that's an idea re-spawning but that would take away from the system in other words the game is all about freedom and challenge but also about how freedom can create interesting results and how you have to deal with that freedom if you killed an NPC you have to live with that it makes it a tough desicsion that YOU have to make YOU have to live with but if killing them and after a while they respawn that just breaks an imersion and it becomes easier to kill everybody instead of adding this burden on the player

I don't think Norman Barrows was saying that you should respawn the specific character that died but have someone take his place. It'd make sense that if you were to kill one crime boss that one of his lieutenants would take his place? Or alternatively some other individual that sees a power vacuum and wants to take advantage of the opportunity. You still have to live with the decision. It might be that the replacement is going to really really want to come after you. Or perhaps he simply has some other new job that center on his own interests to help solidify his new position.

If this still isn't what you're thinking of then what exactly are the "consequences" that you're wanting the player to live with? If you don't have something else in mind it just seems as though ultimately the player is just decreasing the number of missions he's going to have available after he's killed everybody.

actually what you said about other people taking place of dead people is interesting it will create a more interesting system in the world which is always evolving based on what you are doing it might be like as you said you killed an important NPC and now his friend takes his place trying to find you and take you out so now you have a new challenge or it a "consequences" of your actions and you have to live it.

the idea is still coming to live and that's why I made this topic to begin with it's a part of the game and I want to see if it's good and worth keeping or not so yeah thanks for replying you made a lot of interesting points :D

for the story there isn't a major interesting storyline it's just a bunch of mafia families fighting each other trying to get all the power

This may provide good support for your idea of killing quest givers. New quests for given family would unlock once their power increase so killing others will be essential.

If you make opposing gangs distinctive enough (not just colors but some style) it may encourage starting from scratch just to see what other paths have to offer.

I never played Fallout it wasn't for any specific reason I just didn't play it and after Bethesda E3's conferences I understood that fallout is game all about player freedom and so you can do all the things that I thought off so it would be interesting to see how it's handled in fallout I can't believe I didn't think about that or even knew that :P

for the story there isn't a major interesting storyline it's just a bunch of mafia families fighting each other trying to get all the power

This may provide good support for your idea of killing quest givers. New quests for given family would unlock once their power increase so killing others will be essential.

If you make opposing gangs distinctive enough (not just colors but some style) it may encourage starting from scratch just to see what other paths have to offer.

yeah that would be cool I am already thinking about each of these families having different origins and habits and ways of dealing with things so it could be really cool to follow one gang and see what they can give you and later play and ally with another gang and see a whole different type of things that they can offer from weapon to maybe play styles one gang like to deal with shit with guns and bullets and killing while another is more like stealthy and likes things more quite and prefer not killing people maybe it's cooking in my head :P and hopefully something interesting will come out :P thanks for the reply

also this video from Tom Francis the creator of the game Gunpoint

talkd about that but I myself hate AAA games where you Have NPCs that aren't killable for the sake of the story and what

Note that in a Gunpoint you don't have conversation with NPCs, inventory management, crafting, enchanting, going back to previous locations and tons of other things. So, isn't that game more limiting the freedom than those traditional AAA titles? ;-P

I say Gunpoint is a perfect example of *heavily* limiting the player's freedom (complexity of the simulated model) in order to make the game better.

I think the key is to make the game *strong* and focused, if this is done by removing freedom or adding freedom is not important. And don't worry about "player's" (make sure first if that's your target player) complaining. Everyone says "give us more freedom and realism" but do they play such games when made? Not really, they play fun games that are enjoyable and immersive :D

Note that in a Gunpoint you don't have conversation with NPCs, inventory management, crafting, enchanting, going back to previous locations and tons of other things. So, isn't that game more limiting the freedom than those traditional AAA titles? ;-P

I brought the video for what's in it I am not using Gunpoint as an example I am using what Tom said about freedom in games and such

I am slowly figuring my game out and I find the game to be all about what the player wants to do there isn't one objective or maybe you could say you are given a main objective which MAY be to rule all the city but to achieve that you could go about it in any way possible and so for example killing NPCs which will be difficult btw you gain more reputation around town and when you get a lot of reputation you can rule all the city and by a lot of reputation I MEAN A LOT :P

i keep rambling the idea is the game is gonna be FOCUSED on freedom to be ENJOYABLE and IMMERSIVE :P

A big issue is that if you can (have the freedom to) do whatever you like (or even alot of what you might like) the games logic/scripting has to be that much more complex to have the game React appropriately to the possible players actions.

That goes for simple reflexes/effects on dumb objects upto major story flow logic. I would estimate 2 magnitudes (100X) more programming (and probably more processing resources) required and at least a magnitude more maintained object data to get close to 'freedom' with sufficient adaptability in th egameplay.

Theres a good reason games are mostly choreographed with severe limitations on the player to prevent disrupting the predesigned story and events. Older games couldnt have those resources (even the much touted Half-LIfe only had 'a bit' more reactive logic than other games) and even with greatly expanded CPU/Memory the cost of programming and testing partial improvements is prohibitive (ie- square law - just doubling the complexity of the program quadruples the amount of testing it requires - making that expand faster than the programming cost) .

To have (realistic) appropriate reactions out of 'intelligent' NPCs is getting into heavyweight AI for them to shape their behavior to the things the player MIGHT do. Its not just immediate reflexive actions but (as someone mentioned) their motivations and shifting of alliances can be subsequently warped/changed, requiring their tactics and strategy to be ajdusted in a logical way.

Similarly things like deformable terrain and prop objects that react to multiple effects being made upon them make the visible presentation that much more complex to achieve (including secondary 'chained' effects and complex interactions when more than one affect is being applied simultaneously - even to a simple non mechanical object)

Even with just subsets of 'freedom' there is : Alot more detail, alot more logic, alot more headache for the people who are supposed to make it work.

My statement would be that it is alright if it does not collide with the story. Example could be killing your teammate triggers an alternate storyline etc