Wombat

Thanks, pop. I remembered it now since I played the game till the trial, which was nicely done but quite many people said it is the best part of the game and I couldn't make myself to go further than that.

I don't know...I also thought of something like this after I played KotoRII since the game only had only one potential opponent. If you are interested in her, it didn't cause problem but if you are not... The totally different point of myself from Gromnir's one is that I imagined it for something in line of knight Jedi story, where, I think, toe-to-toe combat is expected in climax. As I wrote before, I think FO's story-telling is something different. IMO, the story should be connected to dynamically changing world based on player's choices, and thus, connected to exploration and discovery. Thus, it doesn't necessarily be ended with the confrontation of an UBG. Probably, a threat should be overcome in the last but I don't think it is necessarily to be UBG or something like that, in FO series. Of course, considering the tradition of CRPG, although it is a heavily clich

I'm not sure of it since we haven't gotten the final product. You may be right or maybe wrong. Somehow, I feel Chris Avellone himself would hate it.

Actually, a "grudge" didn't even exist at my end since I was simply confused, wondering most part, which is why I decided to track down your posts to find out what you really meant. After reading your posts, I was surprised to find that I agree with you quite a lot of things...so, mostly confusion and embarrassment in my part. *blush*

Hmmm...the party is not necessarily to be an antagonist.

Aristes, after reading some of your posts, I found you had been serious. When I replied to your post, I simply spotted one of your posts and I wondered if you were just ridiculing the possibility of more believable world since its very detailed. Personally, I wish such complexity and convincing outputs of interactions would be possible, but I becomes suspicious especially when I think of the given time to Obsidian. As CrashGirl says, I found your posts interesting, too. It's just I cannot frequent the boards often and cannot keep tracks of posts. In any case, I think this is just a case of simple misunderstanding.

It's the same thing to KotORII, Star Wars' core is a classic knight story told in a different world setting. So, why do you need to break the scheme? Death system works in traditional RPG, so, why do you need to make an RPG, where the main character cannot die? I think Chris Avellone did his best in Planescape:Torment, in terms of breaking the scheme and introducing new themes in the fixated genre. In KotORII, as he himself admits, his interpretation of force was less convincing. However, immorality is not a leaned question and has more universality than Star Wars' "force." How about Van Buren, then? We don't know since it has never been completed.

I simply asked of your motive. You write a lot of things and I found them rather entertaining but I couldn't see your point. So, I simply asked. I don't know why you take it emotionally. Although the morality is just an aspect in traditional formats such as novels and films, in a traditional RPG format, somehow, the theme is fixated to simplistic moral choice. IMO, mainly, Fallout's "story" is "told" through PC-non party NPC interactions. NPC has their own lives in FO world and, through interactions, the protagonist can change their lives in a way or another. So, why should it be fixated to simple morality slider? Doesn't it make the world less believable? Isn't it interesting to see the world is filled with people with their own beliefs and opinions? Personally, I liked the approach of Jefferson since it gives a new aspect while it's faithful to the core story-telling of Fallout. However, I don't expect too much complexity here. From my experience of Oblivion, I found that game-play can be eventually modified through mods but content is a different type of beast. So, I'd like Obsidian to spend more on their forte, making the content interesting enough since the engine is done by Bethesda and there are already some mods out there for the players to fit the gameplay to their own tastes. I totally see your point and agree that could be a problem. The key as I see it is to make part of the story about dealing with the consequences of the choices. In other words, the story doesn't end with the choices, rather it ends when the consequences have been dealt with, as best they can be. But the game still responds dynamically throughout the second "phase" That's the life of story-telling of Fallouts, IMO. The world composed of various lives, with which the PC can interact so that the players can get the feel of "personalized" stories while they are sharing the same "world".

I wonder what you have been trying to prove. I don't believe the majority expect such level of complexity... Even Jefferson was not completed. There should be some point where they can balance consistency and non-linearity. Is it impossible for Obsidian to realize FO2 level of NPC interactions? Expectations may differ among individuals but I don't think so many people expect the level of complexity presented in your example...

Off Topic Is it the quote from the elder Zosima? I don't read it annually but used to read it time to time. [Edit]Well, forget about it, Google found it. Guess my memory didn't fail me this time.

i think it was Malcodor who said it earlier...but i liked how FO2 handled interconnectivity just fine. strictly speaking on this topic alone, FO2 had upped the ante for quest structure and any natural adherence/progression from FO2 would be fine with me. i don't think anything more or less is necessary as long as the quests are fun, meaningful and chocked full of C&C. what i don't want to see are the majority of quests be fetches or dungeon crawls. but i like how Obsidian handles things like this anyway, so i'm not very worried. I'd agree. I'd like to see both political intrigues of FO2 and exploration in FO in FO:NV. Although I like Planescape:Torment, Knight of the Old Republic II and Neverwinter Night: Mask of the Betrayer, I know they are different from Fallout series, which is characterized by its "non-linearity."

In the demo of Fallout, it was hilarious, though. As Chris Avellone mentioned in a relatively new interview, Van Buren was to have a twist in this scheme. From RPG Designer Hates RPGs

The problem is that FO's story-telling largely depends on non-party member NPC interactions, who are rooted in the world settings. Indeed, Jefferson's reputation system burnt out even Chris Avellone, who normally happy to write lot of dialogues, IIRC. However, at the same time, I think karma system is too simplistic. I have been wondering if J.E.Sawyer found the best spot in balancing it, since I think he must have given a lot of thought about it. As for the impact of the players' actions on the world, I'd like it to be more "realistic" or at least believable. Means, I don't like it to be more subtle although I know this is just my personal preference. In the Witcher, for example, the main character was not a superhero who can change everything in the world. This is partly because the game was based on a novel but I always feel the choices in CRPGs tend to result in huge impacts on the worlds considering a choice is given by individuals and/or small parties. Some may point out it would be boring but I have to add that the impact of choices are measured by subjectivity and that it hugely depends on the context. If NPCs are believable and thus, sympathizable/antipathizable in a way or another, then, players find meaning in his/her choices which potentially have some impact on his/her lives even if he/she is not an important member of a society. Such a choice would let the players feel the output result or the unfolded story personalized. From another perspective, throwing even a "light stone" to a society based on a delicate power balance may give a believable impact on the society. This is, of course, presuming a faction-based reaction system but depending on the number of faction, it won't require as much as karma system does. It simply prevents the main character from being able to be a hero, due to the moral ambiguity.

I guess it's most likely scenario. Of course, by NPC, I didn't mean in-party NPC. I think original Fallout did this part well while giving the "illusion" of freedom and making the story/world feel consistent through the effects of the player's actions on the lives of NPCs*. For this purpose, convincing/believable NPCs are vital. Also, at least some of Obsidian designers have been thinking of this quite a long time, so, I guess they can make use of some of ideas on this project. I believe Jefferson's reputation system can be one of them. In fact, I have always thought the system would fit Fallout games rather than more narrative-heavy role-playing games such as Baldur's Gate and Planescape:Torment although, basically, the system can be applied to various types of role-playing games. In a way, if Chris Avellone is going to join the development, I think it would be a nice chance to see how the chemistry between him and J.E.Sawyer work out, of which Feargus once mentioned an ideal combination with Swayer leading system development and Avellone leading content one. *Ironically, Morrowind did it through synthesizing lore with in-game experiences (Yes, in this respect, Oblivion is quite a let-down to me).

Guess the thread is calmed down now. A stronger, tighter story More memorable NPCs better dialogue As for the list above, of course, I agree. Hopefully, more convincing NPC interactions which don't rely on Karma system. I don't think something like Jefferson's reputation system will be implemented, though. Ultimately, if the resulted dialogue/NPC interactions are enough convincing, I don't care what kind of system is beneath the skin. Good balance and contrast between populated area and barren area to keep happy both fans of exploration and that of political intrigues. Some fast-travel tweaks I mentioned before may benefit both types of players but, then again, I leave the concrete implementation for the designers especially if they have better ideas. As for the proper implementation of S.P.E.C.I.A.L., I'm not sure...if Obsidian manage to bring back the feel of the original, I'd be happy but, considering the period and the record of Obsidian, I think huge tweak on the base system will end up with bug fiesta...it would be like creating more problems in trying to fix old ones... So, personally, I'd like Obsidian to concentrate on making the content which they are good at rather than building new features into the system (and ending up with implementing many more problems). Cleaned up interfaces may be nice since they won't risk too much. If there is Lake Mead, I guess it should be there if it is not destroyed by the vicious hands of Obsidian designers atom bombs. PS If some people who have FO3 and bought Broken Steel, they may leave comments about the newly available game play but they are probably busy with playing at the moment...

Yes. There's absolutely no way to create game that would make oldskool fans happy. Fans who bothered to waste 12+ years on various boards discussing what kind of game would be faithful to original Fallout. This depends on which factor these "oldskool fans" expect. Actually, some designers including the lead one are most likely to be fans of the original. Indeed, there is probably no way for Obsidian to make a Fallout game which is totally faithful to the original in every single aspect. And yet, this doesn't necessarily mean that all the essences of the original cannot be realized. In fact, even some designers at Bethesda are fans of Fallout and developed their own version of it, combining their trademark game-play with some factors from the original. Unfortunately for me, their version lacked what I think essential to the original:a decent main story, consistent story-telling and plausible and interesting NPCs (Bethesda seems to have done better in their new DLC, Broken Steel, though). Considering the history of Obsidian, I'd be rather surprised if I cannot see any of them in their version of new generation Fallout. Considering the development period, I don't think that I can expect much but I don't think it's totally illogical to expect these factors in FO:NV.

But he loves us, right? Right? Well, I'd say that it's typical fan psychology. In reality, liking a work of someone has nothing to do with the possibility that he/she is a likable individual. He may/may not hate fan of his works. As long as what we touch are his works, I don't think there is a problem with it.

It's already found at the Obsidian Entertainment News although I wonder how many people visit there. As for the article, information about Alpha Protocol and FO3 is new but, other stuff is rather obvious. Some designers begin their design work with their frustration against some dominant factors in established works. Warren Spector mentioned his frustration against existing games is a strong driving force to design games in a blog entry. I think this type of designers are, basically, challengers at heart even after they may have make some successful games. While reading this article, an interview with creators of South Park came to my mind somehow (although, personally, I'm not into it). It was something like: "We started this work by making fun of famous people we hate but, through the work, we became famous, ending up with having to hate ourselves." I guess these creators cannot but travel through rather lonely a road of their versions of "Hegelian dialectic". Personally, I like the works by Chris Avellone despite their flaws, but, somehow, I tend to imagine him rather a difficult person, someone in the line of...well, Kraia or Ravel.

This is what I wanted Obsidian to study when they began to design the canceled Aliens RPG game in order for them to keep a certain depth in console. IMO, ex-Looking Glass Studio members are good at this in the game industry. My blunder at that time was that I described it "cinematic" effect but I should have known that "cinematic" often means cut-scenes for gaming crowds, though.

If I took you right, I'm yet another who lament that games that focus on writing became quite rare especially in major game market. The Witcher and Mask of the Betrayer are pleasant exceptions but, at the same time, I couldn't but notice they have no console port*. So, I think somewhere between FO and FO2 would be reasonable in terms of identity of Obsidian and the reality in the current game industry. *Well, story is bit more complicated for the Witcher but I guess I can skip it especially now... FO3 gameplay seems to be O.K. So, I guess minor tweaks would be enough in this area. New implementations in this area would not only be costing but also dangerous considering that it unavoidably includes quality management ranging from dependency issues, re-balancing, AI tweaks and final polishes... Even if there are new implementations, I hope it will not be too complex. The game-play nowadays mean more than text-based descriptions, so, even if some ideas may sound good in theory wouldn't be as good in the final outcome. In shot, "give us an option of skipping intro." Yes, I felt the same thing with Oblivion but I didn't need the implementation since my interest in the game was waned quickly. The lack of the content was that severe to me.

About sand-box gameplay after skimming through the thread. Both KotORII and Planescape: Torment have more or less fixed protagonist backgrounds, which won't fit FO series. If New Vegas is going to be story-focused at all, I think it will use the format of New Reno with some factions to join/meddle. Hopefully, there would be some desert area for exploration, too, since personally, I think it would be nice if New Vegas turned out to be somewhere in the middle of FO and FO2. In fact, this is why I mentioned hybrid fast-travel and open reputation system since I think they would have some benefits in combining both worlds.

Thanks for the explanation. Yes, I remembered that Bioware didn't need to balance ammo resource for players due to this system. Although in a different note, IIRC, Van Buren also had this heat-up limitation for extremely destructive weapons. The player can ignore the limitation but, if they do, the weapon will be broken by over-heating. The trouble is that you'd probably need repair resources/installment and Science Boy character or NPC to fix the weapon once it happened. Oh...nostalgia... I know it's a charm of FO series to have maniacally detailed presentations and, I myself, share quite a bit of nostalgia. However, if it is consuming both resources and time, I don't mind seeing Bioware-style gameplay-focused designs here and there. For I think the forte of Obsidian, compared with that of Bethesda, is definitely deeper content such as convincing NPC interactions, story-telling, and well-written dialogs. At least, in Morrowind's case, it fits the lore* nicely...even it may not that "nice" as a game-experience. * PS I'm getting busy that it is getting tough for me to keep up with the thread...

You can in Mass Effect. I've never played Mass Effect... What's the draw for choosing to play a Sniper in that one? O.K. From the look of some articles on the net, I guess Bioware simply built Sniper Rifle skill and Assassination skill which, when invested, increase the damages of sniper type weapons. It's Bioware's recent game-design...they don't risk too much by getting into details but build a simple system and spend time on balancing. Considering some bug-ridden RPGs, I cannot blame them for this. After all, it comes down to pros and cons with which the players have to deal.

As for culled shot, I think we'd probably better to separate tactical factors of aimed shots to a certain parts of the bodies of the hostiles from graphical-effects of them. Graphical-effects and gore are for a spectacle or to just show how bad-ass attack you made while carefully placed shot is something else. I wonder if I call it role-playing in the same context with social activities but I think there is a point that, with called shot option, you can slow down a hostile/hostiles who may cause massive damage in closed-combat, which probably fits an agile gunman/woman and sniper. However, the question is that realistically, is it going to be translated well into FO:NW if it is based on the FO3 combat, which is the most-likable scenario? I haven't played FO3 myself but, as far as I know, the problem with it is that it enables you to rush into a hostile in RT mode, switching to VATS in front of it/him/her and giving the victim hostile a headshot with around 90%, which most likely finishes off the hostile. So, why do you need to aim at less vital parts of the hostile in the first place? You may insist that VATS should be fixed. However, probably, this requires a lot of works including extra animations and balancing for both RT and VATS combat although even if RT mode, it would be nice to have shot on body-parts and various effects of it. Of course, this doesn't mean only implementations but also bug-fixing on the newly added implementations. To be honest, I wonder if this is worth all the trouble while I understand the nostalgia. You can in Mass Effect. I've never played Mass Effect... What's the draw for choosing to play a Sniper in that one? Neither have I. I'm curious.

It probably requires adding some extra animation works for each opponent type, which may be the reason why it wasn't in in the first place. Then, just fix-the-current-issues opinion? I guess it makes sense in a way, then. My point was that both fast-travel and VATS are optional. So, if someone doesn't like them, then, he/she can simply ignore them. Comes from using Fast Reply all the time... oh wait, I did it again. That explains a lot...I use the quick reply option only when I don't need to quote.