoratively making a game as a storytelling device. One must restrict the player in order to tell a meaningful story. In a sandbox, there are no stories except what the player brings into it. In a history novel, there is a ton of story, but no interactivity. Story driven game is somewhere in between that.
The choices are not “bad”, just incompatible with the story. Assuming we are not willing to sacrifice the story, such choices must not be allowed.
I never understood why game developers think that some NPC:s need their divine protection. Sure killing some NPC:s might break the game but there is a load button for a reason, let us make bad choices if we want to! Gamers are not retards even though some developers might think so. For me immortal NPC:s is part of the process of dumbing down a game, which seems to be a popular trend recently. Warhorse since we backed your project please don’t take us for fools, we’re all intelligent people
“storytelling device” Yes I love a great story but sometimes you don’t want to play the game the way it was intended, why not let us? I don’t see a reason for the developers to indoctrinate the way we choose to play.
I think one important point with the 3rd alternative is, is that it goes along with your intentions that ALL your actions does matter. And killing someone could possibly affect the outcome of the game.
Limits on killing children would bother me too, but this is a different issue. It’s not a simple game design decision, but more like a political thing (rating etc…), so I can understand that. There is a dedicated thread about that.