Wombat

It would be wise of us not to do something more than glancing at the thoughts of the designers since anything can change at this stage of the development. ...Well, I guess I have written this before. Talking of the thoughts of the designers, what about watching the presentation of Chris Avellone showed in this thread. It's quite long and I haven't finished watching it, though.

I am not willing to put my words to the mouth of J.E. Sawyer but I think his point is that, since it is impossible to simulate reality, it would be wise to design the game system, putting emphasis on the game play. I don't think the majority stop to think logical explanation of proper abstraction of damages although something like Oblivion's scaling can brake the immersion in a much more direct manner. Hence I thought it would be more constructive to discuss probable game-plays. Something like limited ammunition may be good enough for game balance issue but I don't think it is good gameplay-wise... Bloodlines' flame thrower is definitely effective but they are not fun to use...it was like an obligation to use it for bosses. Your description of rocket type weapons seem to be more for spectacles in the same league of gore effects, which seems to be the role of Fatman in FO3, though.

Relax ladies and gents since J.E. Sawyer is active today. A move to something like S.T.A.L.K.E.R.? It's actually a hybrid of RPG/FPS, where the players can enhance the abilities of their characters through choosing equipment. The basic design direction is similar to Deus Ex: Invisible War but, IMO, S.T.A.L.K.E.R. managed to do it much better. So, ultimately, it comes down to the balance, I guess. Also, in reality, I don't think Obsidian team will remove the character development system in combat gameplay. That said, there are a few probable cons in choosing the system where character skill matters. 1. The invested points to skills cannot be changed compared with equipment, which reduces the range of choices available in the combat gameplay. I know it's by design but quite many combats seem to be involved in FO3. 2. Another possible problem with the system of FO3* is that, less influence from scaling can make the game too easy for the players who heavily invested on the combat-related skills. I'm not a fan of Oblivion but it extended favored gameplay options with skill updates while its scaling system doesn't change the difficulty. The downside of this option is, however, as many people complained, that it makes the world feel less consistent. I think this is why the opinions of the players are divided when both systems are compared. * I haven't played FO3, so, this can be pointless. 3. Some players will not be happy with the lack of well-placed shot through the skill of them, such as a headshot. However, even if the damages are determined by the skill of the characters, the damages/effects can be differentiated depending on which body part is shot, which would make the results include both skills of the characters and the players. PS Well...this thread should be about story and plot...

because i'm impatient, goddammit. anyway, it's not like Sawyer's opening up a can of worms which is really beans which develops botulism and accidentally eats it and dies if he posts even one goddamn piece of concept art or sth. sheesh. So, when posting to this board, we have to imagine these invisible developers? This sounds like a religion. Well, I may have sounded like a Van Buren fundamentalist and, indeed, I like some ideas but it is more like that we don't have much info about FO:NV and that the most nearest thing is the past ideas and past works from Obsidian. I often browse the fora through J.E.Saywer's profile since he is the designer who used to talk of game designs frequently but I feel he was getting cautious then he used to be. I wonder if this is related to his increased responsibility. Indeed, he post some "hi, I'm still browsing the boards" messages but I sometimes envy Dragon Age official boards where the designers talk of game design more frequently, which is one of things I am impressed by Bioware designers (Their story-telling may not my cup of tea but they are people who popularized RTS combat in CRPG with some ancient producers and designers in Obsidian). Speaking of "hi" messages, I noticed some of the designers began to post in this thread. *waves* Hi, Eric Windowmaker (isn't your first name the middle name of your boss?) and Jason Fader and Mustang.

lol Seriously, though, quite many stealth action games allow the players to save anywhere. For example, Thief:Deadly Shadows allowed users to save anywhere and some users who'd like to finish missions even without being spotted used save more often than those who simply clear missions as soon as possible would do. Does this remove the tense of the former type of the players? - I don't think so: Iit simply allowed the players to enjoy the game in their own styles. Of course, Alpha Protocol is not stealth-only game but, IIRC, Deus Ex, which seems to have many common things with AP, allowed players to save anywhere. Of course, we need to see how final products to be played out, though.

I guess J.E. Sawyer is just cautious since the expectation he built up for his mostly unfinished works in the boards may not have been fair to the real presentations of the results even if they had been released. In my case, I simply wanted to know the general direction of FO:NV but some people who are less* accustomed to the process of the game development might take his words as promises. Well, the lead designer says it's too early to talk and most of us have many other things to do, so why not just wait and come back later? Talking of other things to do, J.E. Sawyer, I glanced at your little adventure during your last vacation at your twitter site and enjoyed the feel...well, mostly through my imagination. Sorry for your broken notebook. Personally, I'd like to enjoy outdoor trips/travels with bicycles since I'm not confident with riding on a "naked engine" but you definitely can travel wider areas with it. BTW, in FO:NV, you definitely not force the players to travel miles and miles of empty desert, do you? *I have no experience with game-making but, from my little experience, I saw quite many factors in blue print can be cut during the process of the development especially recent graphic demands require heavy resources, I guess.

Surprisingly, the direction nails it for the spy action genre. It's a well done trailer for the purpose. However, now I wonder...does it have more depth than it appears to be? I know Planescape:Torment lacked this kind of advertisement but I cannot but ignore an impression that role-playing games getting shallower as time passes.

I think the issue has been already nailed down. In an RPG such as FO, basically, any action by the PC should be measured/reacted by in-world NPCs...not people in real world. That said, considering the current circumstances around gaming, requesting for "killable" children wouldn't only be in vain but also make you sound insane. I guess here is another place where a compromise is needed. PS BTW, doesn't this topic belong to setting discussion?

Unfortunately, for some people, too many pop culture references break the atmosphere. So, I guess the opinions of both sides are mutually exclusive. The same thing goes to NPC design. Some people, concluding myself, find the feel of isolation is one of the important factor in FO while some other people may like to see more emotional/dramatic interaction with NPCs. I guess these are one of the cases, where, the final decisions have to be in the hands of the designers.

Actually, that part is in the list of my dirty little secrets, which wasn't meant to be "publicized" on the net. As for FO 2 humor, some people, indeed, found it is bit off the mark. Considering the background information about the development of FO2, I suspect that not small amount of caffeine contributed to "the issue." In any case, IIRC, a designer admitted that they used too many pop culture references in it.

I guess I was lost due to my interpretations of listed characters. I can understand Ivan's view on Christianity as a person who lives in modern world. Shylock was often considered as a villain, but not so in modern interpretations especially after Nazi holocaust experience. In Oedipus' case, too, he is not a "villain" since he didn't know what he was doing. However, seeing your point is that making characters three dimensional or have their own views which can be understandable, then, I agree with you. In fact, a part of my confusion is that they are often presented in that way. Here is a relatively old interview with Brian Mitsoda about Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines.

Considering my experience from Oblivion, I highly doubt that they could even realize FO level of story. Reviews and posts on boards didn't seem to deny my doubts. Again, I agree. Although there may be some exceptions, locations feel pretty isolated and I haven't seen too many interactions between them. Only the simple reputation slider influenced NPC reactions, which is why I'd like to see more realistic reactions through a reputation system like Jefferson, which could track each action of PC and reflect to NPC iterations, making "the world" more reactive to player's choices. However, I admit it's almost impossible to realize a reputation system with the same complexity of Jefferson's, (they couldn't fill it with enough content in the Black Hound, IIRC). Then again, seeing the latest Alpha Protocol trailer's name, I don't think Obsidian has totally given up something like that in FO:NV in a way or another.

Here, while I agree with you, I cannot but think overly emotional/close relationship would have ruined the feel of FO. FO puts more focus on the world rather than drama between individuals, which makes it feel dry for better or worse. NPCs are relatively convincing and they have their own lives in the setting but they don't have too much emotional bond with PC. On the other hand, role-playing games such as Planescpape:Torment focus on drama between characters. In such games, however, settings on the player character tends to be more detailed and fixated to enhance the emotional experience. Either type of "story-telling" is established in its own way. That said, in FO:NV, I wonder how Obsidian designers to keep the balance between drama and the dry feel, especially if Chris Avellone is working on the dialogue. IMO, I think he improved some parts of FO2 but diminished the feel of FO, to some extent.

I believe nobody in these threads claimed such a thing. Fallout is designed in a different way than some narrative focused games.

I guess I found the problem. If you can really think Baldur's Gate II's design is non-linear, which simply consists of the linear main plot and some mostly unrelated sub-quests, then, Ockham's razor tells me that you cannot have understood the points I and, probably, Aristes have discussed in these threads, especially related with design philosophy of Jefferson. This also explains why you are happy with rather simplistic a conclusion that nonlinearity is "illusion." I thought you were simplifying my point only for winning the debates but it turns out that you haven't understood the design philosophy behind Jefferson and probably even Fallout, which is intrinsically different from that of Baldur's Gate II. IIRC, J.E. Sawyer wondered how many of Black Isle designers understood the true meaning of the reputation system of Jefferson, so, this is not unnatural, I think. However, we all agree that system is very complex and it is hard to be realized at least in its original shape. I'm simply interested in what conclusion J.E. Sawyer has reached after these years.

If you say so, isn't it meaningless to say some games are linear and other games are non-linear since every single game is linear. To my eyes, it's just rhetoric. If you call it illusion, isn't every literature illusion, since, physically, they are just inks on papers? We have some judgment by which we decide which game is more linear and which game is less linear. According to that, the original FO is quite non-linear, compared with other computer role-playing games around. The players don't need to visit in-world places in a certain order although the players may have time limit I think this "clear-cut" linear or non-linear argument won't lead anywhere. In any case, I'm not interested in arguments for arguments' shake. Guess you reached more or less similar conclusion. For the money for making games mainly went for graphic related technologies and fewer attentions are paid to writings. If game industry is continuing to make more or less similar games with this level of content, I guess it's high time for me to stop playing games. In fact, recently, I cannot play games without feeling stupid anymore. I began to think there are fewer games worth playing especially at my age. You may think I have been talking about the past but, in fact, I have been talking of the present. I don't care if Fallout was a good game or bad game in the past but I don't have a single game which doesn't make me feel stupid. I cannot but admit that it is definitely a pathetic hobby for an individual at my age. It may be good for me to spend less time on it. I used to play a game a year but now I play a game in a few years.

By simplification, I didn't mean your discussion but your conclusion. I think you have a tendency of making the discussion of opponent look simpler. Might you happen to be a lawyer of something like that? Unfortunately, it's not magic and it is tough part for the designers, of course. Also, if I'm right, you are not one of the designers. Again,, it's your word. I didn't say in-party NPCs are great but there is a good reason for me to believe the design is intentional. Seriously, do you really believe it would be convincing in FO setting, where PC and in-party NPC talk a lot, even having romances? However, I guess I spent too much time on internet today.

I cannot read into it to much but I think J.E. Sawyer's comment is talking of balance. It would be easier for them to make a linear main plot but it won't feel like Fallout. It's oversimplification by Gromnir, who makes the question appear to be an extreme sides between linearity vs non-linearity. Personally, I'd like to have a story which emphasizes on non-linearity compared with your usual CRPG. It's your fiction. I clearly stated that it is because I had already fed up with more or less similar story-telling scheme. FO is good its own way but it is never perfect. As for in-party NPCs, as I wrote before, I think, in Fallout setting, it is important for the players to feel like a lone wanderer and, if he/she is surrounded by fellow party members, it would be tough for the players to feel like that. I think FO in-party NPCs are consciously designed in that way. However, probably, quite many people felt it was lacking since they compared the in-party NPCs with other party-based role-playing game. In -party romance option won't fit the core setting.

Oddly, I can enjoy both Hemingway and Faulkner, I think both stand out in their own ways. I wish computer role-playing games would have more ways to tell stories and am often frustrated by how they tend to be lack of imagination even compared with more older materials such as novels and films. FO started something interesting and I'd like it to keep its own character. If anybody can improve/expand it in a way or another it would be even better.

I think you are right but it depends on individuals which would be better... Is there a way to keep the protagonist a lone wanderer and, at the same time, to keep the game filled with interesting PC-NPC interactions/development...? I think Van Buren's approach is one of the possible ways.

Difference is important. Probably, if you still manage to play many more or less similar rpgs, you are more "faithful" in a way when we simply compare how many games we have played recently. If you manage to make yourself to play every single role-playing game form Bioware, this wouldn't surprise me. To my eyes, it simply explains that you can find value only in a certain type of story-telling.

It's about not superior or inferior but simply about difference: different types of story-telling. It's not criticism when you don't see what differentiate/characterize the story telling of Fallout. Also, if you are implying something by word "faithful," I think you totally misunderstood me since I'm simply getting tired of the same old scheme of story-telling of role-playing games.

I don't agree with it. Details may change but, to my eyes, FO's story-telling develops around PC's actions influencing the world. This is why the original FO's ending was ironical since the overseer denies the reason d'etre of PC himself/herself. He found the PC dangerously influential. In this way, FO's story-telling is quite different from Bioware's formula of a hero/heroine starting from humble beginning. IMO, FO is FO in its way while Bioware's heroic fantasy are what they are in that way. In FO, the best NPC is a dog since, in FO, the player character is da man/woman. Ironically, this feature is, I think, enhanced in Bethesda style game-play rather than the party combat in the original Fallout. On the other hand, not having party members don't make full use of Avellone's strength of writing deep relationships. However, if the core story is developed through the relationships to the other party, then, their character development of PC and the other party member could become deeper, influencing each other (Just like PC and Kreia in KotoRII). At least, the relationship between PC and the other party member would be deeper than that between PC and ordinary NPCs. This will, at the same time, reduce the amount of "tangential" side-quest actions since more quests will be related with the relationship between PC and the other party NPCs directly or indirectly. That said, all of this is not more than my assumption.

The problem I found with NWN2 OC is that it tried to be as many as thing possible...which made the campaign kind of spread thin without focus. Also, the story was heavily cliche. In any case, if I fail to be interested in content, gameplay doesn't help me to get back into the game (The same thing happened to Oblivion). Even about gameplay, I found Mask of the Betrayer combat was better than that in OC. Related with FO discussion, IIRC, NWN2 had a region-based reputation in a limited way, where PC's reputation are different in Neverwinter and Targos. However, since the focus was on narrative rather than interactable world like in FO series, I wonder how much of it was useful in terms of story-telling. In fact, Dragon Age doesn't seem to have faction/morality-based reputation system. Of course, the choices of players seem to have consequences but they seem to be simply based on flag or something.