Gromnir

am thinking that a main goal o' fo3 were simply to create mass. sure, quality were nice, but am thinking that the developers, much as they did with morrowind and oblivion, wanted a Big World. would fo3 world have been nearly so large if you reduced total encounters by 3/4 and genuine developed the remaining 1/4? probably not. personally, Gromnir is a big fan o' depth over breadth, but that weren't really bethesda's MO. even so, am agreeing with you that it would be enjoyable to sees better developed locations and quest as 'posed to simply getting a large number o' encounters. 'course that necessary means that game will seem smaller to many folks. HA! Good Fun!

"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." there is no discernible and specific "fo story-telling." the storytelling in fo3 will be as obsidian decides to make it... just as did bethesda and the other folks that has had their shot at the franchise in the past. nevertheless, we get what you reference. as Gromnir noted earlier, we were surprised that the Faithful were not out in force asking for what you is asking... 'cause that is the way it were done in the original fo. that being said, you not end up with a tightly focused and compelling critical path story with such an approach. give player more illusory freedom and you is making a compelling core story that much harder to develop... 'specially considering the fact that this don't appear to be a huge budget project such as fo3 were. "This is why to my eyes, Avellone's way was interesting since it could combine the strength of his own writing (close and deep relationship between PC and a certain NPCs) in a dynamic and living world of FO style story-telling" ... am not seeing what you folks is getting from chrisA comments. honestly, the stuff 'bout a similar party o' miscreants/heroes roaming the wastelands not change storytelling in any significant way... and as for deep relationships 'tween and twixt pc and certain npcs, well that not have to change whether you is core story focused or having lots of tangential side-quest action. *shrug* HA! Good Fun!

"the antagonist requires a certain level of dramatic development that is probably not attainable through Player choice. " am gonna disagree... somewhat. the antagonist is a known quality with identifiable attributes and motivations. the crpg writer can anticipate how an antagonist should react to a given player's action... 'cause the antagonist is the writer's creation and not the player's. yeah, is a given that an antagonist that is developed without having to consider potential Choice of a player is gonna be easier to develop, but such is the inherent obstacle in all aspects o' crpg development, no? gotta accept player Choice and simply do best. so, does it make more sense to try and develop your story around the protagonist, whose motivations and attributes is necessary indistinct or elastic, or does you focus on the writer-created, static antagonist? am knowing which choice Gromnir would make if somebody asked us to craft a story with some pathos. also, and this is an idea that Gromnir did not come up with so we cannot take credit for it, why not take Dragon Age approach and turn on its head. Dragon Age gives player a half dozen character back story choices. is intended to create a more definite protagonist while still covering most of the typical player choices. instead, have player choice determine the antagonist. perhaps create 3 potential antagonists... early game choices eventual determine the UBG. talk 'bout replay value. imagine the potential replay value. yeah, inevitably you got some major story bifurcation along the way, but the clever developer can keeps all maps and basic quests intact and change dialogues and a few key npcs once the Point of No Return has been exceeded. such an approach allows for genuine meaningful choice and it allows for developer to develop an appropriate and fixed antagonist. HA! Good Fun!

But teh codex hates everything! No, the codex does not hate everything. They (and we) just like our rpgs to be a certain way, preferably like Mysteries of Westgate or like Mask of the Betrayer where choices have real meaning and consequences accordingly. We (or they) also like that you can do questt through dialogue, combat or stealth. As VD's excellent review discusses, we'd like to be surprised as well. PS: I got the irony in the response the problem with "the codex" is that many/most folks in that place has such deeply ingrained biases that they not even seem to realize when they is being self-contradictory/self-defeating. anybody recall spazmo's codexian review for toee? now most folks admit that toee were a broken game, but the review for toee from codex were very positive. am recalling one particular point made were in regard to fact that tim cain finally rendered some o' the d&d spells properly, as posed to way black isle and bioware had dome. is amusing that the particular examples given by the reviewer were actually examples o' troika busted spells. tim cain made toee, so it had to be good, right? codexian opinion is no less valid than anybody else's, but the problem is that the more vocal and active members has completely destroyed your credibility. bethesda sucks. bioware sucks. tb is better than rt. troika was great. fo were teh best game evar. etc. you know the basic dogma o' codex and there ain't no reason to actually visit, 'cause +90% o' the time you can predict the approved codexian response w/o needing to get yourself dirtied. heck, +80% o' the time you can predict codex response before a game is released. frankenstein had 3 brains to work with when he built codex monster: sam kinison (pointless volume), andrew dice clay (immature vulgarity) and bill o' reiley (obtuse zealot). vd has some strange ideas. did not read his current review 'cause we recall his comments in past. he were super impressed by options and choices in toee? huh? am seeing how you can likes toee tb combat, but the choices available in toee were largely meaningless. am also thinking that vd has the comic book/anime fan's appreciation for good writing, so we rare bother to pay attention when he suggests that writing in game X is good or bad... some o' the stuff he thinks is good writing is the stuff that keeps crpgs from being taken serious. vd actually has some ok ideas... from time to time. have also seen that he is willing to fight the codexian current o' sludge if he disagrees. good for him. nevertheless, he has shown in past that he gots many typical codexian biases, and his notions regarding story and dialogue is scary suspect. but heck, just 'cause vd opines seems to aim for verisimilitude without ever actually saying anything genuine, there is no reason to assume that westgate is bad. HA! Good Fun!

as we is on the topic o' chrisA, Gromnir has some suggestions. 1) profound if you wanna make profound story or characters, then has characters do profound rather than speak profound. read young adult/children books for guidance. 2) antagonist motb were an ok game, but the ubg... sucked. you wanna do antagonist different than same-old stuff? fine, then do different, but recognize that you is gonna have entire game building up to final confrontation with the ubg whether you like it or not. fallout, like all other past obsidian crgs, is a game that has players build characters wit combat abilities. you pretty much gotta make possible for the combat folks to get a combat resolution. last battle o' game pretty much gotta be the biggest and toughest, and if you not likewise make the encounter emotional satisfying then you is getting fail. 3) sacrifice most character sacrifice means little in a game with reload. is the Player that has gotta feel loss for the sacrifice to have genuine impact. take away a beloved party member. reduce stat/skill points. destroy a favored weapon. whatever. is a crpg, so the sacrifice gotta be real for player as well as character to have impact. 4) humor the fo universe is funny. would never get that from reading nma and codex posts, but fo gots loads of funny. do not abandon the funny. sure, you can go overboard with pop culture references, but don't give up the ha-ha without fight. 5) protagonist your protagonist is gonna suck. in ps:t you were able to create a more definite protagonist than is typical for a crpg--won't be so lucky with fo. your protagonist is gonna be a dizzying combination o' attributes and motives. start with recognition that the fo:nv protagonist is gonna be fail; you is gonna be way ahead of the game. 6) religion josh mentioned something 'bout games not being taken serious til they tackle serious issues. am not gonna hold our breath. a serious look at religion in fo:nv seems 'bout as likely as our post-apoc abortion clinic idea. even so, am gonna recommenced A Canticle for Leibowitz, if you has not already read it. 7) dinosaurs am curious why fo got no dinosaurs. were pretty much a staple o' the pulpy 1950's stories... has some accident o' tech that resurrects a prehistoric monster. you got the giant insects, but not the dinos. were a size issue, or were it just too much? 8 ) 9) 10) ... gotta leave some options open, eh? HA! Good Fun! edit: damnable emoticons

"Mostly, I disagree with the idea that the writers need to provide exponential increases in dialogue or text in order to intimate significant consequences. They will undoubtedly be forced to do so, but not in every case and not exponentially so." of course you not gotta endlessly split choices... is what josh were talking 'bout when he suggested that there is some guidelines regarding such stuff. nevertheless, the more insular and discreet you keeps quests and consequences, the less meaningful those consequences will seem. make your consequences more meaningful and you is necessarily is creating potential problems. HA! Good Fun!

not really change nothing if party is antagonist or is eventual some group you cooperate with. if is antagonist, then refer to our post above. if is otherwise,, then you still have an antagonist and the other party becomes allay or support cast or whatever. ... am thinking that some folks could hear chrisA say "I like pie," and their response would be "brilliant!" exaggeration perhaps, but not by much. HA! Good Fun!

how is any of that stuff only possible 'cause of having a party as the antagonist? HA! Good Fun!

part of the problem with no-win scenarios is the expectation of the player. TO some degree crpgs have trained us that there will always be a "trick" or a "hidden" catch that makes a scenario winnable. If we could be retrained a bit to not try so hard to make every scenario winnable maybe it wouldn;t be so frustrating for people? I understand the argument, but the purpose of a product is to meet and satisfy the expectations of the customer, not vice versa. am gonna disagree. the purpose o' the product is to satisfy the customer (well, it is actually to be making money for X, but let us not quibble,)... not necessarily to meet his expectations. most o' the great books and movies were not ones that simply met expectations. you gotta change or exceed expectations if you wanna be memorable. sure, is far safer to simply give folks what they ask for, but am telling, based on no little experience, if you give folks exactly what they ask for, chances are they will eventually hate you for doing so. HA! Good Fun!

There has been a long standing discussion in the MMO world about how many players just don't like to be held accountable for "bad" in game decisions. Conversly, almost, many players seem to want to play evil characters without suffering any consequences for doing so. Keep in mind here taht these players are probably not RPG players. You see the result of this in FO3. Destroy Megaton and you can still complete the Survival Guide quests. Don't like being totally evil? There are ways to fix that in game. The trick then, is to challenge RPG players and still have the game remain approachable to non RPG players. Gromnir got the company line from bioware regarding no-win scenarios. biggest problem they had were that the game testers would not accept a no-win situation... would try over and over until frustration mounted. is ways 'round that though. as for what players want... is not a good idea to base all game development choices based on what players ask for. give the player a game that has everything that the Average Gamer wants, and you will hear endless complaints o' cliche and boredom n' such. HA! Good Fun!

"The earlier Fallouts provided many side quests of course, and the decisions made on those quests played a big part determining the ending cutscenes." such stuff is a cop-out insofar as meaningful is concerned. is no different than giving 5 different options at end of game... doesn't actually change anything that haapened during game, but gives you a different end sequence? *snort* such stuff should not get any kind applause from fans as it is the easiest sorta approach. HA! Good Fun!

am thinking that a world without elastic is intriguing. imagine having no elastic in underwear or socks. really. genuine heroic sacrifice in a crpg is an intriguing idea. Player gotta make a sacrifice that he/she actually feels? is done rare in crpg and hardly more than a token sacrifice is made. take focus off of protagonist and let story be told through development of villains and supporting cast intrigues us. is tough to write a story 'bout a good/evil/amoral/indifferent/mercenary who is a man/woman/ameoboid from Tralfgar iv that who may be stoopid/smart/friendly/arrogant/sarcastic/serious... etc. am understanding the whole dream fulfillment aspect o' the crpg, but you is working with an inherent terrible protagonist. how 'bout create encounters and opportunities in game wherein the protagonist won't win. is a few ideas HA! Good Fun!

keep in mind that Major Consequences is always easier to do at the end of a quest/game. any yutz can create 4 different possible outcomes at the End of a game. tough part is giving the player to choose and change opportunities mid-quest. is one reason why the tangential side-quests is great fodder for choice illusion... has those end-quest choices affect the rest o' game in a minor way, but makes seem important 'cause it were a Big Choice relative to the individual quest. such stuff probably can be worked into game without having to worry 'bout possibility o' breaking the critical path story. HA! Good Fun!

am not a big fan o' eye and groin being returned to fo. as we noted, those targetable areas got some rationale for the hand-to-hand and melee folks, but otherwise they not make much sense. heck, it would be neato to give close-range fighters an opportunity to aim for knees and inside o' foot while we is at it, but is not always the case that more options is better. would rather see current vats system tweaked without adding complexity. HA! Good Fun!

"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? " ok, first of all, am hopeful that fo2 ain't the benchmark. second, is maybe a misunderstanding 'bout the complexity o' creating a coherent and compelling story that allows for individual player to choose opportunities and alter outcomes. is not simply a given that a satisfactory balance can be found. given loads of time and resources, obsidian could do a fair job o' achieving both aims, but is a horribly complex task.

What Twink said above, too bad twink weren't responsive. enoch weren't questioning how fo1 and fo2 used eye shots and applied damages n' such... he were questioning the rationale behind including such targetables. to answer enoch question, there ain't no sound reasoning for having eyes targetable for ranged weapons. melee is slight different. eye-gouging is quite effective in hand-to-hand. groin shots is more ha-ha than serious, as Gromnir would choose a couple other easier to target weak-spots before groin, but groin is a valid hand-to-hand target. the fo tb combat system applies to both ranged and melee/hand-to-hand, so is gonna be overlap and discontinuity. HA! Good Fun!

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

"Wait 'til the first scraps of story teasers get released... then the topic will light up." agreed. is some hardcore folks that simply hate everything, but am guessing that a majority o' people is waiting for something more than news that obsidian is working on fo:nv. is not much to be encouraged, disgusted, optimistic, enraged 'bout. at the moment, fo:nv is nothing more than the "prize" behind curtain #3. ... am wondering who is monty hall in such a scenario? HA! Good Fun! ps don't add no more skills. the world map idea actual has merit, but am not thinking that it is a practical use o' resources. maybe if there is a fo:milwaukee?

yes, it is a burden for Gromnir. oh, am s'posing you were talking to josh. *shrug* josh has gone complete undiplomatic on more than one occasion. in fact, some o' josh's most informative postings were ones that occurred after josh near complete abandoned pretense o' diplomacy. were some interesting stuff regarding actual obstacles facing HoW and how josh would do different if given second chance. the wotc and 3e ranger stuff were classic... though am guessing such stuff is verboten. is more than a few instances o' josh going sgt. hartman on some poor schnook who weren't expecting... am hopeful that high-profile nature o' this game Not makes josh too cautious. is always fun to see who is next to gets to play the part o' private pyle. HA! Good Fun!

Everything you wrote is true, but I would like to add that trade-offs in quest design (whether it's in Fallout, IWD, or another game) aren't always 1:1. I think where a lot of developers get in trouble is in x-treeeeeeme reactivity, where interconnectivity between quests and visible results becomes so entangled that two quests of N complexity require 4 times as much time as four quests with half-N complexity. it would seem that few things in game development is 1:1 proportional. that being said, how does a Lead establish clear and practical guidelines for interconnectivity? rely on commonsense o' individual developers seems like a risky bet. regardless, has obsidan decided on an approach vis-a-vis interconectivity and the critical path v. side-quest issues? seems like key elements and we haven't really heard much from developers re. such issues. am actually a little surprised to see the numbers o' people that seem to favor the kotor2 kinda approach. given the history o' the franchise we were thinking that the fanbase (the Faithful in particular) would be advocating the "non-linear" approach. one would expect that josh (personal as 'posed to profeshnul) would favor the de-emphasis o' the critical path, but that is simple conjecture on our part. HA! Good Fun!

"The reason I made such a brazen statement is because anyone can do that." and maybe also 'cause it were a rather brazen straw man. as you point out, "non-moving" does kinda limit the applicability in reference to your original statement 'bout head shots outta vats being the only "legit" variety. regardless, if you has backed off original statement, then all is good. HA! Good Fun!

huh? you clarified the opposite o' what you suggest. you did say vats weren't fraudulent, but you stuck by the illigitimate stuff. made some ha-ha comments 'bout how silly easy it were to kill without vats. "People who can't manually score a head shot against a still target in F3 or who can't build a character that can consistently score head shots in VATS have one thing in common: they are huge n00bs who should probably not play video games or operate a motor vehicle. I'm sorry if that attitude is disheartening to you." etc. am not sure if you really wanna keep this going, as you really did come across as condescending (at best.) HA! Good Fun! btw, "manual" does change tone and meaning o' your initial comment, but sadly that ain't what you said. 'course if it means you has gotten over your prejudice, am more than happy to pretend that you said "manual."

now josh, let's be honest. you did say that it weren't "legitimate" to use vats. reimagine if it makes you feel better, but... regardless, the importent point is that You seem to have overcome your personal prejudice. congrats. now you can move forward and make fixes without all those silly preconceptions 'bout how vats users weren't playing legit. HA! Good Fun! ps slight correction: actual word used by josh were "legit." head shots made with sniper n' such were only "legit" outside o' vats. should not have "legitimate" in quotes. our apologies.

I disagree completely: Main story should not be linear, and should be OPTIONAL. There should be numerous sidequests, both in quest hubs and "hidden" away in the wasteland. I'm all for memorable characters and choices with consequences. is this the right thread? in any event, we is faced with the BIG question facing developers... choice ends up resulting in two veruy different games. focus on making a strong critical path. or has loads o' well-developed side quests. choices in the side quest approach is easier to be making meaningful... but those choices will ultimately seem less... meaningful. quest that is tangential is gonna have consequences that developers can make as insular and discreet as they wish and so such stuff will be easier to implement without running into the endlessly bifurcating branches nightmare... can't genuine allow every player action to open up new opportunities... no mater how many times those old choose-your-adventure books gets linked as examples. linear v. non-linear is a terrible distinction, 'cause is all gonna be ultimate linear, but is easier to create the illusion of freedom with inclusion of greater numbers o' optional side quests. is axiomatic that with limited resources the more time spent on the optional stuff means less time spent on critical path. a game like kotor2 were leaning heavily towards critical path development. how much more resources and time woulda' been needed to makes a kotor2 with the strong critical path (save for the end) and allow for fo3 type illusion o' freedom via the availability o' optional and tangential material? HA! Good Fun!

I don't agree with this. While VATS is functional it has the capacity to easily become a "win button" because in many situations it makes skill stats practically meaningless, something Sawyer pointed out some time ago. If you're in VATS melee, for example, you'll never really get below, what, 90 percent hit chance? And the damage difference between a guy with a 30 melee skill and a 50 melee skill is fairly negligible. What's the point of tagging melee when all characters are basically the same with it? Similarly, the real-time nature of combat outside of VATS allows you to close distances between you and your target and similarly negate skill deficiencies with whatever ranged weapons you're using. How do you balance something like that? am agreeing that vats is far too easy to exploit-- becomes a win button. by the same token, w/o vats, you is presented with the "lose button" scenario. am not ceratin where the giant radscorpisons seems to spawn from in game, but am unable to count high 'nuff to recollect the number o' times Gromnir sudden realized that a giant rad scorpion were only a few meters away... in spite o' our super-high perception. w/o vats we would pretty much be consigned to a reload. the mudskippers, or whatever they is called, were also a pain outside o' vats. sure, if Gromnir can set up a nice sniper location, we can go for the near essential face shot on the crab-men... but in some o' those building locations... am recalling how josh sneered at fans who used vats... suggested that use o' vats weren't "legitimate." HA! Gromnir played most o' game sans vats, 'cause it were more challenging to do so, but am not anywhere near subscribing to sawyer level o' contempt for vats and vats users, particular in light o' the fact that vats saved our bacon more than once. heck, the real playing field leveler for us most o' the time were the victory rifle. knockdown effect made killing the tough critters easy... as long as you had some real estate to work with. make vats less over powereing... and take out some o' the game elements that makes vats a near necessity, but to say that anybody who uses vats ain't playing legit? as if these games got a "legit." HA! Good Fun!