Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

I was wrong

Sol Invictus

Erudite
Joined
Oct 19, 2002
Messages
9,614
Location
Pax Romana
Bitch bitch bitch. That's the Codex. Hardly matters that it's completely insignificant. It's not a "good rpg" if it isn't - guess what - Fallout.

RPG developers should just quit their jobs now, because nothing's going to satisfy the morons at the Codex.
 

Saint_Proverbius

Administrator
Staff Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2002
Messages
14,063
Location
Behind you.
MrSmileyFaceDude said:
Argumentum ad Ignorantiam. You're assuming because Morrowind was a certain way, that given the absence of information about Oblivion, it must be the same way.

It's a pretty safe assumption considering you're still protecting NPCs from players for the sake of a story.

I noticed you didn't answer my paragraph about how unkillable NPCs makes for better quests when there's all sorts of ways around that. As for, Don't you think we thought of that?.. Nope, I don't think you guys thought of any of that. I think you guys took the shortcut and patted yourselves on the back.

Come on, MSFD, there is no reason other than taking a shortcut for there to be unkillable NPCs. There's all kinds of quick ways around it as many people, including myself, have mentioned. Ghosts of certain critical NPCs would be fairly easy to impliment, for example. It would only take making the NPC model transparent, adding some lines of dialogue to tell the player he's now a ghost, and BAM.. Done. Easy and now the NPC is unkillable for a good reason, you've already killed him.

And yeah, I think the term unkillable NPC applies here, because that's what all this boils down to being. Sure, you let the player kill the NPC, but then the game stops and pops up a load screen. So, to continue the story/game, you can't actually kill them.. Therefore, unkillable.
 

kris

Arcane
Joined
Oct 27, 2004
Messages
8,891
Location
Lulea, Sweden
Saint_Proverbius said:
Come on, MSFD, there is no reason other than taking a shortcut for there to be unkillable NPCs. There's all kinds of quick ways around it as many people, including myself, have mentioned.

I think he already said that that was just what they did. They choosed to take the shortcut on this feature. He also added that they felt other parts of the game was more important (sarcasm about Patrick Stewart expected). All is probably said by now.
 

merry andrew

Erudite
Joined
Jan 17, 2004
Messages
1,332
Location
Ellensburg
Saint_Proverbius said:
Ghosts of certain critical NPCs would be fairly easy to impliment, for example. It would only take making the NPC model transparent, adding some lines of dialogue to tell the player he's now a ghost, and BAM.. Done. Easy and now the NPC is unkillable for a good reason, you've already killed him.
That's assuming that the NPC has no purpose other than to give you a quest? Or maybe you're suggesting that they just continue on for the duration of the game as a ghost?

MSFD, I'm guessing that the essential NPCs are just specific key figures affiliated with the main storyline?
 

Human Shield

Augur
Joined
Sep 7, 2003
Messages
2,027
Location
VA, USA
Sol Invictus said:
Apparently, according to the wikipedia, I've said that ducks' quacks don't echo. Fact: they don't echo. Prove me wrong, please.

Stop being dumb.

"premise is just silly: a duck's quack (and presumably, of all the sounds known to man, only a duck's quack) has some special sonic property that causes it not to echo."
 

Sandelfron

Scholar
Joined
Aug 5, 2005
Messages
478
Human Shield said:
Sol Invictus said:
Apparently, according to the wikipedia, I've said that ducks' quacks don't echo. Fact: they don't echo. Prove me wrong, please.

Stop being dumb.

"premise is just silly: a duck's quack (and presumably, of all the sounds known to man, only a duck's quack) has some special sonic property that causes it not to echo."

Have YOU ever heard a duck in a cave? No? Then it's pure sophistry.
 

Claw

Erudite
Patron
Joined
Aug 7, 2004
Messages
3,777
Location
The center of my world.
Project: Eternity Divinity: Original Sin 2
hussar said:
Huh? You make no sense here at all. I suggest you google up "Ad Ignorantium" read it, think for few minutes, and then get back to me.
I suggest you stop letting google do the thinking for you, so you may attempt to realize I wasn't referring to Argumentum ad Ignorantiam specifically, but the problems of applying logic to the real world, by the following example. I don't see where you get the idea that my statement was based on an uncited external source.


Which rules? Yours? Sorry I must have missed that class.
I wasn't aware you ever had classes in propositional calculus. Anyway, the statement was a joke, obviously or so I would have thought, based on a deliberate misinterpretation of the rule "Ex falso quolibet" which is supposed to mean you can't draw conclusions from a false premise, but literally says that you can draw any conclusion, and is expressed by assigning the value "true" to any implication with a false premise.


He can't be right until either the game is out or someone presents him with facts about what has been done in Oblivion. Until then he's still commiting a fallacy even if he's making an "educated guess".
That's a silly argument, more than that, it's the very fallacy you accuse VD of, claiming that he is wrong for no other reason than that there are no facts (i.e. proof) available.
The moments the facts are presented there is no need to guess anymore. The educated guess directly contradicts the definition of the fallacy which you so kindly recited, as - unlike you - he has given reasons for his claims beyond the lack of proof for the contrary.
 

Sol Invictus

Erudite
Joined
Oct 19, 2002
Messages
9,614
Location
Pax Romana
Damn right. I've never seen nor heard any ducks in caves so it stands to reason that duck's quacks do NOT echo in caves, since there aren't any there to begin with.

Silly Human Shield.
 

Rulion

Liturgist
Joined
Dec 10, 2004
Messages
424
Location
bath salt city
What's with the group jerk-off on Oblivion? Jesus, I'm not crazy about the game, and I've never been a Beth fanboy, but this is ridiculous.

Frankly, I could care less that there's a moron indicator stating who is and isn't an essential NPC. Chances are a person would figure it out all on their own; common sense told me not to attack the elder of the village in FO2, or the Overseeer in FO1. In a way, the indicator is good for those times when you just go crazy and want to kill everyone in a village. I'm sure a lot of people have done it before - when you're bored or restless, you save your current progress and then try to see if you can take an entire town on by yourself. I've done it countless times in Arcanum, FO, BG, and I even stood there clicking at the NPCs in HL2 despite my gun being lowered whenever I pointed in their direction. In my opinion, most people are smart enough to save before doing something silly like that, so the moron indicator is a bit redundant - but it's nothing big for me to gripe over. A lot of games simply ignore the fact that you're attacking an essential NPC - the character stands there and takes it. Some take a nuclear arsenal and don't die. (like Paul in Deux Ex)

Some suggestions that have been made are for other mesures to be taken into account. Every NPC should be killable and the game should continue. One way I've read was for there to be journals that have the information you need. The problem is, if the information that character had was so trivial that it could be transcribed in a journal, chances are they wouldn't be an ESSENTIAL NPC. They'd just be a regular one. As an essential NPC, it's probably going to be a king that ordering you to go on quests, then return to him and report on it - in that sense, you could lose an entire storyline if you kill the king. His journal is not going to state, "Boy, I need to find someone to perform some duties for me. First, I need him to burn down the tower. Then, I need him to blahblahblah." Seeing as my BIGGEST PROBLEM with MW was the terrible dialogue, I'd rather sacrifice not having the chance of killing everyone in the game than I do losing that interaction with another character.

In my eyes, there were several things that were terrible about MW. The exploration and graphics were fun, but after the first 20 minutes the charm wore off. So people complained about dialogue. Poof, Beth is toning up dialogue for this game. People complaining about the clickfest of combat. Poof, combat is being made more strategic, with things like "yields" being implemented for fights in which you don't want to kill your opponent.

Beth is excited about their Radiant AI, but some people are expecting too much too fast, mainly with the argument that whenever you kill an essential NPC, the world should react to it and offer alternatives. Isn't it obvious this turns into a never-ending cycle and a nightmare to program? I'm sure we'll be able to achieve that kind of immersion in 15 or 20 years, but I don't see the point of giving a company the third degree from the get-go.

Other arguments for the essential NPC thing have been that the NPC should be surrounded by guards and practically unkillable, but not actually programmed as immortal. Assuming that one of these NPCs is a member of royalty, chances are they WILL be surrounded by guards, and the fight to kill the king/prince/duke will be a fucking hard one. I understand that it's unreasonable for your character to ever be strong enough to kill all those people, but the simple fact is that it will happen: if the guards/king were always too strong, people would complain that their lvl 99 character should be able to take them. Also, there's always those nice bunches of people that like to cheat and alter their STR/DEX and all that, and so Beth has to account for them, too. A few other arguments mentioned some type of divine intervention. Come on. If MSFD had come on here and said, "Well, if you do manage to kill an NPC, a shaft of holy light will raise them back to life/a narrator will say 'That didn't happen, did it?'/God will smite you," everyone would have torn him to shreds in a second.

No game is perfect, and few games let you massacre everything and give you a contingency plan for killing/destroyig the alternatives. What surprises me is why everyone is demanding so much from Beth. Are the standards higher when it comes to them?
 

Claw

Erudite
Patron
Joined
Aug 7, 2004
Messages
3,777
Location
The center of my world.
Project: Eternity Divinity: Original Sin 2
Sol Invictus said:
Damn right. I've never seen nor heard any ducks in caves so it stands to reason that duck's quacks do NOT echo in caves, since there aren't any there to begin with.

Silly Human Shield.
Isn't that Argumentum ad Ignorantiam again? We better stop using that term altogether before it's used in every second post.
Either that or stop making fallacious statements.

Allright, let's ban the term. You know it's the only viable solution. ;)


merry andrew said:
I guess it's not lame if every quest-giving NPC that's essential to the game
Why would it apply to every quest-giving NPC? Wouldn't it make more sense in the context of their arguments to implement an individual solution for every death?
I guess that may be part of the problem with Bethesda. They are trying to maximize the volume of their games by using mass-production methods.
MSFD talks about quality, but it strikes me that refusing to hand-craft a solution for every instance in favor of a simple standard formula sounds more like choosing quantity over quality.
 

merry andrew

Erudite
Joined
Jan 17, 2004
Messages
1,332
Location
Ellensburg
Rulion said:
No game is perfect, and few games let you massacre everything and give you a contingency plan for killing/destroyig the alternatives. What surprises me is why everyone is demanding so much from Beth. Are the standards higher when it comes to them?
I think people here are mostly mad because Bethesda hasn't made Daggerfall 2, i.e. Daggerfall with a different story and better grafix.
 

Sandelfron

Scholar
Joined
Aug 5, 2005
Messages
478
Claw said:
Isn't that Argumentum ad Ignorantiam again? We better stop using that term altogether before it's used in every second post.

I'm currently running a book on "modus ponens", "ad infinitum"
or "quid quo pro" appearing in this thread at some point. Using
latin phrases is a great way of letting other people know that
you're desperately trying to impress them.

When someone mentions one of these phrases pretentiously
e.g in a CRPG gaming forum, you could simply respond:

"podex perfectus es"= you are a complete arsehole

because it's usually true.
 

merry andrew

Erudite
Joined
Jan 17, 2004
Messages
1,332
Location
Ellensburg
Claw said:
merry andrew said:
I guess it's not lame if every quest-giving NPC that's essential to the game
Why would it apply to every quest-giving NPC? Wouldn't it make more sense in the context of their arguments to implement an individual solution for every death?
I wasn't implying that every essential NPC should have that solution. As is, I think it's an oke solution assuming that it makes sense for the NPC and the setting and the story.

I guess that may be part of the problem with Bethesda. They are trying to maximize the volume of their games by using mass-production methods.
MSFD talks about quality, but it strikes me that refusing to hand-craft a solution for every instance in favor of a simple standard formula sounds more like choosing quantity over quality.
I'm not really trying to pick, but have you ever worked on a game that rivals a TES game, specifically as a programmer and/or a designer? I mean, they're obviously just trying to shortcut their way through their games, since Morrowind was released just recently in late 2001 and Oblivion won't be released until late this year (2005)?
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,044
merry andrew said:
Rulion said:
No game is perfect, and few games let you massacre everything and give you a contingency plan for killing/destroyig the alternatives. What surprises me is why everyone is demanding so much from Beth. Are the standards higher when it comes to them?
I think people here are mostly mad because Bethesda hasn't made Daggerfall 2, i.e. Daggerfall with a different story and better grafix.
There are maybe 3-4 hardcore Daggerfall fans here, so, yeah, that must be it. How very perceptive of you.

How about people here are mad because MW sucked, and it looks like, based on the information that's been released, not on the MSFD's unsupported mysterious hints, that Oblivion will suck even more?
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,044
Rulion said:
So people complained about dialogue. Poof, Beth is toning up dialogue for this game. People complaining about the clickfest of combat. Poof, combat is being made more strategic, with things like "yields" being implemented for fights in which you don't want to kill your opponent.
Your points would be valid if they weren't based on assumptions that the dialogues are better and the combat is more strategic. I hope you are old enough to know the difference between pre-release statements and the actual features. See that overhyped Fargoth quest in MW as an example

Isn't it obvious this turns into a never-ending cycle and a nightmare to program?
Uh, no. But thank you for your opinion.

Other arguments for the essential NPC thing have been that the NPC should be surrounded by guards and practically unkillable, but not actually programmed as immortal. Assuming that one of these NPCs is a member of royalty, chances are they WILL be surrounded by guards, and the fight to kill the king/prince/duke will be a fucking hard one.
I would have bought that argument if I didn't play MW where you can kill pretty much anything and everyone because you are so POWARFUL.

No game is perfect, and few games let you massacre everything and give you a contingency plan for killing/destroyig the alternatives. What surprises me is why everyone is demanding so much from Beth. Are the standards higher when it comes to them?
I dunno. Maybe because other games don't tell you: "No, you are playing it all wrong! Let me reload the game for you". Just a thought.
 

PrzeSzkoda

Augur
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
632
Location
Zork - Poland
Project: Eternity
I wonder why no indie-lover mentioned Geneforge 3 as a good example of making "unkillable NPCs" sensible. Anyone remember that badass king in that big, badass castle? He couldn't be killed up to a point (because he was critical to the plot), but afterwards, upon learning the cause of his invincibility (I'll restrain myself on spoiling), you could pwn him like no one was ever pwnd before. And it all made sense plot-wise.
 

GhanBuriGhan

Erudite
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
1,170
PrzeSzkoda said:
I wonder why no indie-lover mentioned Geneforge 3 as a good example of making "unkillable NPCs" sensible. Anyone remember that badass king in that big, badass castle? He couldn't be killed up to a point (because he was critical to the plot), but afterwards, upon learning the cause of his invincibility (I'll restrain myself on spoiling), you could pwn him like no one was ever pwnd before. And it all made sense plot-wise.

It was stated in the past by Bethesda that that's sort of what they did for Oblivion. After the main quest you can kill some (or most) of these "essential" NPC's.

source:
http://www.waiting4oblivion.com/feature ... shley.html
 

merry andrew

Erudite
Joined
Jan 17, 2004
Messages
1,332
Location
Ellensburg
Vault Dweller said:
How about people here are mad because MW sucked, and it looks like, based on the information that's been released, not on the MSFD's unsupported mysterious hints, that Oblivion will suck even more?
I've seen a lot of arguments here that basically say MW sucked because it wasn't Daggerfall, but I guess I'm wrong about that.

I'm not too happy about the forced reload, but then again I don't know much about what kind of problems their "Radiant AI" presents when dealing with story-essential NPC death. I"ve read a lot of the details, and I'm getting the impression that they're trying to make things more meaningful by sticking to the features that they feel most strongly about. I'd rather have them to do that than throw a bunch of stuff in that they haven't had the time to properly balance for.
 

Rulion

Liturgist
Joined
Dec 10, 2004
Messages
424
Location
bath salt city
Vault Dweller said:
Your points would be valid if they weren't based on assumptions that the dialogues are better and the combat is more strategic. I hope you are old enough to know the difference between pre-release statements and the actual features.
Obviously, everyone likes to hype up their newest games, describing them as innovative or featuring a new engine or being an immensely life-like experience, yadda yadda. Although I'm as much in the dark as anyone else when it comes to the details of the new dialogue system (other than the fact that it's now actual voice-acting), Beth and our good friend MSFD have mentioned that it has been updated for the better, with each NPC having their own personality and having different responses, which is why there are dramatically less NPCs in Oblivion than there were in MW. Now, unless they're LYING, this suggests one thing pretty clearly:

Characters will have dialogue suited for the individual self. As in, not the shit you saw in MW, where two people across the world said the exact same thing on the exact same topic, even though one had been purring up to that point at the end of each sentence and the other was a legionairre with anger issues. Characters having dialogue suited to them instead of some stupid wiki? I don't know, VD, but that sounds like an improvement to me.

Seeing as the MAIN COMPLAINT with MW dialogue was the very cardboard Wikipedia delivery, it would seem a slightly intelligent move for the people at Beth would have been to alter it. My assumption is that they have. Your assumption is that they haven't. Either way, they're both assumptions, but I think it would have been extremely idiotic of the people at Beth if they did it again.

As for combat, http://www.elderscrolls.com/codex/team_ ... stevem.htm
Already it sounds different and focusing on timing rather than a clickfest. Or maybe they're lying and this is actually fake hype to lure us in? Maybe they haven't changed combat at all!

Vault Dweller said:
Uh, no. But thank you for your opinion.
Does being an arrogant prick come easily to you, or do you practice it? I phrased my post politely, without insulting anyone, but you seem to be incapable of this amazing feat whenever somebody has a differing opinion, or disputes something with you.

My OPINION is pretty well founded. I'll detail why below - please, correct me if I'm wrong. Earlier in this thread you mentioned the example of your boss at work dying - someone would replace him, and someone would replace him, and life would carry on. Your world wouldn't come to an end, and thus the game shouldn't come to an end just because you killed King Billy Bob.. Unless I've misunderstood "Uh, no," you seem to be implying that making the world throw constant alternatives at you wouldn't be difficult to program or implement. I think your expectations of Radiant AI are a little high, but I'll just go on with my little story. Instead of focusing on the fantasy setting of Elder Scrolls, let's bring this little argument to modern times. I entitle this game "Rulion"

"Rulion" takes place in present day Nebraska, in a small town called Smalltown where everyone mostly knows everybody. You, the player, get a murderous urge and walk up the dinky little streets and knock on a random door. Bill opens it and you kill him, but you're so messy, you leave the weapon on the floor with your prints and everything. Bill's wife comes home an hour later after achieving her little AI schedule of leaving the office at 6PM and discovers Bill's body. She screams, drops her bag of groceries, and the AI guides her to the phone and she dials the cops.

For arguments sake, let's say your outside in the shadows or something. You're a fucking stealth god. The police show up and collect evidence, get in their car, and go to the station.
OR
You somehow manage to take the bag of evidence. The police don't notice right away and go to the station, and when they get there, they realize the evidence is gone and the AI guides them back to the house to double-check since obviously one of them dropped it.
OR
You don't steal the evidence bag, but you had killed the forensic guy earlier in the day. The police arrive in the lab, find the body, and now they're launching a murder investigation. They also call up HappyCity and ask if they can get another forensics guy to come up to examine the evidence they collected during the earlier crime. The next day, that guy is on his way to the dinky little town and arrives to the station and manages to get blood samples from what you left under Bob's fingernails and for what you left under the forensic guys fingernails, and he makes a match.
OR
You go to the highway and pose as a hitchhiker as the replacement is on his way to town. You kill him once you're in the car. You dump his body and it's found and the police are now looking for his car, the one you're driving in.
OR
Earlier in the week you had fucked with the engine of his car, and so it breaks down in the highway and it takes him an extra day to get to SmallTown.
OR
Going back to Bill's death, his teenage son, who had been going through the AI schedule of going to school, can no longer afford it or needs to help support his mom, so now his schedule changes so that he goes to the local factory.
OR
Going back to stealing the evidence bag, maybe you take it to where you live and burn it in your fireplace. Then you go outside and kill the kid across the street in broad daylight, and drive away. The police come to your home and depending on the Perception of the cop examining your fireplace, he finds the burned traces of an evidence bag and suddenly you're linked to Bill's murder.

And none of this must, of course, interfere with the main plot: to find your missing daughter. Radiant AI is a step in the right direction of making a world more living, but shit like what I mentioned above is too advanced or time-consuming to make at the moment. You seem to be critizing Radiant AI for not being this powerful yet, for making alternatives you every tiny detail you do. I don't know - making a world so life-like where things work like that seems pretty difficult to me. Because it doesn't seem like you'll ever be happy unless games can adapt just like real life.

Vault Dweller said:
I would have bought that argument if I didn't play MW where you can kill pretty much anything and everyone because you are so POWARFUL.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this. I was referring to a previous post, where somebody made the suggestion that instead of making NPCs immortal or doing the whole reloading thing, you should just make them uber-tough and give them a retinue of guards to protect them. Logically, no, your character shouldn't be able to take them all on as if he was a demi-god. I agree with that. But I also brought up the point that some people will get angry at this and say their lvl 99 character SHOULD be able to take them all on. You'll also get the people that cheat and make their STR 9999. And assuming they kill him, they'll break the game. It's better, in the end, to make them reload upon doing this.

Vault Dweller said:
I dunno. Maybe because other games don't tell you: "No, you are playing it all wrong! Let me reload the game for you". Just a thought.
Other games DO do that. And by Beth having to compensate for the dick who just wants to kill everything and everyone because it's "funny lol" and honestly expects the game to deal with it, they'll have to lower the immersion factor and how well characters can engage you. Would it be better for you if the game had an objectives screen that said "MISSION FAILS IF YOU KILL KING BILLYBOB, DUKE FANCYPANTS, YOUR MOTHER"?

You're exaggerating the hell out of how much having a few NPCs you shouldn't murder will ruin the game and interfere with your role-playing. You can't kill a handful of people. So what? Can you really not get around it? Should I ask developers to include a suicide button so I can commit harikari instead of having my character die at the hands of the evil wizard because my character needs to be roleplayed that way? I couldn't kill Paul in Deux Ex but I didn't freak the fuck out. I couldn't kill the Elder or the Overseer. I couldn't kill Meryl in Metal Gear. I couldn't kill Gorion. I couldn't attack or kill any of these people without ruining the game.

Rant over. Let's see you nitpick some more and make big deals over the tinest of subjects.
 

corvax

Augur
Joined
Jul 13, 2004
Messages
731
Claw said:
I suggest you stop letting google do the thinking for you, so you may attempt to realize I wasn't referring to Argumentum ad Ignorantiam specifically, but the problems of applying logic to the real world, by the following example. I don't see where you get the idea that my statement was based on an uncited external source.
Then you shouldn't have quoted this (an objection of ad Ignor.): "And so it doesn't automatically follow that things in Oblivion are going to be the same way they were in Morrowind when we haven't talked about them yet. Such an assumption is a logical fallacy". And then made your objection to logic? I'm also very curious about the problems of applying logic to the real world though. I would love if you could PM me with some examples or provide some links. Last thing I remember doing in college was to model one of the phases of DNA transcription using the rules of formal logic. More and more fields (mathematics, computer science) are experimenting with logic on a similar level. To applicability of logic is so widespread that I'm truly puzzled by your comment.

That's a silly argument, more than that, it's the very fallacy you accuse VD of, claiming that he is wrong for no other reason than that there are no facts (i.e. proof) available. The moments the facts are presented there is no need to guess anymore. The educated guess directly contradicts the definition of the fallacy which you so kindly recited, as - unlike you - he has given reasons for his claims beyond the lack of proof for the contrary.
I didn't mean to say that he's wrong just that he's commiting a fallacy and there's a difference. It may seem rather silly to you but on a strictly rational level it holds regardless. An educated guess is still a guess.
 

Kamaz

Pahris Entertainment
Developer
Joined
Feb 16, 2004
Messages
1,042
Location
The Glorious Ancient City of Loja
Well, there is one thing - if you could have gone for Fallout style storyline with one mainquest (allmost one), it could have been much easier to handle important/unimportant characters. As I immagine, Oblivion's story line will consist of tons of smaller quests you will have to complete to end game. Am I right?

Well, please, when developing Fallout3, bear in mind that Fallout and Fallout2 had this mainquest desgin and NOT tons of plotwise smallquests.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom