Here is an example of what I mean. In one of my game incarnations, I choose to Not to kill Umbacano when he becomes an Ayleid king, and I opted not to fully invade Garlas Malatar (i.e., I went in, fought a few Aurorans, opened some passageways, but didn't bother to finish the raid by targeting Umaril).

In a perfect game world, the game would recognize this. NPCs would sometimes warn others to avoid Nenelata, where some mad Altmer Sorcerer has taken on the mantle of the ancient Ayelids! Imperial guards might be sent to Garlas Malatar. . . and be defeated. Rumour would spread about how the western coast has become a dangerous place, and how no one has been able to thrust Umaril from his new costal Dukedom, etc. "The Countess of Anvil is said to be deeply troubled. She has increased the guard around the County tenfold." Etc.

In short, if you choose to have your character start a mission, and then choose not to follow it to its logical endpoint, perhaps leaving powerful hostile NPCs alive in the game world, or strange circumstances to be at work, should the game and NPCs recognize this and comment on it?

That's a good point. I still don't think they've done a bad job in the past. I mean, think of how many quests there are where that sort of thing can happen. It would mean so much extra programming to acknowledge every possible time you break off from the path. I'm personally fine with the way that it is.

Perhaps, we don't know how complicated Skyrim's Radiant Story will be, since that'll probably be a factor for this.

I'm guessing no, whatever the Devs down at Bethesda say, Radiant Story will probably not be as complicated/detailed as you hope for it to be.

Then again, it'll certainly be a step up from Oblivion's quests, so I'm happy either way.

As for your idea, yes, I'd like for that to happen, but my suspicions says otherwise.

as far as I am concerned there is no scripted path (that you HAVE to take or complete that is) I voted no. I don't want npc's pestering me about a quest I don't feel like finishing or I am putting off for rp reasons. any one recall navi from oricina of time, I don't want every non essential npc to be turned into that.

Should it? Maybe.

Will it? Not a chance in hades. (And I doubt you'll see it in any game, until one is designed specifically around that conceit - presumably by someone like Peter Molyneux or Will Wright.)

I believe that having the world adapting to your choices would be great and make playing the game much more immersive. It would need more voiceovers or even something as simple as the Black Horse Courier. Feeling that your actions have consequences is great from a RP viewpoint.

I don't know. I suppose it depends on how difficult the more obvious variables are to concieve. In some cases it would be relatively easy to implement, provided the designers gave significant thought to the quest. For example, once Traven informs the player of the return of Mannimarco, it would make sense that there might be an increase of undead lurking in the colovian wilds, and that NPCs in that region would be commenting about it. The Guards of Chorrol might even complain and express consternation of it etc.

Similar thing with Umbacano. The game knows if you left him there. Sometimes I come back to Nenelata and observe him sitting upon the throne in its depths. It seems the game NPCs might be aware of the increased danger in the area around Nenelata. . . and that there might BE increased danger around it as well. lol. I understand some variables are too random for any designer to sit around and ponder over. . . others, however are fairly obvious and easy to take into consideration.

TES games aren't really RPGs. They have elements of it, but don't quite get there. True RPGs are designed around the game world altering as you make your mark on it, while TES games take a "take it, or leave it" approach to this.

I love the open world aspect of the games, which is why I keep playing them, but Bethesda has long stank at making the world react to your choices. Also, Todd pretty much described what they were angling for - fantasy combat simulation in an open world.

IOW, TES games have more in common with Diablo than Baldur's Gate.

your not going to find a whole lot of sentiment starting a statement with "TES games aren'r really RPGs". but thats based on perspective so its naturally not going to apply to every one. there are people who would say that it isn't a true rpg unless its open ended like TES. but people forget that role playing is such a broad term that almost any game including super mario bros. could be considered an rpg because you are playing the role of mario.

I'm not trying to be abrasive, but I'm not really interested in stirring up sentiment. I've played lots of games, some of which claimed to be RPG's, and some that didn't - but came awfully close. That said, I was in no way saying that TES games weren't good. There is a reason I'm STILL modding for Morrowind to this day. It was a superb game. While I don't play Oblivion anymore, it was at least a good game.

This is, obviously, just my opinion - but true RPGs let you decide (within reason) how to approach a situation, for good or ill. Do you take out the bad guy, or offer to be his ally. Then, the world reacts to your decision. Some will become your friend, some will become your enemy, and many just won't care. For example, if Deus Ex had been a real RPG, you could have chosen not to rescue Paul, and instead stayed with UNATCO. At some point, the game would have had to force you out in some way, either by giving you the option to switch sides in the future, or just pulling the rug out from under you. Instead, the game simply halts waiting on you to do what it wants. I was deeply disappointed when I reached this point in the game (though I still like the game)

Now, at least TES games give you the option to keep on playing while you decide whether or not to continue the main quest - but they don't let you significantly alter HOW you carry out the main quest - and that is where I call it. In the few areas where this could have been avoided, like faction quests, Bethesda still managed to drop the ball. You could join practically every guild with the right stats, and for the most part, rise to the top of all of them - even when that would be ridiculous. Then, on top of all of that, you were still criminal scum.

This is not a performance related issue, either. This is all game logic - not graphical rendering, audio, or AI. This stuff can be executed in the background alongside the garbage collector. It's a focus issue.

"Game incarnations"? Dude, it is just a video game, not a holodeck.

Everything that happens in a game is scripted, even the "random" events, and games like TES aren't scripted to accommodate for every whimsical decision a player could make; they are scripted so the that player becomes the hero.

If there is a scripted path then off course there will be a need for more scripts to reflect that and more scripts and more scripts.....

It isn't that hard to see the problem isn't solvable by adding more scripts.

Quest design must evolve around goals and everything must be systematized. (If quest giver is dead, the quest is passed to a relative. This is a step in the right direction.)

In your example, if the world can keep the detail about the world(instead of the player), then it can know this information, the dangerousness of a place by looking its inhabitants and their hostility and levels. This can automate the increase of local guards. Then lastly, NPCs can comment on it.

The whole point of having true AI is to get emergent behavior - behavior that doesn't require previous scripting, or at least, not much.

Radiant AI was an attempt at allowing for emergent behavior, but it was buggy, and often self-destructed. Assuming they have fixed it, or at least made it more stable, it should be possible to allow for a wider range of events without direct scripting.

That's not to say it wouldn't involve work - it would - but it should be possible to handle. The simplest form of this would involve faction/guild membership and sympathies. A shop keeper who sympathizes with the fighters guild might, at the simplest level, treat you differently whether you are a member or not. However, whether or not he attacks you if you are attacking a fighter's guild member could be determined by his sympathy level. With further subtleties, like alliances and feuds, you can keep obtaining a more and more nuanced reaction from NPC's that are purely reactions to what you have done, or are doing then. Throw in things like racism or sixism, and all of a sudden, NPCs can appear to be quite complex. Will the smithy like you because you are a warrior, or dislike you because you are a Bosmer? Maybe he doesn't care about your race, but has a problem with female warriors? His reaction to you, in demeanor and actions, depend on how much more or less he values one judgement over the other. Come back in a later game as a male, a Nord, or a mage, and his reaction may be totally different.

Rather than simply hard coding these things into his dialog, you instead have him run through a set of weighted decisions regarding you. At the end, he generates a figure of like/dislike for you, and his dialog and reactions are subtly (or dramatically) altered accordingly. Where it gets personal is how much the NPC cares about specific events and other NPC's, and what his immediate allies/enemies think about you. Perhaps the local tavern owner hates the smithy, and when you make the smithy mad, you score points with the tavern owner? By increasing the number of variables, you can create a set of rules that alter the game in reaction to your choices. Rules = programming - either scripts or straight compiled code. The end result is a more complex feel.

Either way, characters become much deeper, both in programming logic and writing depth, such that they are no longer nearly as interchangeable. Unfortunately, this is also why I don't believe TES games are really RPG's - they don't really focus on making characters all that deep. We were fortunate if shop keepers changed their prices.

Just remember that each possible reaction has to be scripted out by a person. And if it takes 5 hours to fully script a battle with one specific outcome, it would take another 5 to make it have a separate outcome. Now do this for each little thing that in real life could change. That would expand the 5 hours of work out into hundreds.

:thumbsup: Hit that nail squarely on the head.

Then don't script it. Why would you want to limit a battle into one or two outcomes where it is possible to let it loose based on AI to create infinite outcomes? If there is a quest with a battle in it, quest writer should acknowledge that the battle can end various ways so the objective must be beyond the battle and its outcomes. I certainly wouldn't want to do a battle when the outcome is already decided.

@Morovir, I see potential in Elder Scrolls. I still see them RPGs(compared to others) but they are really far from ideal. It is the right way so I am confident this will happen in maybe TES 6 or 7, it's inevitable.

But you cannot have infinite outcomes. :facepalm: No matter how the actual fight goes, as in who kills who and whatnot, that is infinite technically. But as to what people say, and what happens afterwords, you cannot. You have to script all of those things out. You can't argue it by saying "But if you don't script them, then you don't have to script them." You would have to, none of that can be random. The game has to take the inifite events during the battle (exactly where people run, or who they attack, decided by the AI) then it narrows it down to the scripted results. (i.e. Team A won, or Team B won, etc)

It's not just a simple 'yes' or 'no' with this question. This shouldn't even be a poll. Obviously, yeah, in a perfect game world, that would happen. No one has made a perfect game world and it'll be years and years and years until anyone does. You're asking for a lot. You have to cooperate with the game in order to make it work as it is intended. I don't think any of us will even live to see the day where there's a video game where every possibility is accounted for and the game reacts to it. That's asking too much.

Why are you facepalming exactly? You said "cannot" then "that's infinite" in next sentence. :facepalm:

You have AI that do this battle unscripted. Then I ask you WHY do you HAVE TO script the outcome? If the ideal is having this random world where every possibility is accounted for then you have it already. Then why limit it?

Have you ever played Mount&Blade or STALKER? I'm not asking much really.

No such thing.

They can't make alternate consequences for every odd quest someone decides not to complete, it's just not a reasonable request of them. Plus some players would then feel rushed to complete quests before such consequences kicked in.

Not infinite, Velorien. Not every minor nuanced possiblity for every situation. At some point the player just has to use his or her imagination, as twas in days of olde. I mean for more obvious alternate outcomes. If Dalora Ryvnaes catches you trying to pick her pockets, I don't expect everyone in the town to give you the narrowed eye and say, "aren't you that nasty pickpocket who tried to rob Dalora?!" However, if you leave a reincarated Ayelid Sorcerer king enthroned in power just east of The Niben. . . one would expect someone to notice. And if the designers know that, technically, they have left players a means of completeing that quest without killing said reincarnated Ayleid King, then it wouldn't take extraordinary powers of foresight to foresee that he might be left living, and to put in some game reaction to reflect that .

Don't get me wrong. I know this may be alot to ask, and I won't cry or rage if the game doesn't manage it. . . merely saying, wouldn't that be a good step forward?

Not talking about major consequencess Odd. Just acknowlegement and reaction in the game. Something akin to the line that I overheard ONE TIME at a dinner party about how one of the guests heard an Elf King had attacked Anvil etc. "Not a nice Elf King either. A really evil one. Like in the old stories!" Just asking for more of that, IF the outcome is one that would be significant enouhg to merit it.

And it isn't just consequences for veering off path. . . what about follow through with some of the ordinary paths. Why is it that, upon becoming Archmage, you were never able to restore the guild in Bruma? Why does Kvatch remain a ruin after the crisis is ended? etc.

I can see the complaint directed toward Umbacano, as it was not required to kill him to complete the quest, and the quest prompted the player to merely escape rather than stand and fight. However, that said, I don't think the same applies to Umaril at all. The entire point of the quest is to kill him. If the player postpones doing that, you can't expect that much to happen. It would require a lot of extra programming and a ton of effort just for the player being lazy.

The player could just be an amoral Altmer with misplaced sympathies, unwilling to raise a hand aganst an ancestor unless out of absolute neccissity. :wink_smile:

I am just saying, perhaps time triggered or something, there might at least be acknowledgement that the game inhabitants have noticed the new Daedra populated Duchy that's popped up on the shore of the western sea.

Because they didn't have time/resources to implement such. They can't create an ever-changing world to that degree with the technology available, they have to choose some things over others when it comes to content. Some things have to stay broken, some loose ends won't ever be tied, etc. etc.

If you veer away from the scripted path, you veer away from the script by definition, and should not expect events which would need advanced scripts to occur.

I'll certainly grant you though that there's room for improvement for making more comprehensive cause and effect in quests - but it needs to be understood that there are many limitations they're working within.