What do you think about invulnerability tags on enemies?

[Wyrmlord]

A lot of games have had it, ranging all the way from good ones to bad ones.

If you shot Paul Denton at the NSF airport with even a well aimed rocket launcher strike, he would not die, and would suddenly flip out at you with his Assault Rifle. Since he was essential to the story, you were not allowed to kill him.

Same holds true for all those invulnerable essential quest characters in Oblivion. And that itself could make the player feel annoyed when an obvious conman can't be killed, and you'd have to wait for the point in the quest where he reveals he is a conman.

Amazingly, the Ukraineians worked around this quite easily in STALKER. Since no quest was really mandatory, but incidental at most to the final goal, the death of one middleman meant nothing. Even if it involved unexpected things like - kid you not - a quest giver randomly getting killed by lightning! Yet, there were two odd places where your weapon automatically comes down, and the same thing happens in many other shooters where you are forced to put down your weapon when pointing it in a certain direction.

Copouts, all of it.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

What do you think about invulnerability tags on enemies?

Retarded (and I think you mean NPC's, not just enemies in general). It's hand holding that keeps you from fucking up a quest. For most games I don't mind because I don't really care about being able to kill everyone, but in sandbox games it keeps me from being careful because I know anyone important will not die.

And the conman guys in Oblivion CAN be killed before the reveal, at least the cultist ones. Sometimes I started brawls in towns and one citizen would suddenly summon the bound cultist armor, thaen jump at me. I was expected to reach a certain point in the story where they would actively seek me out and attack.

 

[Fowyr]

Screw this. The only right kind of invulnerability - potion of invulnerability for 2 rounds in Exile or something like that. You killed Paul Denton in first mission? You hunted down by UNATCO. Game over man, game over. You killed "special" (i.e. retarded) Oblivion quest giver? Quest failed or you may find another route (remember Arcanum).
And btw, IDBEHOLD V motherfuckers!

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

What do you think about invulnerability tags on enemies?

Lazy design.

 

[Droog White Smile]

Quest failed or you may find another route (remember Arcanum).

Arcanum still had a bunch of unkillable NPCs (the herbalist in Shrouded Hills, the spectacles maker in Ashbury, the Silver Lady). Hell, even Fallout had them (the Overseer).

Funnily enough, though, in Morrowind (another Bethesda game) you could kill absolutely anyone, IIRC. The game just displayed a message that you've killed a quest related NPC and some quest(s) may now be impossible to complete.

 

[bhlaab]

It's obviously a bad thing, but I understand why sometimes you just can NOT avoid it

 

[flabbyjack]

Fail thread is fail. NPC invulnerability is a necessary evil. There can be no story without exposition, and same games provide exposition via NPC interaction. OMFG DAD WHY YOU DIE NOW I NEVER FIND OUT WHO KEELED JOO!

 

[Wyrmlord]

Well, what is better?

Invulnerability.

Or your character's gun being pulled down when aiming at an ally or you getting a cross signal on the screen?

 

[Satori (original)]

Yes either direct consequences for your actions (haven't really seen this in effect) or none at all ala Stalker (except if you kill the Barkeep the game crashes). Morrowind's popup saying that you've fucked up your game yet are still allowed to continue is probably the best implementation in an RPG I've seen.

 

[JarlFrank]

Well, what is better?

Invulnerability.

Or your character's gun being pulled down when aiming at an ally or you getting a cross signal on the screen?

Not being able to fire is still better than firing and seeing the bullets go right through your friends without doing any damage or them just going unconscious and standing up after 5 seconds.

 

[A Wild Penis]

okay

 

[DraQ]

Invulnerability tags suck. The less linear the game is the less justifiable they are and the more they suck.

The situation is better handled by making NPCs not essential by providing alternatives. Even if there is no way whatsoever of making a character non-essential, it's still better realized by implementing some short branch resulting in non-standard gameover or by Morrowind's solution, though in case of actual enemies that are supposed to be invincible at the time you meet them, some sort of invulnerability seems to be the optimal choice - it should however, allow for no opportunities to reveal that the enemy in question is in fact retardedly sturdy in gameworld's context.

Well, what is better?

Invulnerability.

Or your character's gun being pulled down when aiming at an ally or you getting a cross signal on the screen?

Not being able to fire is still better than firing and seeing the bullets go right through your friends without doing any damage or them just going unconscious and standing up after 5 seconds.

This. Not being able to fire means my character resists me to protect an NPC. Such display of will is freaky, especially in a game where you can make your character unquestioningly jump off a cliff with live grenade stuck between his buttcheeks, but it's infinitely better than the laws of physics suddenly suspending themselves to tell me "LOL U CANT" when I try to kill an NPC.

 

[kendricktamis]

I'm using whosyourdaddy at the moment which is pretty good in terms of invulnerability but I do not want my enemies to die in just one hit by me. How do I retain invulnerability but without one hit kill?

 

[random_encounter]

Not a fan of it. I can understand the logic of requiring it, but I want to see more situations that aren't as obnoxiously obvious about using it.

The situation is better handled by making NPCs not essential by providing alternatives.

I'd like to see more of this myself, or at least have the game provide a more believable reason for being unable to kill important NPCs at certain points within the context of the world they live in. I liked Morrowind's approach to it, but in the case of Stalker, having your guns automatically drop down when you enter a major encampment spits on any immersion I might have for my own actions in that world until I leave the "safe zone".

On the other hand, it does avoid situations such as when I killed Gandohar before reaching the end of the game, triggering the end movie and removing the need to complete almost more than half of the game that was left.

 

[Sceptic]

The situation is better handled by making NPCs not essential by providing alternatives. Even if there is no way whatsoever of making a character non-essential, it's still better realized by implementing some short branch resulting in non-standard gameover or by Morrowind's solution, though in case of actual enemies that are supposed to be invincible at the time you meet them, some sort of invulnerability seems to be the optimal choice - it should however, allow for no opportunities to reveal that the enemy in question is in fact retardedly sturdy in gameworld's context.

This. Morrowind's solution was brilliant really - warns you you've fucked up and should reload, yet if you keep digging there IS an alternative path, though much more difficult to find (though it's easier and faster if you do find it). And then if you go and fuck the alternative path (by killing the last Dwemer before he harmonizes Wraithguard) you can STILL beat the game, provided you know where to go and what to do and your character is strong enough to wield the Tools without being killed by the Mortal Wound.

If that kind of solution cannot be implemented then have the NPCs so powerful that a low-level character stands no chance to defeat them, no matter how lucky. Of course this should make sense - a level 1 wimp not being able to even touch Elminster is fine, but not being able to kill your fellow classmate is just dumb (unless he's a demon in disguise or some such). And if you just absolutely HAVE to have an invincible NPC, make damn sure NOT to have a big flashing neon arrow pointing at him saying "essential NPC here" and keep the number of such NPCs to the absolute minimum. One or two essential NPCs in the whole game is fine (see Ultima series). Hundreds is not.

Oh, and if you went with the last scenario where there is no way around invincible NPCs? suddenly making him non-essential and sticking an escort quest, then turning him essential straight after that is the worst possible kind of design.

 

[Pliskin]

What do you think about invulnerability tags on enemies?

Inevitable, given the psycho-killer style of gameplay evinced by most.

Better to make game-citical NPC's invincible, than deal with the constant whining by consoletards that they couldn't finish the game because they were too busy murdering every NPC they came across for the lewts.

 

[Sceptic]

constant whining by consoletards that they couldn't finish the game because they were too busy murdering every NPC they came across for the lewts.

CHOICES & CONSEQUENCES BABY!!!!

 

[mondblut]

Fail thread is fail. NPC invulnerability is a necessary evil. There can be no story without exposition, and same games provide exposition via NPC interaction. OMFG DAD WHY YOU DIE NOW I NEVER FIND OUT WHO KEELED JOO!

Then fuck the story.

 

[DraQ]

Fail thread is fail. NPC invulnerability is a necessary evil. There can be no story without exposition, and same games provide exposition via NPC interaction. OMFG DAD WHY YOU DIE NOW I NEVER FIND OUT WHO KEELED JOO!

Then fuck the traditional storytelling.

Repaired, my dungeon crawling friend.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Yeah. Like it was already said, Morrowind's way was the shit

"Now, you have to and talk to th-goddamit, you killed him? Alright, feel free to wander around, but you fucked up...unless there's another way..."

 

[Luzur]

yeah Morrowind got it right.

 

[GarfunkeL]

Hell, even Fallout had them (the Overseer).

Nuh-uh, you can kill Overseer. You just need plenty of stimpacks, hardened power armour and turbo plasma rifle.

 

[Dionysus]

I can stomach it as long as the devs are protecting plot-essential characters from the game rather than the player. There is no reason for the player to kill Paul Denton on Liberty Island, so I don't really care if he's invulnerable at that point. In contrast, there are plenty of reasons to fight Sebastian LaCroix throughout Bloodlines, and the fact that you can't fight him until the end seems to be ridiculous railroading.

 

[Pliskin]

Fail thread is fail. NPC invulnerability is a necessary evil. There can be no story without exposition, and same games provide exposition via NPC interaction. OMFG DAD WHY YOU DIE NOW I NEVER FIND OUT WHO KEELED JOO!

Then fuck the story.

Budding serial-killer detected.

Hell, even Fallout had them (the Overseer).

Nuh-uh, you can kill Overseer. You just need plenty of stimpacks, hardened power armour and turbo plasma rifle.

By which point he is no longer plot-essential --- and, really, why go to all the effort, except that yr bored, and feel like breaking something?

I can stomach it as long as the devs are protecting plot-essential characters from the game rather than the player. There is no reason for the player to kill Paul Denton on Liberty Island, so I don't really care if he's invulnerable at that point. In contrast, there are plenty of reasons to fight Sebastian LaCroix throughout Bloodlines, and the fact that you can't fight him until the end seems to be ridiculous railroading.

You mean, other than the fact that LaCroix hands out most of yr missions, right up until the end of the game? Other than that small fact --- and the last scene takes place in his office, and involves him directly --- I guess no particular reason. Except, again, yr bored and want to break something.

 

[Dionysus]

You mean, other than the fact that LaCroix hands out most of yr missions, right up until the end of the game? Other than that small fact --- and the last scene takes place in his office, and involves him directly --- I guess no particular reason. Except, again, yr bored and want to break something.

It’s not my fault that they made the primary antagonist into the main quest giver. Without a twist, that’s just bad design. There needs to be a reason that you wouldn’t attack LaCroix. He’s not sympathetic. He tried to kill you. He framed a guy that saved your life twice. He treats you like a slave. It would be acceptable if I had no chance of killing him or if the consequences would be so dire that only a suicidal vamp would do it. But they let you destroy his entire organization at the end after forcing you to fight through a blood hunt. The railroading doesn’t make sense. They dangled the antagonist in my face for the whole game and wouldn’t let me fight him until the end for no good reason.