Main Character Dies... Game over or...?

[Malekith]

double post

Edited December 29, 2012 by Malekith

[Malekith]

You are still completely missing my point... Have I ever been a part of a group where my personal desires weren't of prime importance? Obviously yes, but it was still me as myself + each of them individually as themselves, not me as both myself and them. An individual occupying multiple individual consciousnesses doesn't make sense and it certainly has nothing to do with broadening the depth or complexity of a story.

 

I must say again, have you ever played party based games (it seems you haven't, or else you could wrap your mind around the concept)?

 

As for it impacting the depth of the story... I think basing narratives on only one character is often the lazy way out. Your motivations don't need to make much sense or be very convincing, because they're yours. If you're told that your character goes after the Big Evil One on not much more than a whim, that's fine, because it's your whim.

 

As I keep saying, a story that focuses on a group doesn't require you to be every member of that group. In fact, that's a much more ego-centric perspective when you feel the need to control every member of the group as opposed to just an individual, you're essentially playing alone if you're trying to role-play every character in the story and, if you're just controlling them and not really roleplaying them then, as I was saying, it's no longer a role playing game.

 

You didn't get my point. What I'd like to see is a story that involves all your party members, but they will clearly have minds and agendas of their own (that part has been confirmed, and can be expected nowadays). Quite the opposite of you simply inhabiting your party members' minds.

 

And GrinningReapers point (at least as i understand it) is that there is nothing wrong with a story that involves all your party members. But even in such a story you are still a single character and if you die that's it.Game over.The rest of your party may continiue and even win in the end, but you will not be around to see it so it doesn't seen on screne

Edited December 29, 2012 by Malekith

[Dream]

I must say again, have you ever played party based games (it seems you haven't, or else you could wrap your mind around the concept)?

 

Name one party game that didn't end when the PC bit the bullet and allowed you to continue playing as the NPCs.

[Osvir]

Disclaimer: Tired thoughtful brainstormed rambling.

 

@Dream: Pretty much all M&M games, Lands of Lore, Realms of Arcania... uuhm... Wizardry.. most of these requires the entire party to be wiped out. They are also FPS RPG's, can't think of a Party Isometric RPG that does this. How does Pool of Radiance work? (the later one, not the original old old school ones)... how does ToEE work?

 

All of the FF games pretty much (that are Party based story more so than "Main Character" Story). Disgaea (likewise other Turn-Based RPG's, though those are some mechanics that doesn't work for an IE game). Likewise, none of these old classic gems really doesn't have a definite main character though. Lands of Lore does, I have only played with one character (of the 4 you can choose, I guess you could call those "Cultural Backgrounds").

 

All of the above are irrelevant though. Relevant to your challenge Dream, but not relevant to P:E.

 

@Scenario (includes the party mechanic, stated in this thread that it is going to be in P:E, that you only lose when your Party dies): I go out into the P:E world, got Mortality mode on. My character lost all health but doesn't get perma-death because... the rest of the party needs to die first? So this would mean I could resurrect the main guy on Mortality mode over and over again because the rest of the party survived? So basically there's 2 outcomes that could be played with...

Reflecting on paragraph^: for some reason I think that there is a misconception of how "Mortality" works, I suspect it should be something like "Outcome A" if anything, and not like "Outcome B". I can understand with "Mortality" Off or on easier difficulty that your entire party needs to be wiped out, but with it "On"? Doesn't sound quite right.

 

Outcome A, The main character dies when he dies, you lose the game so you'd have to keep your main character alive (BG style). No ill intended but this was dumb, even if the Bhaalspawn lore made it reasonable, it was pretty dumb. I think Baldur's Gate generally follows a story where the main character doesn't need to be the main character, and hardly is needed to progress the story (there are other actors that fills that role very well). If you could spawn at the Temple (as a Priest, w/o Gorion) and walk from there to the Friendly Arms Inn (or directly to Nashkel) or start in Gullykin as a Gnome.. it wouldn't have mattered if your character was the Bhaalspawn or not really. In Baldur's Gate 2 the Bhaalspawn is way more important (granted) but in the first game... I don't know, I never liked the main character too much in Baldur's Gate. The companions made the game interesting in my opinion, not the main character. Heck, Sarevok felt more interesting than the main character in Baldur's Gate. Jaheira or Minsc could progress the story in BG2 now that I think about it, both of them has an agenda and motivation versus Irenicus to continue.

 

Outcome B, The main character dies when the party dies, you lose the game only when the entire party has been wiped out. So basically a standard Party game mechanic. You die when you've been completely wiped out, makes sense. What doesn't make sense is that the party members around you could die like flies (Perma-death) but not the Main Character. So if all 5 of your companions die they die, even if you keep your main character alive through it, but if the main character dies and the 5 other guys are still alive the Main Character manages to somehow survive?

 

All I am suggesting is,

Outcome C, The main character dies when he dies, you get to continue, or you can reload. You only lose when the entire party is wiped out. So this is a hybrid-thing with B. It would give most material for a roleplaying experience on a 3rd playthrough, 4th playthrough etc. etc. this "Outcome" could be tied to the final dungeon, but it would really shine the most if "Global" possibility, why?

Playthrough 1: Main charcater survives all game.

Playthrough 2: Main character dies in Chapter 1, I get to continue. The story I experience and create/narrate for my character/story from this point on becomes different because I don't have the main character, instead I follow the experience as an observer rather than the main actor (StarCraft story and character control. The player is in this case an, example, "Commander". Not some player generated character).

Playthrough 3: Main character dies in Chapter 2, I get to continue. The story I experience and create/narrate for my character/story from this point on becomes different than Playthrough 2.

 

You get more material to play with your character in "Outcome C" on different playthroughs. You could also play the game more similarly to a Final Fantasy game, where you use the in-game designed characters (companions) instead of your psuedo-important character.

 

I am deliberately excluding "Companion" playthroughs, which would be a novel by itself (Playthrough 1: Forton, Playthrough 2: Edair etc. etc. with main character death possible you'd spice up those combinations as well).

 

What I am implying is not that there should be written content for each of these playthroughs but merely allowing for it to happen opens up so many door (and that, my friends, is the point). Many people thought Imoen was bad, I thought she was way more interesting than the player character story in BG1.

 

I'd rather my protagonist be an integral part of the games narrative structure (though not a pawn of prophecy or chosen one) through whatever means, be that a silver shard embedded in his heart or what have you, and also that my companions all be disposable at almost any time. So personally i'd have to vote in the negative to this idea.

 

I respect your opinion Nonek (btw, the silver shard in his heart being some sort of reason for him to be alive = "chosen one"). Can't I just rip the silver shard out of his heart and insert it into someone else? What is the main "character"? A soul? An item? An artifact? Are you, the Player, the Soul of the "Character"?

 

If the main character is some sort of "Soul", that could explain why the entire party has to die, as either the main "character" could simply jump between bodies as a "Soul". Which would be an odd way to solve this, but it is a solution nonetheless (E.g., if the main first guy you created dies~permadeath, you could perhaps simply just inhabit Forton and take over him and interract with the world still as the main "Character" but you simply just have Forton's appearance).

 

I am simply trying to push for an idea which allows you to do just that, but where the main character is disposable as well, for even further variety. As a possibility and not something that gets forced down your throat, something that allows you to move on and continue without the main character (without messing it up for those who wish to play with the main character).

 

In a way, more options for what to do with the Main Character (up to the player and not up to the game~). Like I've said before, if it is already pre-designed in the game that Companions can act as front-figures, then it should be possible to play without the Main Character naturally. It wouldn't be "Everyone has to do this!" but more of a choice a la "Do you want to do this?".

 

Some players could simply reload (as some already have stated), other players could say "Darn it!" and continue. I'd prefer both of these options, as it would give more options to more players different styles and provide more material for replayability. Diversity and variety.

 

And hey, if the main character could die you could have some "Suicide" Ability that you could use to make it even more epic as you take out the final boss by exploding or something you could go out with a "Bang", and still continue the game. Kind of a "Companion Revenge!" type of thing.

 

Finally, and following the direction of the thread (About the main characters role in the story) I'd not want my character to be the plot, but more or less be a part of it. Most preferably a character that gets "hit-by-lightning" (the "Event", figure of speech) and then move on and experience the world in different directions.

 

Summary of post:

* The point: Opening doors, possibilities, variety, more options. Replayability.

* What is the main character?

* Baldur's Gate main character was pretty pointless. In BG2 the main character feels important for the plot and progression.

* Starcraft & Warcraft 2, the player is a "Commander"/"Overlord". The player character is you pretty much and not some avatar figure.

Edited December 29, 2012 by Osvir

[Sacred_Path]

I must say again, have you ever played party based games (it seems you haven't, or else you could wrap your mind around the concept)?

 

Name one party game that didn't end when the PC bit the bullet and allowed you to continue playing as the NPCs.

 

For the sake of argument let's say Arcanum. Death of your PC was only the end if the NPCs didn't carry items of resurrection

 

But I was talking explicitly about party based games, as in "all player created parties". Because GrinningReaper was so aghast at the thought of "inhabiting" the mind of several characters at once.

[Malekith]

I must say again, have you ever played party based games (it seems you haven't, or else you could wrap your mind around the concept)?

 

Name one party game that didn't end when the PC bit the bullet and allowed you to continue playing as the NPCs.

 

For the sake of argument let's say Arcanum. Death of your PC was only the end if the NPCs didn't carry items of resurrection

 

But I was talking explicitly about party based games, as in "all player created parties". Because GrinningReaper was so aghast at the thought of "inhabiting" the mind of several characters at once.

But P:E is not a "all player created parties" game. The adventurer's hall is an extra, the game won't be desighned around that.You will not even create the whole party from the go but you will be permited to add one party member at spesific story parts, i imagine when you will have meet a dev's companion. In an interview a developer has said that the strech goals were features added extra because people wanted, but non of them were features the game needed or was about. From that i quess that the game won't be desighned around the Hall, and like BG2, if you play with a party wholly created by you indeed you will lose content, the same as if you solo the game in Torment. They have said that the story will be personal about your fate and not the fate of the world.Also the companions will be connected in the story somehow like in Torment.( I don't remember a link,sorry)It stands to reason to follow P:T and BG2 as their main model as these two games are the most beloved of the IE games for most people

Edited December 29, 2012 by Malekith

[Sacred_Path]

But P:E is not a "all player created parties" game. The adventurer's hall is an extra, the game won't be desighned around that.

 

FFS sake people, plz stop stating a simpleton's speculation like "the game won't be designed around the AH" with nothing to go on. We can be pretty sure that they will try to implement this feature as well as possible because they know it's a big deal to players.

 

You will not even create the whole party from the go but you will be permited to add one party member at spesific story parts, i imagine when you will have meet a dev's companion.

 

Source plz?

 

In an interview a developer has said that the strech goals were features added extra because people wanted, but non of them were features the game needed or was about.

 

I doubt that they wouldn't have implemented a way to create your own party. Quite a few of the names that have been coming up as inspiration for P:E had player created parties. Especially the bit about "deep, tactical combat" would suffer immensly if you only had always the same few companions available.

[motorizer]

 

 

You will not even create the whole party from the go but you will be permited to add one party member at spesific story parts, i imagine when you will have meet a dev's companion.

 

Source plz?

 

 

 

Update 15 video

[Sacred_Path]

Hmm. So recruiting is "tapered out over the course of the game" (I overheard that last time), but Josh also said "if you want a party of 5 priests you can do that". So we'll have to see how that turns out.

 

Oh and... PLZ don't make us run around with 1, 2 or 3 characters till mid-game, or wait until the end so we can add that friggin 6th party member. Everyone who likes deep combat will be grateful.

Edited December 29, 2012 by Sacred_Path

[Malekith]

Hmm. So recruiting is "tapered out over the course of the game" (I overheard that last time), but Josh also said "if you want a party of 5 priests you can do that". So we'll have to see how that turns out.

 

Oh and... PLZ don't make us run around with 1, 2 or 3 characters till mid-game, or wait until the end so we can add that friggin 6th party member. Everyone who likes deep combat will be grateful.

I hope so. But that is the reason they don't want to allow you a six person party from the start.Josh had ansered ( if someone finds the source post it) in a question that the game will be balanced for 1 person at the start of the game, 3 person party later etc. If you had full party from the start the begining of the game would be very easy even at hardcore

[Nonek]

@Osvir. Personally I never thought of the silver shard as marking out the player character of NWN2 for some higher destiny, and certainly no deity or otherworldly power was forcing his hand, and thus making him their chosen one. To me the shard bearer was simply unlucky, first for being caught up in Ammon Jerro's conflict as a babe in arms, and secondly for surviving the shard embedding in his flesh. Through random chance the shard bearer is thus woven into the story, and must play an active role if he wishes to survive the ensuing events. That to me was a fantastic means of involving the player character in the conflict, without him being chosen by the supernatural meddling of the great and everlasting know it all Yoghurt (or whomever.)

 

He was the right man in the wrong place at the wrong time, at least that's my take on it. Like most Obsidian protagonists when viewed from a distance, he's a terribly unlucky chap.

 

As for examining whom the player character is, and what his place is in the world, this is something I would genuinely like to see. The commentary by Kreia on the Exiles backstory was immensely intriguing to me, mostly because of his own reluctance to speak of it. There is undeniably a certain richness to be garnered from a character with a rich backstory, but I think there would have to be some means of controlling that backstory, so that it still feels like our character and still acts according to our head cannon, not just another npc. I don't know whether this is possible, playable origins, background feats, choice of backstories in the character creation screen?

Edited December 29, 2012 by Nonek

[Osvir]

I recall statements "Cultural Background" stuff for the character in P:E at character creation, as for how does backgrounds affects the main story? I don't know. Sounds like a lot of work though.

 

By the way, the "Main Character Dies=Continue" is purely mechanical in design/development whilst "Main Character Dies=Game Over" is narrative "The End". The story (which was bigger than my character) abruptly came to an end.

 

Parallel example, it is like you are reading Star Wars and suddenly Luke Skywalker slips on an insignificant "banana" and its "The End" in the middle of the book. If the story is progressive without the main character, then a good story following that example should be able to continue.

 

The Main Character could also be like "StarCraft 2", an overlord type.

 

I think Jaheira really strikes gold and enough said.

 

"Yes, oh omnipresent authority figure?"

[Sacred_Path]

Josh had ansered ( if someone finds the source post it) in a question that the game will be balanced for 1 person at the start of the game, 3 person party later etc.

Meh. Then why even have formations in the game? Why a gazillion character classes? Why a babillion races? This makes me a sad panda. q_q

[Osvir]

@Sacred_Path: It allows you to be able to play 1 character (which generates much more experience by itself) or a party of character who gain the same amount of experience but it is spread around 6-ways. The same mechanic in earlier Final Fantasy games (1-9), having lesser party members yields more experience for everyone in the party (this can be achieved by either choosing few party members or killing some of them in battles).

 

This isn't a bad thing. You control how many companions you want and you can finish the game in whatever way you choose. You could also play a game and Aloth dies one game (with perma-death rules), and another game you manage to keep him alive all way through.

 

@All: What I am advocating for isn't relevant to what Malekith said. Playing as 1 character and you die, you got wiped out. No more characters. The End. If you have 3 characters it is another question, 1 character dies but I can continue but another character dies I can't.

 

Who is the main character?

[Sacred_Path]

@Sacred_Path: It allows you to be able to play 1 character (which generates much more experience by itself) or a party of character who gain the same amount of experience but it is spread around 6-ways. The same mechanic in earlier Final Fantasy games (1-9), having lesser party members yields more experience for everyone in the party (this can be achieved by either choosing few party members or killing some of them in battles).

 

This isn't a bad thing. You control how many companions you want and you can finish the game in whatever way you choose. You could also play a game and Aloth dies one game (with perma-death rules), and another game you manage to keep him alive all way through.

 

Uhm did you get what I said (/ Malekith said)? I'd be totally fine with you controlling 1, 3 6 or 10 characters at a time (though I'd hoped foolishly going off with 1 character in a 6 character game would get you stomped). The point was though that for the most time, the game will decide how many characters you can have, and it probably won't be many up to mid-game. IMO that's a bad waste of combat depth, character building options and generally player choice.

[Malekith]

@Sacred_Path: It allows you to be able to play 1 character (which generates much more experience by itself) or a party of character who gain the same amount of experience but it is spread around 6-ways. The same mechanic in earlier Final Fantasy games (1-9), having lesser party members yields more experience for everyone in the party (this can be achieved by either choosing few party members or killing some of them in battles).

 

This isn't a bad thing. You control how many companions you want and you can finish the game in whatever way you choose. You could also play a game and Aloth dies one game (with perma-death rules), and another game you manage to keep him alive all way through.

 

Uhm did you get what I said (/ Malekith said)? I'd be totally fine with you controlling 1, 3 6 or 10 characters at a time (though I'd hoped foolishly going off with 1 character in a 6 character game would get you stomped). The point was though that for the most time, the game will decide how many characters you can have, and it probably won't be many up to mid-game. IMO that's a bad waste of combat depth, character building options and generally player choice.

I don't think it will be so bad. You think of it like Torment did it. It will be more like BG2 in that aspect, when you could recruit five companions reasonably soon. You maybe not be able to recruit a certain companion ( Forton for examble) until mid-game,but you will have a full party before that. Or maybe not even that problem as the game it won't be so linear as Torment and it depents on you which areas you visit first, like BG2.

As for solo geting you stomped, BG2 could be soloed with almost all classes, but only if you had a deep understanding of the system.I expect something similar here.In a coment in his formspring Josh said that the higher dificalties will be IWD2 kind of difficult.That's not so bad. IWD2 could not be soloed at all except with a fully optimized paladin/cleric build. I have read that some people did it with sorcerer as well but thats it.And its still almost imposible.

Edited December 29, 2012 by Malekith

[Sacred_Path]

As for solo geting you stomped, BG2 could be soloed with almost all classes, but only if you had a deep understanding of the system.I expect something similar here.In a coment in his formspring Josh said that the higher dificalties will be IWD2 kind of difficult.That's not so bad. IWD2 could not be soloed at all except with a fully optimized paladin/cleric build. I have read that some people did it with sorcerer as well but thats it.And its still almost imposible.

Well, "understanding the system" in BG2's case meant abusing the balance holes and bad AI though. Using chain contingencies/ ridiculous backstab modifiers and overpowered traps and the AI's total lack of counter measures against stealth/ nigh-invulnerabilities due to D&D's cheesy armor/ HP workings.

I hope that P:E will kick you in the balls with enemies roaming maps/ sneaking up on you/ non-trivial damage/ good use of spells. But then I'm entirely ok with higher difficulties being more party-centric than lower difficulties.

[Dream]

I must say again, have you ever played party based games (it seems you haven't, or else you could wrap your mind around the concept)?

 

Name one party game that didn't end when the PC bit the bullet and allowed you to continue playing as the NPCs.

 

For the sake of argument let's say Arcanum. Death of your PC was only the end if the NPCs didn't carry items of resurrection

 

But I was talking explicitly about party based games, as in "all player created parties". Because GrinningReaper was so aghast at the thought of "inhabiting" the mind of several characters at once.

 

So Arcanum only lasted if.... you could bring the PC back, otherwise it ended

 

Also all player created parties have been mentioned by everyone here (specifically IWD) multiple times. P:E is NOT that; it's like PS:T and BG. At this point I'm pretty sure you're trolling (or just retarded, but it's a bit hard to tell on the internet).

Edited December 30, 2012 by Dream

[Sacred_Path]

So Arcanum only lasted if.... you could bring the PC back, otherwise it ended

 

Yes, exactly (trying to prove you're not retarded?).

 

Please elaborate on your position of "I've never played a game like that, therefore it cannot/ should not be done".

[Nonek]

On further reflection i'm not so much against the idea of the protagonist dying and the game continuing, but the prospect of utilising the npcs to fill his role. To me the npcs that Obsidian produces are the best in the business, both interesting and nuanced, and I don't want to sully or disrupt them and their arc by taking control of them. So this would necessitate that we either start a new character, who once again has a logical and integral part in the narrative, or that we return as some kind of animus (be that an undead, a golem or a possessing spirit.)

 

Now this seems do-able and maybe beneficial to the games focus on the importance of souls, but not something that can happen numerous times or is a risk in every battle, lest it becomes ridiculous. So maybe an event transpiring at some point in the game, or even your death in the prologue and throughout the rest of the playthrough you are basically a revenant? Basically playing as Torian Kel or Vhailor.

 

Or maybe you uncover the tale of an ancient hero in your travels, a series of clues leading to his lost tomb, that lets you shape his character and background through rough translations (so that the player is in control of his creation.) Upon the players fall to some antagonist force, this hero is reborn through some weird metaphysical convergence of his remains and the protagonists fading soul, so that you still have the adventuring impetus stirring in your twinned souls but also the ashes of a previous life to explore and examine.

 

Seems a bit convoluted however.

[Dream]

So Arcanum only lasted if.... you could bring the PC back, otherwise it ended

 

Yes, exactly (trying to prove you're not retarded?).

 

Please elaborate on your position of "I've never played a game like that, therefore it cannot/ should not be done".

 

There are no games like that. I asked you to name one and the best you could come up with was one that only continued if you could directly res the PC. You couldn't exactly hold onto a res scroll and finish Arcanum as Virgil.

[Osvir]

On further reflection i'm not so much against the idea of the protagonist dying and the game continuing, but the prospect of utilising the npcs to fill his role. To me the npcs that Obsidian produces are the best in the business, both interesting and nuanced, and I don't want to sully or disrupt them and their arc by taking control of them. So this would necessitate that we either start a new character, who once again has a logical and integral part in the narrative, or that we return as some kind of animus (be that an undead, a golem or a possessing spirit.)

 

Now this seems do-able and maybe beneficial to the games focus on the importance of souls, but not something that can happen numerous times or is a risk in every battle, lest it becomes ridiculous. So maybe an event transpiring at some point in the game, or even your death in the prologue and throughout the rest of the playthrough you are basically a revenant? Basically playing as Torian Kel or Vhailor.

 

Or maybe you uncover the tale of an ancient hero in your travels, a series of clues leading to his lost tomb, that lets you shape his character and background through rough translations (so that the player is in control of his creation.) Upon the players fall to some antagonist force, this hero is reborn through some weird metaphysical convergence of his remains and the protagonists fading soul, so that you still have the adventuring impetus stirring in your twinned souls but also the ashes of a previous life to explore and examine.

 

Seems a bit convoluted however.

 

Doesn't make it any less cool in my opinion. Convoluted also means "twisted; coiled" which in turn means doing a different thing. Twisting something we have seen with new elements that we haven't seen, "to combine, as two or more strands or threads...". Implying that it is coiled, that it needs to be uncoiled to understand fully.

 

Which a good story has lots of.

 

Maybe if the main character dies early game, it is possible to resurrect him mid-game using some sort of device, throwing back the "Hero" into the narrative from that point on.

 

Basically when the main character dies it could set into action a quest for the companions to resurrect him/her "There is still a chance!", and if the main character isn't a "Key Figure" it could also mean that you could continue the game with the companions. Resurrection should be rare, once or twice type of things, tied to the world and side-quests. Maybe it'd be easier to "stumble across" one of them if you only follow the quest, but at least one method should be intricate and deep (regardless if it is the main character, companion or some npc). The philosopher's stone as an ingredient, allowing a 3 Magic Class Paths in synchronicity to resurrect someone, but at the cost of the stone.

 

There could also be a sense of urgency. [if (Resurrection X = Found)] and its "state" is [Not Used], then you could have a limited time to get the main character to that location. There could also be a sense of no urgency as well, and you can continue without.

 

Third solution is that you could continue without, but you wouldn't be able to progress the story (though then it wouldn't serve much of a point, ultimately).

 

If companions do their own quests in P:E? Is another question:

 

Example, you don't get Minsc+Dynaheir in Nashkel, instead you move through and do what you have to do. When you return, Minsc is gone. You continue the game and end up in Baldur's Gate, you meet Minsc+Dynaheir again and say "Hi" or whatnot. You don't recruit them. Later you want to go out exploring the wilderness, and find Minsc+Dynaheir there as they are on their own way. You recruit them and face the fight together, both of you have the same end goal.

 

Likewise, if you don't go down that path, going there later might make it "looted" with some trinkets left but not all. Minsc+Dynaheir would only take what they need and what they physically can carry. New enemies could inhabit the cave, and if you followed a quest it could go "?" on you and if you meet Minsc+Dynaheir back in Baldur's Gate, Minsc could be bragging about it aloud and you'd figure out the quest as well.

 

The point (Companion doing their own quests): Could you continue their narrative without the main character? And in that case, maybe you could finish the companion quest without the main character? But due to the "general evil element" that the main character was supposed to take down, the world becomes apocalyptic and that gives a reason for the companions to fight too? :D

 

EDIT: How would the universe look like if Darth Vader killed Luke and the Emperor won? Maybe, if the main character dies, demons from hell are summoned everywhere and you still have a chance to continue the game, but it just got a lot harder and challenging (Hardcore Ironman Hellmode xD).

 

I need to learn "it's" and "its"...

Edited December 30, 2012 by Osvir

[Sacred_Path]

Please elaborate on your position of "I've never played a game like that, therefore it cannot/ should not be done".

 

There are no games like that.

 

Behold the powers of reading k0mprehenshun.

[Osvir]

EDIT: How would the universe look like if Darth Vader killed Luke and the Emperor won? Maybe, if the main character dies, demons from hell are summoned everywhere and you still have a chance to continue the game, but it just got a lot harder and challenging (Hardcore Ironman Hellmode xD).

 

Maybe some various "Hellfire" scenarios could take place there?

Edited December 30, 2012 by Osvir

[Kaz]

It's an interesting idea, but I think the cons outweigh the pros here. As you know the main character in the IE games served as an anchor point on many levels. In an open world supporting multiple play-styles and party compositions, the presence of a player-generated character throughout the plot was one of the few constants devs could assume and build upon. You take that away and suddenly anyone can be in your party at any given moment, which has it's own problems. Dialog could still reference past events with the player's involvement, but town folk and factions won't be able to directly compliment or hold you accountable for those actions because you might be rolling with a completely different party now. The game could check for these things, but to me all it does is fragment the lore, and the work involved to accommodate these scenarios could be better spent refining a richer plot that assumes a main character who is always present in the party imo.