Gromnir

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. of course crash girl is right. the fo joinable npcs were undeveloped. is no special quality in the writing or character o' dogmeat save for the fact that you like fo... and thus you thinks dogmeat is a great character. the writing weren't great or even good. the only noteworthy attribute o' the joinable npcs were that save for the dog, you not feel 'bad 'bout the deaths of any of 'em. says you like fo and freedom it afforded? fine, but don't try to sell us on great/good character development. is a bit likes Gromnir trying to make the argument that macdonalds is great cuisine. heck, Gromnir likes the big-mac and fries... albeit infrequent. even so, fact that we enjoys such fare ain't gonna make our brains dribble out of our head as we try to argue the sublime culinary perfection o' 'the special sauce sandwich. dogmeat IS fallout's best character... and that is not a positive observation. HA! Good Fun!

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. am not moved by the Faithful arguments. fo is fo... is just another game. stands or fails on its own. is not "Fallout, hallowed be thy name." as for our ability to appreciate storytelling in different forms. we has seen silent puppet shows we thought were exquisite. "The Dead" is our favorite short story, but we likes Hemingway's "A Clean, Well-Lighted Place" very much... and we thinks Hemingway's minimalist story is superior to anything and everything in fo. is odd that we had an opportunity to mention ukiyo-e prints so recent on the obsidian board, but we finds great depth in the stories told in such seeming simple works. Ginsberg attempted to grope us once when we were in college... got kinda foul opinion o' poets in general. even so, we can find great story in the works o' Dickinson and Keats... though e.e. cummings just makes su sleepy... never "got" cummings. movies? am one of the folks that genuinely appreciates Citizen Kane. got pretty eclectic tastes in movies. heck, is some days we ain't sure if we enjoyed Brando more in Guys & Dolls or in Apocalypse Now. we did some teaching... almost always managed to get Gaiman's Sandman or Miller's The Dark Knight Returns onto the required reading list. dunno. maybe is a conceit, but we thinks we is pretty open-minded 'bout storytelling. HA! Good Fun!

and yet he ain't as good as the dog? arf. pant. bow-wow-wow. ... whatever strengths fo had, they weren't character development and storytelling. kewl setting, engaging gameplay, and nifty (if busted) rules made fo memorable, but the storytelling were right up there with the Ed Wood stuff that partially inspired the setting. HA! Good Fun!

if is only different, then there ain't no genuine reason for fo to gets some special label. fo is a franchise as much as a game. fo storytelling ain't the storytelling of the original fallout game. and yeah, the fact that a dog is the best o' the fo npcs IS a criticism. people wanna re imagine a weakness of fo as a strength, but is just delusion. the dog IS the original fallout's best character. dogmeat ain't simply the most popular fallout npc, but he is the best written. how telling. how sad. not need even argue further. HA! Good Fun!

recent bio games remind Gromnir of Tron. always seems to be kinda unfinished and empty... as if they set up framework o' rules setting and graphics n' such, but decided to leave the detailing to the folks who would eventually come along and do an expansion or sequel. look at mass effect and there is so much dead space-- flat and lifeless... and the rules system and story is mostly broad stroke too. Gromnir looked at trailer included in thread and we were again struck by seeming how sterile the environments appear... look past the characters and you might as well be stuck in 1982 watching Tron. bioware approach is not a terrible thing... Gromnir enjoys those japanese ukiyo-e prints. am also a big fan o' some minimalist authors such as Hemingway. even so, other than bg2 and tob, Gromnir has always felt a certain hollowness when playing a bio game... can almost hear the forlorn wind blowing through the empty spaces in story, rules and art. HA! Good Fun!

"I don't agree with it. " well good for you, but that not change fact that there is fo:t and fo3 and a bunch o' other games, and they not all follow fo scheme. is no "fo storytelling," and is worth noting that in any event many o' the fo Faithful in this thread were actual asking for something more akin to kotor2. the fact that a particular feature or approach were utilized in fo does not make such a feature or approach measurably better or worse. is not the least bit persuasive to point out that something were done in fo without genuine explain why such an approach or feature is superior. "In FO, the best NPC is a dog..." the Faithful never seem to realize that the aforementioned observation is a scathing criticism of the fo character development. HA! Good Fun!

look at start o' thread. we began off-topic. HA! Good Fun!

is too damned bad that ps:t is a d&d game. success o' fo3 shows us that a moderate seller from past can, with the support o' enthusiastic developers and a loyal core fan base (or maybe in spite of the fan base), produce huge sales for an ambitious publisher. if fo were resurrected successful, then why not ps:t? answer is all too obvious: d&d. oh well. HA! Good Fun!

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