This Molag Bal quest is a great example of the game depriving the player of obvious choices. The game designer just half-asses it and then shrugs, “Well nobody’s forcing you to complete the quest.” If nicest thing you can say in defense of a quest is that the player isn’t physically compelled to endure it, then what you have is still a terrible quest.
This isn’t even that hard to solve. When the player rescues the priest, right now your only choice is to either bring them back to be sacrificed to the dark lord, or just ditch them and leave the quest unfulfilled. But this latter choice isn’t really a choice at all. I mean, you can always come back later. You’re not rejecting Molag Bal, you’re putting him off. And he doesn’t even mind.
Instead of the player just abandoning the priest and ignoring the quest, just add a line of dialog or two. You tell the priest what Molag Bal asked you to do, he thanks you, and the quest is marked as complete. If we really need to reward the player, we can have the priest give the player a trinket before they leave.
There. Not a lot of work, only a couple more lines of dialog, and we offer the player the ability to take an obvious and reasonable course of action.
The Death of Half-Life
Valve still hasn't admitted it, but the Half-Life franchise is dead. So what made these games so popular anyway?
Starcraft: Bot Fight
Let's do some scripting to make the Starcraft AI fight itself, and see how smart it is. Or isn't.
Crysis 2 has basically the same plot as Half-Life 2. So why is one a classic and the other simply obnoxious and tiresome?
Why Google sucks, and what made me switch to crowdfunding for this site.
Bethesda felt the need to jam a morality system into Fallout 3, and they blew it. Good and evil make no sense and the moral compass points sideways.