Aristes

Mikhailian, you have some great points. One in particular strikes me. There needs to be more variation in the dialogue. I don't propose that characters themselves need to be particularly varied within their own voice. In literature of any sort, characters must be far more static than people are in real life. In some media, such as television, characters either don't change in any substantial way or change very slowly. In movies, the changes usually occur in dramatic moments of the film. Books, where the writer has more lattitude, allow for a more subtle and dynamic approach. Even so, books cannot have dynamic personality changes in a normal character to the same extent as real life. Computer games probably fall closest to Cinema or books, and so there is some opportunity for character development. Of course, before the howls become deafening, all literature must have some sort of character development. What I'm saying is that the characters must general be a lot more consistent than people in real life. The upshot is, characters will be somewhat static because the folks writing the dialogue and story have limited opportunity to include substantial changes within a character, and so they must make their choices count. However, between characters, there should be a lot of variation. Some of those characters might reinforce common stereotypes. That's not entirely terrible as long as it's well done. Others might challenge stereotypes. For example, a character with a deep southern accent who has an extensive scientific background. He might sound like a "southern hick" to the player at first, but his education and accomplishments come to light in some way. Another thing would be to have an extremely well educated, soft spoken, and urbane character who, somewhere along the line, demonstrates deep rooted bigotry. In fact, make that character sympathetic. He's a good guy and a friend of the character, but has a flaw that comes out of the blue and smacks the player in the face. Along the same lines, while the characters might be largely static, they can certainly have multiple facets. That's the key, in my opinion. Just as important as, say, having a dramatic moment where one of the NPCs suddenly has a major change in character. Have a character with multiple motives and perhaps a personality quirk or two.

Just did Gnomer today! heh heh Just wanted to point out that there was life before the Lich King.

Is it possible to have a LEETLE leeway in the whole "all of FO:NV shall be contained herein? Is it possible to split off a couple of these ideas into separate threads? Especially since the ideas under discussion apply to all games anyhow.

Yeah, then I pretty much agree with you, Kjarista. Especially in terms of the real world consequences, which I see as more important than where the PC stands on a scale anyhow.

Seems to me that the "trick" isn't really needed. Let the player decide if they want to take the quest or not. You walk up to me, we talk, I say: " hey, I really need your help. Those people outside of town there have captured my daughter. I need you to bring her back. I can pay you...." This is more realistic, IMO. I disagree. It is undoubtedly easier to code a situation where the NPCs generally act the same way towards the PC and have the same attitudes and options. However, it's not more "realistic." In real life, folks size up each other based on a few second of conversation all of the time. By all of the time, I mean virtually every stranger makes an initial assessment of someone in the first moments of conversation and then, if they're smart, keeps updating that assessment as new information comes to light. Of course, they might not actually think of it in those terms, but they still act that way. So, Gizmo's suggestion seems perfectly valid. NPC talks to the PC. By dialogue, the NPC decides what he thinks the PC's motives are. He then plays to those motives. Saying that it's more realistic that folks don't continually assess other people through conversation is simply misguided. Hell, people don't even wait to talk. If a man walks into a bar wearing dusty, blood-stained clothing, the brim of his hat pulled low over his eyes, and an angry scowl on his face, folks there will treat him one way. If the same man walks into the bar wearing more or less normal clothing and a friendly grin, folk will treat him another way. Even more hell, there's really only so much your clothes can do. The ways humans interact are so complicated and based on so many factors that it's impossible for the computer game to cover all the bases. The problem is in creating a system that's complicated enough that our choices are meaningful in a larger sense while still being transparent enough that players aren't confused or angry. That's really why we end up with overt influence systems. slapping a number value on an interaction is the easiest way to tell the player, "you just succeeded." I don't know that we need to keep a score, as such. I agree with your previous comment, "I'd rather not quantify it at all and just let the decision itself cascade consequences throughout the rest of the came. In the case of Tenpenny, one either helps one side or the other, helps neither, or finds a way to screw both parties to extract whatever personal benefit possible. How this decision affects the rest of the game...or not, is the key, not the keeping score." However, for those choices to be meaningful enough to impact the game the "rest of the game," must mean that the game keeps track of what the player did and will thus keep a score of sorts anyhow. In other words, it will determine how other folks see and interact with you. Whether we assign numerical values to your influence or simply make the design team look through previous actions and write dialogue accordingly, the game will still have to keep track of prior events. ...And it will need to do that regardless of whether or not each action occurs in a moral vacuum. So, you burn down and murder an entire village except for little Jimmie. Folks don't care, so the guy still comes up and says, " hey, I really need your help. Those people outside of town there have captured my daughter." Fine. ...But it's going to look really sloppy if the fact that you've slaughtered every single person in Radiationville, bragged about it far and wide, and it never has any impact on dialogue. Maybe folks won't care that you murdered everyone in Radiationville. Sure. Fair enough. However, there should be a good and ever increasing chance that they'll at least know about it. Doesn't matter. We've probably lost the battle on karma and influence already. Karma is sufficiently part of the Fallout franchise that we're undoubtedly going to end up with it. Tranparent and in your face influence scores make life much easier for the design team.

The KotOR scheme is flawed in two ways. In fact, MotB took a step backwards in regard to the first way. 1. The player sees the result of dialogue decisions immediately. That is to say, I respond with "kiss my ass" and a -2 influence with the NPC floats in yellow text before my eyes. I'm a little iffy on this. On one hand, I think it's important for players to get enough feedback in order to understand how to play the game. You need to let them know what you expect of them. On the other hand, dialogue becomes a mini-game, with a lot of focus going into it. Rather than focus on the writing, however, the focus lays most heavily on the numerical impact of each option. 2. By making your status in regards to light/grey/dark overt, the design team removes any real nuance or moral ambiguity from the player's actions. Grey, when it comes as part of a neapolitan flavored alignment mechanic, is not ambiguous. It's one of your three options. I understand that the Star Wars universe relies on the light/dark side concept. However, Fallout is not hampered with hard and fast rules regarding reputation, and so there is a lot more room to maneuver. I realize that I'm asking for a lot, but this is the sort of idea that I'd like most to see in a computer game.

I really enjoyed Fallout 2 quite a bit, but I agree with Promethean. I don't want just factions combined with a whole. I want to have my choices be meaningful, even if it's just for me. I used reputation as an example, but the in character rewards that transcend gameplay mechanic rewards are excellent also. By which, I mean rewards through dialogue or story that don't give the PC any significant advantage in terms of gear, abilities, or statistics. For example, in Mask of the Betrayer, the PC could choose between devouring or granting eternal rest to a bunch of spirits in one of the areas. Of course, MotB used an overt good/evil and influence system, so some rewards were obvious. Still, my favorite reward was through the dialogue box where it said something like, "A look understanding dawns upon the face of the spirit as you finally permit his soul to rest." Players don't necessarily always need rewards that equate to more power. Sure, you want a healthy dose of ingame rewards, but someone who really wants to follow an all good or all evil path will likely be willing to forego some of those stat bumps in order to get the most out of the story, whether it's a title or a reputation or even a little bit of text. To be clear, I think the player should generally expect to advance his abilities as he advances the story, but use of in character rewards can sometimes be a viable option. And I think the numbers of players who would be willing to throw over some of those gameplay rewards for in character perks might surprise some of you. Reputation and self perception are merely two examples. There are tons of ways to reward players to augment gameplay rewards.

Something like the global rep from BG, only far more robust.

I hate the way karma/alignment/moral scales are designed in games, but I like the idea of Karma/influence as a way to show a character's impact on the world. I want a dynamic world where the choices the PC makes has an impact on his fellows and, in particular, his community. That's why I want to see tough times for folks who stray too far from the middle. Knight in shining armor all the time? Sure, but someone's going to use that against you, or at least to his own advantage, eventually. Tough hombre who'll shoot you just as soon as look at you? He's going to make a lot of enemies and folks will avoid him. This isn't as simple as bounty hunters trying to kill you. People will go into hiding or skip town if they know you're looking for them. Some folks will avoid "knight" types because either they're afraid they'll be punished for things they've done or they simply have antipathy for what they perceive as "holier than thou" personalities. What about things the PC can do that other folks won't know? Can the PC do a dastardly act without word getting out to the public? Can the PC boast of his accomplishments in order to improve his reputation? Truly selfless act undertaken by a PC who doesn't go out of his way to ensure he gets credit will likely have limited or no benefit. I don't know if it's possible, but I'd like a more robust system. I'd also like influence to be largely opaque. You know you have influence with someone based on how well you're received and how cooperative and helpful the NPCs are.

Maria: I'm one of masses of Fallout fans. That's 1-3. I only dispute that I'm one of the "unwashed" masses! I am meticulous in my personal hygiene! As for the discussion, I'm glad to get away from Oblivion. It's not that I don't think that Oblivion isn't similar in a lot of ways to Fallout 3. It's not that I'm ashamed in any way of playing and enjoying Oblivion. It's just that Fallout 3 is a different game and it's the game on which New Vegas will be built. Anyhow, by introducing Oblivion to the arguments, we open the door for folks to argue for changes that actually move closer to Oblivion and, while I liked the game, I would rather not have Oblivion's level and skill system. One of the reasons I liked Fallout 3 so much more is because of the SPECIAL system. I understand that it was modified for use in real-time, but I think Crashgirl's ideas for taking advantage of the realtime format to use SPECIAL in new ways. Some of the ideas specifically, but the entirety of the idea in general. As for the idea that Obsidian will improve upon the game... I don't know. I think Obisidian can improve some aspects of the game, but improving those aspects might actually diminish others. For example, if the story is too tight, it might be constrictive to some players. Nevertheless, I think Obsidian has shown that they can create compelling NPCs and a tight story while allowing the player a lot of lattitude in terms of good/evil and a good amount of personal freedom. Technically speaking, Obsidian can clearly improve on features in New Vegas, such as enhanced work stations and a more robust ability to craft items. However, Obsidian is not entirely known for the optimization of their game engines. Sorry, Obsidz, but I have to call them like I see them. If they can enhance the feature while tightening the engine, or at least not getting any worse, then they will have won not only a victory for the Fallout franchise, but addressed one of their more glaring deficiencies. I have a lot of faith in the design team to keep the sandbox feel of FO3 while providing a better story and more memorable NPCs. However, I don't think every NPC in FO3 was terrible. Sure, Bethesda dropped the ball on a few and missed some great opportunities with others, but the NPC cast was certainly not the worst I've seen. Until we get more specifics, however, there's not a lot we can discuss in terms of the nuts and bolts of the story or NPC ideas.

What I'd like to see is a game where the PC isn't the end all/be all. How about a game where the PC spends most of his time simply trying to survive in the wasteland? IF there is some grand cause, how about the PC is part of it rather than leading it? Maybe a game where the PC helps the chosen one rather than being chosen himself? Suppose we have an ending where the PC has to help the leader of his cause make the final decision? I'm also in favor of less involvement from everyone from the super mutants to the enclave. Have some encounters there, but make them rare and meaningful. Finally, let the player create a goody two shoes PC, but make him pay for it. Likewise, let the player create a real bastard, but make him pay. Let the choices the player makes be meaningful. That's what I'd like to see.

What are we to substitute for sales in assessing the value of a product? I mean, there is critical acclaim. There is general popularity by word of mouth. There are sales. There are benchmarks in terms of how the product performs in a technical sense. Fallout won wide acclaim, both by press and by general popularity. The sales were excellent. I thought the game had some irritating bugs, but nothing earthshattering for me personally and it was less buggy than, say, NWN2. Saying that sales aren't the end game for the developers pretty much makes the entire argument meaningless. After all, if we don't use sales, at least in part, then game discussions become a free for all. ...And I love the idea that a game that sold as well as Fallout 3 did so based on clever marketing. hahaha Okay. Gotcha. Look, I lurked here for a while before I started posting, and I've always thought of you as a clever member of the forum, Tig. I respect that you have a lot of passion on the Fallout issue. That's cool. ...But you must understand how hollow the sales != quality argument sounds. Consumers were offered a product and they purchased it in great numbers. I, for one, heard a lot of positive buzz about the product from folks on this very board and purchased the title and was quite happy with the choice. In fact, I think one of my first posts here was in regards to Fallout 3. Let me add more to the wall of text. When NWN shipped, I was angry. I simply could not conceive how folks who had enjoyed the BG, IWD, and PST franchises so thoroughly could think of NWN as a quality product. ...But I have to concede that it has been a lucrative franchise that has sold extremely well. My own personal feelings aside, no matter how much I disagreed with the unwashed masses, clearly the franchise is successful. So, if your primary argument is that sales are not the only factor in evaluating a product, I'll agree. However, sales are sufficiently important that I see them as one of, if not the, most decisive factors. After all, Why should any one unhappy reviewer's point of view take precedence over the clear evidence that a product has sold well? A trusted friend will undoubtedly have more influence than sales. A reviewer whose tastes and attitudes have been in aggreement with your own? Sure. ...But I've had friends who were dead set against a product on principle and, while I won't stop being their friend, I don't exactly regard them as a reliable source either. Sales a compelling argument in favor of Fallout 3, and any argument about the future of the franchise must take that into account. Now, for my part, I think Obsidian can improve the product. I certainly hope they have greater sales. I'd think they'd be happy as hell is they even approach the FO3 sales, but I'm hoping for more. You can argue for improvements in quality and style. Good. You should do that. When we get more info, I will do that. However, that 800lb gorilla in the room is commercial success. Never take on the gorilla. Whether he does it with quality or style, in the end the gorilla will tear off your arms and beat you to death. Better to say to the devs, "you can have both commercial success and aspire to better quality than FO3."

Nota Bene. It's kind of like saying, "Take note of this fact --" Literally, note well: no it may not involve bukkake.

I don't see why there's so much handwringing over the difficulty level. I'm almost certain that New Vegas will be substantially more difficult than FO:3. I'm absolutely certain that a lot of die-hards will complain that it's too easy and some of them will even say it's easier that FO:3. Complaining about game difficulty has become all but cliched. Fallout 3 seemed difficult enough for me, by which I mean that you could survive any particular area of the game without any reloads if you were cautious enough. This was particularly true if you'd been in that area previously. You could still get killed, especially if you set the game to hard and were either ill-prepared or suffered a few bad breaks.

I see a lot of similarities between the two, although I had more fun with Fallout 3. I guess the WH/40K analogy works, though. When I first purchased Fallout 3, I expected it to be virtually the same as Oblivion. ...And it was. Still, it had such a different feel to me, whether that's because of the setting or the SPECIAL ruleset or some other reason, I don't know. My point isn't that Oblivion is completely irrelevant to a larger discussion. It's that Fallout 3 serves as a better basis for discussing New Vegas. Aw, hell, who am I to say? I'd never heard of that swimming thing. That was funny.

I would take something from your personal life, Gorgon. If the class is comprised of people from a similar culture and equivalent skill levels in Japanese, then I would definitely go with a topic that is personal (not TOO personal, if you get me) and that you understand very well. You don't want to be wracking your brain for an answer to the question while you're trying to form a sentence in a foreign language. Give yourself a break, go for a topic you know extremely well, something novel that you do as a hobby. It should be innocuous enough that it isn't questionable, but personal enough that it give you a chance to enjoy the discussion. Good luck, bro!

I understood the Oblivion bashing before FO3 shipped, but now that FO3 is here, Oblivion seems irrelevant. I enjoyed Oblivion, even disagreeing with some of the design decisions. Yes, I hated the encounter scaling, but I can find some fault with every game I've ever played. So, yeah, that scaling idea was the big fault with Oblivion, but I had a lot of fun playing it and it appears as if I weren't the only one. Getting away from the game that isn't part of the Fallout franchise, I have faith that Obsidian can make improvements on some of the deficiencies in the FO3. Most of those problems aren't tied to the engine at any rate, or not so dramatically that the design team can't modify them. For example, the pacing should be easy to change, although I doubt Obsidian will make a huge alteration to the scheme that worked so well for Bethesda. After all, even accounting for the mods, Fallout 3 received a lot of critical and popular acclaim. I doubt, even giving a nod to the number of end user mods, that most players altered the game other than patching. I know that it was a common enough gripe that Obsidian will probably make some changes, but there's virtually no way for them to include side quests and areas without the chance that the PC will reach the level cap before the end of the game. ...And why shouldn't the PC reach the level cap before the end of the game? Sure, don't max out halfway through the main questline, but maxing out towards the end seems perfectly reasonable. The other deficiencies I see really have nothing to do with the engine. The NPC interaction, dialogue, side quests, and ending had nothing to do with the engine itself. Obsidian has the talent to provide a better experience in these areas, and I expect they will. EDIT: The best thing Obisidian could do, in my opinion, is to remove the exp penalties/rewards based on the difficulty setting. If you play on a harder setting, but you get substantially more exp, then of course you're going to level faster.

This issue is simply wrong. In the first place, the mere conjecture regarding legal action weakens the executive branch by discouraging action on the part of the administration. If members of an administration are in fear of their very freedom, by which I mean they are under threat of imprisonment, every time an administration changes hands, then future administrations will be reluctant to act decisively. The spectacle itself undermines the executive branch. Not only that, but it really doesn't serve the purpose of punishing the people involved. I firmly believe that the evidence is not strong enough to secure a lasting conviction. That is to say, between the initial trial and the subsequent appeals, there is very little chance that anyone involved in the alleged torture will serve time. Of course, I don't have a law degree, but that's how I see it as a layman. The people who clearly carried out illegal torture have been punished. The people involved in interogation techniques under the advice of Counsel probably will not, no matter what the DoJ does. The lawyers who argued that the methods were legal will not likely see jail time either. Because of my two previous assumptions, I see this issue as more political than legal. No duh! However, the crest of the political wave has come and gone. At this point, all this issue serves is to provide an opportunity for folks to argue in favor of the methods that are the center of the controversy in the first place. If it had come and gone, the Dems could have used it as a way to attack the previous administration. Now, however, Obama's own administration is supplying ammunition to advocates of water-boarding and other questionable tactics. In terms of torture, I'm not sure. In principle, I find it wrong. In practice, I find it distasteful. However, since the specifics defy a clear definition, I don't know what to think at this point.

I would think that there should be a variety of music for the actual game, but a strong showing for swing music is a pretty good idea.

nonsense, Jaesun! The begining song is supposed to be cheerful. The future before the war was bright and happy. It's the present that sucks. "Blue Skies" is perfect. I'm jealous I didn't think of it myself! "Under my skin" is too much on the nose. The only problem is that some of these Frankie songs are mid 60s rather than 50s/early 60s.

Kaftan, you naughty tease!

Ain't that a kick in the head? -- Dean Martin

I dunno. If we're breaking out Frankie, why not Dean Martin: My life is going to be BEEEEYOOOTIFUL!

As far as the gritty game-world goes, I'm all for it. In fact, you could include sex, hard-core drug use, and a plethora of societal vices. However depict them in a mature manner. If there's a lot of sex, depict rampant sexually transmitted diseases. If there are drugs on every corner, depict the physical and psychological effects on what's left of society. Don't just include these elements to stroke the "Mad Max" ego of the players. Show vices for what they are -- fun, but inevitably self-destructive, especially when allowed to grow unchecked. In regards to homosexual romances... I don't want any romances. I don't want some trite, hastened, over the top, puking on my keyboard romance. I'm not against romantic elements, but I've never seen a game romance that rose above the level of a puerile wet dream. Most of them don't even aspire to reach that far. If the game is epic (oh that word!) enough in time scale to permit a realistic romance to develop between characters, so be it. In that case, I don't care if there's homosexual romance, heterosexual romance, or good old autoeroticism. However, when promoting the gritty game world and romances, realize that most of these sound a lot more fun in theory than they will pan out in gameplay. Anything hardcore between the levels of Fallout 1 to Fallout 3 would be fine by me. Otherwise, you might make the game so gritty and realistic that it's just not fun. Hey, what types of venereal disease could they include? Herpes could intermittently lower str, end, and agil during painful outbreaks. Syphilis could cause brain damage, lowering per, int, and cha. Most people don't really seem to want mature treatment of these particular issues. What they want is freedom to screw some hooker. These comments are not really pointed at anyone in particular, but if you feel like being offended.... *shrug*

Gromnir had a great post a while back about B-movie goofiness in Fallouts 1 and 2. Stimpaks abounded in the original titles, bottle caps (with no inherent value) were used like cash in a barter economy, ghosts, GECKS, and super mutants. Fallout 3 really doesn't seem that different to me. I prefered the ap combat of 1 and 2, but I don't think any of them trump the others in terms of just plain silly.