Yandros on 27/7/2013 at 04:50
Thanks for the input so far, although I'm a little surprised it's so much in the "it would bother me" direction, since it's mostly only on Normal that this would potentially happen, perhaps on Hard some of the time. The characters in question are generally minor, but they do factor into some things. For example, there are several series of planned conversations between guards (mostly comedic relief) that span multiple missions, but it sounds like I may need to take measures to keep those characters and conversations from triggering in the later missions when one or both participants get killed in the earlier mission. I think that's possible with campaign Qvars, although I've never done it. Basically, it would mean that if you go on a killing spree, you're depriving yourself of entertainment later.
One scenario that would be practically impossible to avoid, though, is if the player plays on Normal and literally slaughters every guard in a mansion, or every city watchman in an entire neighborhood. There's no way when Garrett returns to the mansion a week later that there wouldn't be major differences changes compared to what I'm actually going to plan for that return mission.
When this occurs with innocents, I suppose it can be avoided by imposing a "Don't kill any innocents" objective even on Normal, as EmperorSteele suggested, in every single mission. All of the major characters are innocents, I think, so that would keep the player from killing someone critical to the story as it unfolds. But to make the objectives list cleaner, what about making such an objective implicit? Meaning, there is no explicit "don't kill any innocents" goal, but if you do kill one of the major characters, such a goal is revealed (worded more like "What was the point of doing that?") and the mission is failed? It could only be for a handful of major characters (typically 1, occasionally as many as 3 in a given mission), not just for any random servant or shopkeeper.
Xorak on 27/7/2013 at 06:00
I'd actually rather let the player do whatever they want, and if they kill someone who is valuable in a following mission, it's their loss. Of course, I'd warn them going in that this is how it works. But to me that's classic choice and consequence and it's what most games are missing these days.
gnartsch on 27/7/2013 at 09:14
Quote Posted by Yandros
For example, there are several series of planned conversations between guards (mostly comedic relief) that span multiple missions, but it sounds like I may need to take measures to keep those characters and conversations from triggering in the later missions when one or both participants get killed in the earlier mission. I think that's possible with campaign Qvars, although I've never done it. Basically, it would mean that if you go on a killing spree, you're depriving yourself of entertainment later.
That would be nice! And would punish everyone for going on a slaughter trip. :ebil:
Quote:
One scenario that would be practically impossible to avoid, though, is if the player plays on Normal and literally slaughters every guard in a mansion, or every city watchman in an entire neighborhood. There's no way when Garrett returns to the mansion a week later that there wouldn't be major differences changes compared to what I'm actually going to plan for that return mission.
As long as these guards would be
nameless stereotype AI, I have no problem seeing their clone to replace them.
The city and the mansions need to guarded, so dead guards should be expected to be replaced when you return.
Just avoid giving them concrete names in all those missions if you don't have to.
Instead refer to them in some generic way where possible ('Captain' vs. 'Captain Davis') and all is fine.
Assuming the Captain of the guards at the mansion plays an important role in 2 of those missions, you might even plan for normal fluctuation of the personal to evade these weird situations: simply drop a comment somewhere that a 'new Captain has taken over the job' - no matter whether the original one got killed or not.
Quote:
But to make the objectives list cleaner, what about making such an objective implicit? Meaning, there is no explicit "don't kill any innocents" goal, but if you do kill one of the major characters, such a goal is revealed (worded more like "What was the point of doing that?") and the mission is failed? It could only be for a handful of major characters (typically 1, occasionally as many as 3 in a given mission), not just for any random servant or shopkeeper.
Hmmm... a bit odd, but sounds acceptable for me in principle.
DiMarzio on 27/7/2013 at 12:40
I play always on Expert. Not only because I want the maximum challenge, but because it's the way it is meant to be played. It's the most realistic difficulty, some areas and objectives are available only on it and it gives the best immersion. It almost always (I can't remember any exceptions) has the "no kills" objective, which is there for a good reason. It would stand against Garrett's motives. He is no murderer, I think Garrett has never killed a man for fun. So if the player chooses to kill any human, I think he/she is already breaking the immersion. So if the same character appears on later levels, the blame's on the player, Garrett would have not killed that person. So if the Expert level doesn't allow any kills, I think you should hold on to that policy.
Yes, I know some people might find any difficulty higher than Normal too difficult for them. And some people just choose not to play the game on Expert, because they can't stand the tension or they want to kill AIs. I also find some FMs too hard for me on Expert, but that just reminds me I have to get better (or give up my goal of 'minimal blackjacking' :cheeky:). So I return to that FM later, and play easier FMs first and practice on them. As to the players who choose to play on Normal, goofy around if you wish, but there are better games for your taste, which are called First Person Shooters ;)
So in a nutshell, forget about the lower difficulties, Expert is the only way it is meant to be played. If oddities are encountered, they just remind the players to play it on Expert. I don't think "no kills" is required for lower difficulties, as it's not common to them (don't know what is the common principle on Hard though, because I don't play on it). Let the players kill and ruin their immersion if they like it that way.
Cavalorn on 27/7/2013 at 12:55
To simply put it: yes, it would bother me.
gnartsch on 27/7/2013 at 14:00
Quote Posted by Cavalorn
To simply put it: yes, it would bother me.
Which part ?
The original set of Yandro's questions or the updated ones ??? :confused:
Sliptip on 27/7/2013 at 14:12
Ultimately I don't think it would bother me very much at all. If you feel it would stick out too much, then I'd agree with the others who've suggested a "no-kill innocents" objective.
I do think it's worth trying to fix, but not to the point of pulling your hair out!
elkston on 27/7/2013 at 14:31
It doesn't bother me and I dislike capricious use of "don't kill whatsover" or force-ghost objectives when they don't serve the plot. Sometimes authors insert these things because that is the way they like to play. But it not may not be the way player X likes to play.
I can suspend belief somewhat and pretend that some character that may have been killed in a previous episode -- was actually just "injured" and survived. I don't normally go around just killing guards anyway, but I also dislike the feeling of having arbitrary gameplay rules.
Off subject --- but I also dislike map areas that are only available at certain difficulty levels.
EmperorSteele on 27/7/2013 at 15:37
I'd also like to point out that no-kill objectives (even for guards) on Normal isn't unheard of. I'm playing Kings Story right now, where even on normal, you can't kill anyone, you can't have any bodies be discovered, and you can't BJ any important NPCs (servants are ok). Sounds very restrictive compared to most "normal" playstyles (i usually do play on normal cuz I'm not very good at the sneaksying!), and yet, I don't find this difficult to manage. The only playstyle compromise I've had to make is instead of killing a guard who finds me out, I just reload a previous save.
It sounds like you're having Garrett/the player revisit a specific location in different missions. If that's the case, maybe you can treat the first instance like "Casing The Joint" and make ghosting or not attacking the AI a required objective, for the purpose of not having to deal with heightened security when he returns?
Necrobob on 27/7/2013 at 16:31
Aren't non-linear campaigns a thing now? Could have certain variables leading to one version of the map where the character is alive and another where the character isn't. Bloating of the total file size could become a problem this way though.
