AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
edited July 2008
But to say that invincible NPCs is bad game design is still just mental,
Yes it is. It's lazy and bad game design. There are other ways of accomplishing the same thing without being horrifically verisimilitude breaking. Fallout accomplishes this. Baldurs Gate [kinda] accomplishes this. Morrowind did it perfectly, because if you're going to be a homicidal maniac why not anyway?
Shit, it's actually kind of bad game design in most of your examples, because it results in the quest getting broken
Boo-hoo. Don't be a genocidal maniac maybe?
CONSEQUENCES ARE BAD HURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
Except for the people in your starting village. That's a game over. So you can't actually kill 'everyone' and still play the game.
You can kill all of them. It doesn't matter if you have to suck up the consequences of that, you can still fucking kill them.
Also, you can kill the Overseer in Fallout at the end of the game.
eriously, what the fuck is wrong with you people? Is genocide that important to you? This is not a big deal. This should not be that important to you, whether you can kill everyone or if you can only kill 99.9% of the people.
Who would have thought people might want to roleplay an individual who is a genocidal maniac in a roleplaying game. People who want to play the game differently or with whacky goals and idea are stupid.
You can't kill children in the game either! What are those morons at Bethesda thinking! The game can't be called Fallout unless I can brutally murder children! I'm packing my bags and heading over to NMA because they understand that Bethesda is running this franchise to the ground!
Seriously, do you not get it? Did you hate Bioshock because you couldn't shoot up the Little Sisters? What about Mass Effect? You can't kill everyone in that game, it must be terrible!
P10 on
Shameful pursuits and utterly stupid opinions
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
edited July 2008
Seriously, do you not get it? Did you hate Bioshock because you couldn't shoot up the Little Sisters? What about Mass Effect? You can't kill everyone in that game, it must be terrible!
I totally shouldn't expect a sequel to main the same sorts of freedom that the previous games did. Damn me and my unreasonable expectations that sequels should improve on the previous games, not render things like "choices" that were available in the first games irrelevant.
[Edit: The killing Children part doesn't bother me, partly because it won't get past censors most likely in this day and age I would think. Invincible NPCs though is stupid and verisimilitude breaking, including the invincible children].
What about Mass Effect? You can't kill everyone in that game, it must be terrible!
Mass Effect is not fallout, so I don't give a shit.
Please do try to stay on topic. If we're discussing doing this in mass effect (or bioshock), I'm sure there is a thread for doing so.
Edit: I should also point out that it's possible to not kill anything (or almost nothing) in the first two games. But as I said, different ways of playing an RPG are stupid. We should be playing quake with nuclear missile launchers and phat lewts, who the fuck wants to do this shit called roleplaying? Shooting things should be the priority and heaven forbid if shooting things randomly has consequences, cause fuck that.
Right, and in the previous Fallouts you could also kill children, so by your logic, Bethesda must be ruining the game by taking out my 'choice' to kill children.
P10 on
Shameful pursuits and utterly stupid opinions
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
Right, and in the previous Fallouts you could also kill children, so by your logic, Bethesda must be ruining the game by taking out my 'choice' to kill children.
Didn't I say that?
The killing Children part doesn't bother me, partly because it won't get past censors most likely in this day and age I would think. Invincible NPCs though is stupid and verisimilitude breaking, including the invincible children
Are you trying to make up responses to my posts or actually reading them? I've given my opinion on it and its right there. Why don't you read it before trying to make yourself look witty.
Well, I wouldn't mind the ability to kill everything in any game. It would make for funny moments, and with a sensible autosave feature you'd be able to avoid truly damning consequences.
Right, and in the previous Fallouts you could also kill children, so by your logic, Bethesda must be ruining the game by taking out my 'choice' to kill children.
Didn't I say that?
The killing Children part doesn't bother me, partly because it won't get past censors most likely in this day and age I would think. Invincible NPCs though is stupid and verisimilitude breaking, including the invincible children
Are you trying to make up responses to my posts or actually reading them? I've given my opinion on it and its right there. Why don't you read it before trying to make yourself look witty.
I totally shouldn't expect a sequel to main the same sorts of freedom that the previous games did. Damn me and my unreasonable expectations that sequels should improve on the previous games, not render things like "choices" that were available in the first games irrelevant.
Going by your logic, i.e: Fallout 3 should have all of the same sorts of freedom as the last two Fallouts, I should expect, no, demand, the ability to kill children.
It's two faced to say 'I should be able to do everything I could do in the previous game' and then make exceptions. You haven't even played the game, you have no idea how the mechanics will actually work.
P10 on
Shameful pursuits and utterly stupid opinions
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
edited July 2008
Going by your logic, i.e: Fallout 3 should have all of the same sorts of freedom as the last two Fallouts, I should expect, no, demand, the ability to kill children.
Wow, you sure are a clever one figuring that one out and all. It's only clearly stated in my post. Why are you restating my argument again like you've discovered some witty contradiction or hole in my argument?
It's two faced to say 'I should be able to do everything I could do in the previous game' and then make exceptions.
I'm.... not?
Again:
The killing Children part doesn't bother me, partly because it won't get past censors most likely in this day and age I would think. Invincible NPCs though is stupid and verisimilitude breaking, including the invincible children
I can understand why Bethsoft may not be able to, in 2008 not get away with child killing that BIS did in the 90s with an entirely different regulatory environment. It doesn't change that it's still stupid and verisimilitude breaking as I've clearly stated.
I'm not sure if you're reading what I'm writing or typing whatever thoughts come into your head (which if thoughts were eggs you've made an omelet).
Aegeri, you've been going on about this for a long time now, and I think we understand that you don't like unkillable NPC's, but seriously it seems to me that you are both making a mountain out of a molehill, and bitching about a game you haven't played.
Fallout 3 =! Oblivion.
Lord Yod on
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
edited July 2008
Fallout 3 =! Oblivion.
In many ways I'm beginning to agree. It reminds me more of Stalker.
Right, and in the previous Fallouts you could also kill children, so by your logic, Bethesda must be ruining the game by taking out my 'choice' to kill children.
Don't fucking bust out this NMA strawman.
SithDrummer on
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
I did it just to see if I could. It also puts additional pressures on you, like the inability to just buy things and you really have to scavenge hard for everything you want (well, some of the time anyway!). It was also a good way of relieving frustration or boredom (Morrowind comes to mind immediately).
I'm still unsure who he thought he was arguing with, because nobody made that argument and I made it crystal clear exactly what I thought. Verisimilitude breaking is bad, not getting the game released at all is even worse (I'm betting censors would go nuts, look how upset Australian censors got about the drugs).
I did it just to see if I could. It also puts additional pressures on you, like the inability to just buy things and you really have to scavenge hard for everything you want (well, some of the time anyway!). It was also a good way of relieving frustration or boredom (Morrowind comes to mind immediately).
Well, what I liked in fallout 2 doing a genocide run, was that it could be hard. Tons of enemies, little quest experience(because you're just going around killing everyone). Sure, tons of loot from merchants and other people... but it was a fun, different way to play.
I don't mind if children can't be killed. But let me kill quest-giving NPC's, all of them. I hate them the most.
I swear that I won't be surprised in the least if the NMA dude that started that argument turns out to be a fucking serial killer.
I too am frightened by many people in this thread.
Not the dude here, I mean the dude on NMA that did it, the one that's super-obsessed with it. I didn't see that post right before mine.
I'm not 'obsessed' with it, I find it an irritating and stupid mechanic. If you need to advance the plot, in a ROLEPLAYING GAME, have MULTIPLE ways of fucking doing it. Kill the guy who you need the computer password from? Who cares, the computer can be hacked. The security door has a longer and more dangerous route behind it that you can go through. You can bluff a guard to get you in.
It's simply lazy and there are better solutions to solving an NPC dying breaking the main quest (please dear God don't make this for all quests) that can be implemented than "lol invulnerability". I, unlike some people, will give them a perfectly fair pass on children because censors and peer group pressures are higher.
Then again, contradicting this you can butcher all the Children in Deus Ex Invisible War and that never managed to raise anyones hankles. Maybe it's because that game sucked...
Just as a note, that wasn' aimed so much at the "invincible key NPC" argument (which does have merits against it) as it was the "I should be able to kill children and not being able to ruins the spirit of fallout" argument, which my first post in this series was supposed to latch onto were it not for your own breaking the chain.
Sorenson on
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
Just as a note, that wasn' aimed so much at the "invincible key NPC" argument (which does have merits against it) as it was the "I should be able to kill children and not being able to ruins the spirit of fallout" argument, which my first post in this series was supposed to latch onto were it not for your own breaking the chain.
This argument got bought up by someone who was extremely confused about who they were arguing with and wanted to try to "win" by being wittier than they actually were, instead of reading the arguments actually made. It's not even relevant to what most people bought up, which is the invincible quest NPCs.
Although DE:IW got away with the murder of Children, now I think of it (you can even have greasels do it if you're creative enough), it's logical that Bethsoft would avoid the problem in the over censor happy environment that has occurred with increased media attention/pressure etc.
Just as a note, that wasn' aimed so much at the "invincible key NPC" argument (which does have merits against it) as it was the "I should be able to kill children and not being able to ruins the spirit of fallout" argument, which my first post in this series was supposed to latch onto were it not for your own breaking the chain.
This argument got bought up by someone who was extremely confused about who they were arguing with and wanted to try to "win" by being wittier than they actually were, instead of reading the arguments actually made. It's not even relevant to what most people bought up, which is the invincible quest NPCs.
Although DE:IW got away with the murder of Children, now I think of it (you can even have greasels do it if you're creative enough), it's logical that Bethsoft would avoid the problem in the over censor happy environment that has occurred with increased media attention/pressure etc.
Its gonna be funny when people mod it back in.
Remember the whole "people can mod oblivion to make the characters nude! This is unprecedented!" nonsense from a few years back?
DisruptorX2 on
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
...look, can't a dude just wonder about the mental stability of a guy at a forum known for its extreme zealotry and fundimentalism whose most prolific and voracious argument is in regards to whether or not one may kill children and who feels that the inability to do such is somehow a gigantic crippling blow that undermines the concept of Fallout greater than any other change possibly could?
I personally won't be downloading any mods for child killing. I found it amusing to split kids in half with the laser guns for a minute or so, then the novelty wore off and I never did it again. I just find it lame that bethesda cares about controversy.
DisruptorX2 on
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
edited July 2008
If you're wondering, the only reaction to killing all the children in DE:IW is "What are you doing, they're just Children". Nobody cares beyond that.
I swear that I won't be surprised in the least if the NMA dude that started that argument turns out to be a fucking serial killer.
I too am frightened by many people in this thread.
Not the dude here, I mean the dude on NMA that did it, the one that's super-obsessed with it. I didn't see that post right before mine.
I'm not 'obsessed' with it, I find it an irritating and stupid mechanic. If you need to advance the plot, in a ROLEPLAYING GAME, have MULTIPLE ways of fucking doing it. Kill the guy who you need the computer password from? Who cares, the computer can be hacked. The security door has a longer and more dangerous route behind it that you can go through. You can bluff a guard to get you in.
You know, having invincible NPCs doesn't mean you're not going to see plenty of this stuff happening. Bethesda have said it will be minimal and I do agree with you when I hope that means really really minimal.
I understand what you're saying, that you'd like the freedom to kill everyone, everywhere, and then just deal with the consequences later, but it's just a concession you're going to have to make. Now, if it turns out that you've got your unkillable NPCs and you are presented with situations where there's no other solution, then yes, that's going to be very annoying. From the sounds of things though I don't think that will be too much of an issue.
W2 on
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
edited July 2008
You know, having invincible NPCs doesn't mean you're not going to see plenty of this stuff happening.
Then why do you need invincible NPCs? That's precisely the point. You don't need invincible NPCs if you can get around it another way. In Fallout, the ghouls underneath the city don't NEED to be invincible to get the water chip, because there are multiple ways of getting to it (heck you don't even need a specific NPC to find your way to it by accident).
You can't have it both way. If you have other solutions it's obvious you don't need an invincible NPC. An invincible NPC is a game design crutch precisely because there is no other solution. You don't NEED to make them invincible if there is another solution.
To be honest, the only time I ever killed kids was either during genocide runs or those little pissers that would try to pickpocket you when you enter a store (who'd have gotten the same treatment were they adults) and so long as the latter isn't around I don't really care at all.
EDIT: If they want a good solution, they should make it like STALKER where if the NPC dies they're still carrying a note or something that talks about what they'd have told you of were they still alive so you could still continue the chain.
To be honest, the only time I ever killed kids was either during genocide runs or those little pissers that would try to pickpocket you when you enter a store (who'd have gotten the same treatment were they adults) and so long as the latter isn't around I don't really care at all.
I lost a $20,000 guass rifle to one of the fuckers. And since it was my backup gun, I didn't notice till much later.
You know, having invincible NPCs doesn't mean you're not going to see plenty of this stuff happening.
Then why do you need invincible NPCs? That's precisely the point. You don't need invincible NPCs if you can get around it another way. In Fallout, the ghouls underneath the city don't NEED to be invincible to get the water chip, because there are multiple ways of getting to it (heck you don't even need a specific NPC to find your way to it by accident).
You can't have it both way. If you have other solutions it's obvious you don't need an invincible NPC. An invincible NPC is a game design crutch precisely because there is no other solution. You don't NEED to make them invincible if there is another solution.
I'm talking more about situations where npc A might be unkillable, but then you have situations where npcs B C D E and F are all killable and have multiple approaches to whatever particular problems they might be presenting. So you take the good with the bad.
I don't know, maybe the mere presence of these invincible dudes totally ruins the rest of the game for you. That's fine, it's up to you.
I don't know, maybe the mere presence of these invincible dudes totally ruins the rest of the game for you. That's fine, it's up to you.
It really depends. If the invincible dudes take the place of "guys who would normally be level 500" in RPG, thats not a huge deal, but still kind of lame. If the game holds your hand by making anyone who might give you a good quest invincible, it gets really stupid.
To be honest, the only time I ever killed kids was either during genocide runs or those little pissers that would try to pickpocket you when you enter a store (who'd have gotten the same treatment were they adults) and so long as the latter isn't around I don't really care at all.
I lost a $20,000 guass rifle to one of the fuckers. And since it was my backup gun, I didn't notice till much later.
This makes me want for RAI to have a setup where if pickpocketting kids are in the game if they try and steal some bad mofo's stuff and critically fail the dude will grab them by the hand and then smash it with a micro-sledge or blow it off with a shotgun. Imagine wandering into a town and every other kid has a stump or pulverized mass or two where their hand ought to be.
Sorenson on
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
edited July 2008
For example, I have an NPC in my 4th edition DnD game that helps the players for a while, but is actually a lurking future antagonist. Now, if they choose to kill that NPC (for whatever reason), they can do so and in fact make the future fight immediate (as opposed to a certain point I had originally pre-planned). If I was just to say "No you can't attack her", it would break verisimilitude and my players wouldn't think it's very fun (plus they'd know something is up and deliberately attempt to antagonise me).
When I play these games, perhaps somewhat mistakenly, I compare the computer to a DM. The better the computer handles my wreckless and often plain ridiculous actions the more I feel it's doing a good job of "faking it". Fallout does an excellent job at doing this, precisely because of how well the world reacts to certain things you do. I think, in some ways, Morrowind does this well but in a lazier way. Rather than having another solution to move through the quest line, it just stops the plot dead but otherwise lets you continue. This is why I like Fallout more than morrowind, more ways of doing things is better than relying on a cheap mechanic, plus it means different characters accomplish things in entirely new ways adding replayability.
Focusing everything to one specific point and then not accounting for "If the player puts a nuclear missile into this guy by mistake, we'll just make him invincible" is bad design. Instead, "If the player puts a nuclear missile into this guy by mistake, they get this result and they can still solve the same problem by doing this instead (it's just harder or whatever)".
How anyone thinks the first way of doing things is better than the second is depressing.
I don't know, maybe the mere presence of these invincible dudes totally ruins the rest of the game for you. That's fine, it's up to you.
Yes, we couldn't possibly just be slightly upset. This ruins the game for us, and we are boycotting all bethesda games until they allow us to kill children as is our god given right as americans.
I don't know, maybe the mere presence of these invincible dudes totally ruins the rest of the game for you. That's fine, it's up to you.
Yes, we couldn't possibly just be slightly upset. This ruins the game for us, and we are boycotting all bethesda games until they allow us to kill children as is our god given right as americans.
They aren't talking about killing kids, drop that.
Phoenix-D on
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
I don't know, maybe the mere presence of these invincible dudes totally ruins the rest of the game for you. That's fine, it's up to you.
Yes, we couldn't possibly just be slightly upset. This ruins the game for us, and we are boycotting all bethesda games until they allow us to kill children as is our god given right as americans.
I don't know, maybe the mere presence of these invincible dudes totally ruins the rest of the game for you. That's fine, it's up to you.
That's quite sad. It must suck that a whole game is ruined by such a small detail. I wonder if any games do pass through such a fine-grained filter? Well, obviously some games (like Fallout and BG2) do, they must surely be the apex of excellence, totally annoyance-free and perfect in every sense.
Posts
Yes it is. It's lazy and bad game design. There are other ways of accomplishing the same thing without being horrifically verisimilitude breaking. Fallout accomplishes this. Baldurs Gate [kinda] accomplishes this. Morrowind did it perfectly, because if you're going to be a homicidal maniac why not anyway?
Boo-hoo. Don't be a genocidal maniac maybe?
CONSEQUENCES ARE BAD HURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
You can kill all of them. It doesn't matter if you have to suck up the consequences of that, you can still fucking kill them.
Also, you can kill the Overseer in Fallout at the end of the game.
Who would have thought people might want to roleplay an individual who is a genocidal maniac in a roleplaying game. People who want to play the game differently or with whacky goals and idea are stupid.
It was possible to have fun with it for a period of time but..just no.
It was really poorly fucking designed.
Unless you add a huge horde of mods to make it non-stupid.
Also, anyone seen the Pipboy watch on the official site. It comes apart so you can wear it on your wrist!
Seriously, do you not get it? Did you hate Bioshock because you couldn't shoot up the Little Sisters? What about Mass Effect? You can't kill everyone in that game, it must be terrible!
I totally shouldn't expect a sequel to main the same sorts of freedom that the previous games did. Damn me and my unreasonable expectations that sequels should improve on the previous games, not render things like "choices" that were available in the first games irrelevant.
[Edit: The killing Children part doesn't bother me, partly because it won't get past censors most likely in this day and age I would think. Invincible NPCs though is stupid and verisimilitude breaking, including the invincible children].
Mass Effect is not fallout, so I don't give a shit.
Please do try to stay on topic. If we're discussing doing this in mass effect (or bioshock), I'm sure there is a thread for doing so.
Edit: I should also point out that it's possible to not kill anything (or almost nothing) in the first two games. But as I said, different ways of playing an RPG are stupid. We should be playing quake with nuclear missile launchers and phat lewts, who the fuck wants to do this shit called roleplaying? Shooting things should be the priority and heaven forbid if shooting things randomly has consequences, cause fuck that.
Didn't I say that?
Are you trying to make up responses to my posts or actually reading them? I've given my opinion on it and its right there. Why don't you read it before trying to make yourself look witty.
It's two faced to say 'I should be able to do everything I could do in the previous game' and then make exceptions. You haven't even played the game, you have no idea how the mechanics will actually work.
Wow, you sure are a clever one figuring that one out and all. It's only clearly stated in my post. Why are you restating my argument again like you've discovered some witty contradiction or hole in my argument?
I'm.... not?
Again:
I can understand why Bethsoft may not be able to, in 2008 not get away with child killing that BIS did in the 90s with an entirely different regulatory environment. It doesn't change that it's still stupid and verisimilitude breaking as I've clearly stated.
I'm not sure if you're reading what I'm writing or typing whatever thoughts come into your head (which if thoughts were eggs you've made an omelet).
Fallout 3 =! Oblivion.
In many ways I'm beginning to agree. It reminds me more of Stalker.
Then again, quotes like "Bold proclamations for such a small amount of hands-on time, yes, but words I'll stick behind as a fan on the Elder Scrolls. In fact, Fallout 3 is very much Oblivion in a post-apocalyptic world". Do not inspire me.
Then why on earth do I have to explain the same point five different times?
Genocide is fun >.>
3ds friend code: 2981-6032-4118
I did it just to see if I could. It also puts additional pressures on you, like the inability to just buy things and you really have to scavenge hard for everything you want (well, some of the time anyway!). It was also a good way of relieving frustration or boredom (Morrowind comes to mind immediately).
I'm still unsure who he thought he was arguing with, because nobody made that argument and I made it crystal clear exactly what I thought. Verisimilitude breaking is bad, not getting the game released at all is even worse (I'm betting censors would go nuts, look how upset Australian censors got about the drugs).
I too am frightened by many people in this thread.
Well, what I liked in fallout 2 doing a genocide run, was that it could be hard. Tons of enemies, little quest experience(because you're just going around killing everyone). Sure, tons of loot from merchants and other people... but it was a fun, different way to play.
I don't mind if children can't be killed. But let me kill quest-giving NPC's, all of them. I hate them the most.
3ds friend code: 2981-6032-4118
I'm not 'obsessed' with it, I find it an irritating and stupid mechanic. If you need to advance the plot, in a ROLEPLAYING GAME, have MULTIPLE ways of fucking doing it. Kill the guy who you need the computer password from? Who cares, the computer can be hacked. The security door has a longer and more dangerous route behind it that you can go through. You can bluff a guard to get you in.
It's simply lazy and there are better solutions to solving an NPC dying breaking the main quest (please dear God don't make this for all quests) that can be implemented than "lol invulnerability". I, unlike some people, will give them a perfectly fair pass on children because censors and peer group pressures are higher.
Then again, contradicting this you can butcher all the Children in Deus Ex Invisible War and that never managed to raise anyones hankles. Maybe it's because that game sucked...
This argument got bought up by someone who was extremely confused about who they were arguing with and wanted to try to "win" by being wittier than they actually were, instead of reading the arguments actually made. It's not even relevant to what most people bought up, which is the invincible quest NPCs.
Although DE:IW got away with the murder of Children, now I think of it (you can even have greasels do it if you're creative enough), it's logical that Bethsoft would avoid the problem in the over censor happy environment that has occurred with increased media attention/pressure etc.
Its gonna be funny when people mod it back in.
Remember the whole "people can mod oblivion to make the characters nude! This is unprecedented!" nonsense from a few years back?
There is a reason I'm buying the PC version
I'm just sayin', you know?
You know, having invincible NPCs doesn't mean you're not going to see plenty of this stuff happening. Bethesda have said it will be minimal and I do agree with you when I hope that means really really minimal.
I understand what you're saying, that you'd like the freedom to kill everyone, everywhere, and then just deal with the consequences later, but it's just a concession you're going to have to make. Now, if it turns out that you've got your unkillable NPCs and you are presented with situations where there's no other solution, then yes, that's going to be very annoying. From the sounds of things though I don't think that will be too much of an issue.
Then why do you need invincible NPCs? That's precisely the point. You don't need invincible NPCs if you can get around it another way. In Fallout, the ghouls underneath the city don't NEED to be invincible to get the water chip, because there are multiple ways of getting to it (heck you don't even need a specific NPC to find your way to it by accident).
You can't have it both way. If you have other solutions it's obvious you don't need an invincible NPC. An invincible NPC is a game design crutch precisely because there is no other solution. You don't NEED to make them invincible if there is another solution.
EDIT: If they want a good solution, they should make it like STALKER where if the NPC dies they're still carrying a note or something that talks about what they'd have told you of were they still alive so you could still continue the chain.
I lost a $20,000 guass rifle to one of the fuckers. And since it was my backup gun, I didn't notice till much later.
I'm talking more about situations where npc A might be unkillable, but then you have situations where npcs B C D E and F are all killable and have multiple approaches to whatever particular problems they might be presenting. So you take the good with the bad.
I don't know, maybe the mere presence of these invincible dudes totally ruins the rest of the game for you. That's fine, it's up to you.
It really depends. If the invincible dudes take the place of "guys who would normally be level 500" in RPG, thats not a huge deal, but still kind of lame. If the game holds your hand by making anyone who might give you a good quest invincible, it gets really stupid.
When I play these games, perhaps somewhat mistakenly, I compare the computer to a DM. The better the computer handles my wreckless and often plain ridiculous actions the more I feel it's doing a good job of "faking it". Fallout does an excellent job at doing this, precisely because of how well the world reacts to certain things you do. I think, in some ways, Morrowind does this well but in a lazier way. Rather than having another solution to move through the quest line, it just stops the plot dead but otherwise lets you continue. This is why I like Fallout more than morrowind, more ways of doing things is better than relying on a cheap mechanic, plus it means different characters accomplish things in entirely new ways adding replayability.
Focusing everything to one specific point and then not accounting for "If the player puts a nuclear missile into this guy by mistake, we'll just make him invincible" is bad design. Instead, "If the player puts a nuclear missile into this guy by mistake, they get this result and they can still solve the same problem by doing this instead (it's just harder or whatever)".
How anyone thinks the first way of doing things is better than the second is depressing.
Yes, we couldn't possibly just be slightly upset. This ruins the game for us, and we are boycotting all bethesda games until they allow us to kill children as is our god given right as americans.
3ds friend code: 2981-6032-4118
They aren't talking about killing kids, drop that.
That's quite sad. It must suck that a whole game is ruined by such a small detail. I wonder if any games do pass through such a fine-grained filter? Well, obviously some games (like Fallout and BG2) do, they must surely be the apex of excellence, totally annoyance-free and perfect in every sense.