Forums » Elder Scrolls

Essential NPCs: Hate it or Love it?

    • 743 posts
    May 28, 2015 3:10 PM EDT

    Lol, I'm not going to go that far Curse.

    • 1439 posts
    May 28, 2015 3:11 PM EDT

    Like, with some followers, only YOU can deal the killing blow?

    • 743 posts
    May 28, 2015 3:11 PM EDT

    I haven't watched that one, Chris. I'll check it out.

    • 743 posts
    May 28, 2015 3:13 PM EDT


    • 485 posts
    May 28, 2015 3:16 PM EDT
    I remember having a discussion with albino and Elysium about the differences between Skyrim and its predecessors. We came to the conclusion that Skyrim was designed to have more fluid and realistic combat than previous games. It's leveling system is also designed to be a fuck ton less tedious than previous games.
  • May 28, 2015 3:16 PM EDT

    I believe it's by SorcererDave. They both raise some good points, if I remember their videos right. The main thing I would say before you watch Dave's video is to remember that he isn't arguing that the features he 'defends' are good, he's simply arguing that they aren't implemented simply to dumb the game down. 

    • 743 posts
    May 28, 2015 3:18 PM EDT

    I'll keep that in mind while watching.

    • 1439 posts
    May 28, 2015 3:18 PM EDT

    You don't like having to sleep to level? Anyway, I agree, it was tough finding a bed in Oblivion and Morrowind when you needed it.

  • May 28, 2015 3:19 PM EDT

    This is pretty much the agreed upon best option. It means Delphine won't get mauled to death by Spriggans, but it'll let you kill off those Imperial/Stormcloak officers.

    • 485 posts
    May 28, 2015 3:23 PM EDT
    Skyrims system just makes more sense. You exercise a skill or a magical talent, you gain experience. It makes most play thrus feel more organic. Sleeping shouldn't be forced on you in such a game: that is a more arbitrary limitation a player can impose on themselves.
    • 485 posts
    May 28, 2015 4:07 PM EDT
    I feel like the gaming industry needs both to survive. Everyone starts out as a casual when they first get into gaming, do they not? An industry can't survive if they can't draw in new people. It also can't survive if it can't keep the old crowd coming back for more (ie hardcore people). So any good industry is forced to appeal to both crowds
    • 743 posts
    May 28, 2015 4:10 PM EDT

    Hopefully, Bethesda takes this route in the next TES game.

    • 168 posts
    May 28, 2015 4:57 PM EDT

    Quest or important NPCs shouldn't be immortal, players should have the option to kill them. But it would suck if a quest npc was killed by random enemies, so they should only be killable by the player. If you break quests because you killed somebody, then well tough, you shouldn't just be killing people if you're worried about breaking quests.

    It's especially annoying when the "essential" npcs are clearly evil and/or jerks to the player, like Maven or the Thieves Guild or the Silver-bloods, Delphine, etc. It's very disappointing that a heroic character can't kill an evil person or organization. Or vice versa, an evil character can't kill good people, like Mjoll, Arngeir or some Jarls.

    • 1439 posts
    May 28, 2015 4:59 PM EDT

    You can kill a good chunk of the Thieves Guild 

    • 168 posts
    May 28, 2015 5:13 PM EDT

    I know, I've tried. What I'm saying is you can't kill all of them, the Thieves Guild will still inhabit Riften. And then you can't get rid of the bounty by killing witnesses because the witnesses can't be killed.

    Plus, when unkillable citizens chase after you for murder, you are forced to run because they cannot be killed. And there's essential townspeople in every town or city, except for Karthwasten.

    • 622 posts
    May 28, 2015 6:07 PM EDT

    Am I the only one who doesn't care for essential NPCs or not? All Bethesda would have to do is make them protected so they can only be killed by the player or their allies.

    I WILL kill children though. Little twerps...

    • 1217 posts
    May 28, 2015 6:17 PM EDT

    The kid throws a fit because he cannot get this AWESOME NINJA SWORD because he killed Balgruff, and doesn't know how to load a save, and so he trades the game in to play Call of Duty, where he can kill anything without crying.

    Okay, I don't see the difference, or how it poses any problem for Bethesda. They've already sold the game, at that point, so the kid trading it in isn't has no impact on their profit. Heck, they managed to get into the hands of someone outside the game's ESRB rating, because who else other than a 10 year old doesn't know how to load a save, so that's just a bonus for them. And what's the kid more likely to do? Tell all his 10 year old buddies "Don't get that game, you can kill quest-givers!" or "Don't kill everyone, some of them give quests."

    It just takes an extreme combination of ineptitude and laziness to fall into the niche you've described.

    • 5 posts
    May 28, 2015 6:26 PM EDT
    It seems a necessary evil to me. At the end of the day a computer game with programmed interactions between the player and npcs can only account for a limited range of events. The world the developers create only makes sense if the players aren't given enough agency to alter the world outside of the conditions the developers have accounted for. Ultimately we can't kill some npcs because the world just cannot react in a sensible way to that death. It's the price we pay for having story, in a sandbox with no story (minecraft) the player can be allowed to do whatever they like but skyrim is a story based game which tries (very cleverly) to weave the illusion of being a sandbox and in order to do so it has to protect the elements of the story.

    In many ways the game is like a picture that only makes sense when viewed from a single angle. Move to either side and it all distorts and falls apart. My hope for the next game isn't so much that they make it any bigger than skyrim but that they make it deeper. More routes through quests and interactions, good and evil paths etc.

    On a slightly different tack I've realised that even on my most evil of characters I become completely obsessed with keeping all civilians alive. The random vampire attacks added by dawnguard are the worst thing that has happened to skyrim for me and I go to great lengths to mitigate those attacks, even playing a trevor deathhand type. I feel that the npcs are the lifeblood of skyrim and a finite resource. Every one that gets killed diminishes the game slightly (adrianne I'm looking at you here, stop being a bloody hero and run away for once). Besides, where's the fun in being an evil overlord if everyone is dead? What we need is a way to subjugate the population :)
    • 1217 posts
    May 28, 2015 6:31 PM EDT

    Ultimately we can't kill some npcs because the world just cannot react in a sensible way to that death.

    I disagree, but can you offer some examples? As far as I can tell, if you killed a quest giving NPC, that instantly creates less for the game to account for. It no longer has to look at check marks for a questline, because the quest has been permanently closed off. 

    • 1439 posts
    May 28, 2015 6:44 PM EDT
    Also, if a merchant dies, there is almost always someone who takes over
    • 743 posts
    May 28, 2015 11:46 PM EDT

    "Don't get that game, you can kill quest-givers!" or "Don't kill everyone, some of them give quests."

    Honestly, from a child, I would expect them to say the former. That's just how naive people are. You went on to inquire that they've already made a profit from buying the game, true enough. However, the kid probably wouldn't buy the next TES game, simply because they couldn't go on a killing rampage spree. Thus Bethesda may possibly lose money in the future, if the NPCs were non essential.

    • 12 posts
    May 28, 2015 11:53 PM EDT

    I agree with Elysium. Just make all the essential ones protected and bingo

    • 1217 posts
    May 29, 2015 12:12 AM EDT

    This is still regarding a demographic that isn't even targeted by Bethesda. I find it extremely unbelievable that anywhere near a significant portion of gamers 17 and older don't know how to work a save file, or throw a fit because their digital killing sprees have consequences. Take Deus Ex: HR. Save for a couple of areas where you aren't able to draw your weapon, no one, including quest givers, is invincible. They prepare you for it right in the marketing with one sentence "Your actions have consequences."

    • 743 posts
    May 29, 2015 12:29 AM EDT

    Borom, I like you, I really do. I just can't understand one thing, WHY CAN WE NEVER BE ON THE SAME SIDE OF THE FENCE IN ANY SORT OF ARGUEMENT. Now that I've let out my odd frustration, I'm going to have to stop arguing, as its late here in the EST zone and I'm tired. Good debate, buddy.

    • 1217 posts
    May 29, 2015 12:30 AM EDT

    Rest well, mate. I'm sure we'll be on the same side eventually