Gromnir

Other than asari and quinari, all the alien races were all male. Ehh... they were? Not sure about the turians but krogans, salarians & quarians didn't seem to be all male. That was asari and quarians. Okay, show me a picture of a female turian, krogan, or salarian. can you be certain that you didn't see female salarians and krogans and turians? as were mentioned, the game made multiple references to female krogan, so we know they at least got 2 sexes. as for the other critters... HA! Good Fun!

carth were functional as a joinable npc. he fulfilled various needs... offered combat support and functioned as a tour guide. making him so poofy kinda ruined the parallels 'tween han solo, but otherwise he were not worse than some other characters. as a romance? for folks that wanted romance, he were romancable, but you got an emotionally damaged character who initially vacillates 'tween gung-ho puppy dog and maudlin wreck. turns out carth got big traumas, but thanks to the love o' a good woman and her five or so dialogues with carth, he is able to overcome his decades o' damage and demons. love conquers all, and apparent love works fast too. the romance aspect is part what resulted in carth being a bit annoying for players Not interested in romance, but regardless, the actual carth romance were necessarily rushed. in any other medium such a romance is either The story, or at least it gets loads more development. carth o' kotor is a jnpc that that you can chat up... or not and you can romance... or not. regardless, you gots a bare double handful o' encounters to work through cart's entire melodramatic background if you is gonna get resolution and a positive conclusion to romance. carth were kinda terrible for Gromnir... but as a romance am not sure if you can ever get genuine quality as the entire romance arc has gotta happen relative quick and tangential. is a bad model. is not necessary that biowarian writers is incompetent, but they gots a very unforgiving scheme. am having 0 knowledge o' the carth ii romance from mass effect as we didn't explore. carth jr. were less annoying than carth. never explored the romance aspect o' carth jr., but as a joinable npc he were far less emotional unstable than the kotor version. HA! Good Fun!

"The players don't need to visit in-world places in a certain order although the players may have time limit I think this "clear-cut" linear or non-linear argument won't lead anywhere." 1) Gromnir weren't the one who brought up non-linear. have already observed many times that non-linear is a fiction-- an illusion. 2) show us again, if the illusion o' non-linearity can be effective woven into a game wherein the critical path story is engaging and compelling, then show us. wombat keeps telling us that he ain't holding FO out as some kinda holy grail... but is the game he/she keeps coming back to in spite of the fact that the writing were pretty damned forgettable... and one reason why the writing were forgettable is 'cause o' the fundamental structuring. sure, is no reason why individual npcs can't be given more compelling dialogues in a fo game ('cause wombat suggestion that such stuff is non-fo is clearly ridiculous) , but you still end up with a "story" that is mostly just a random collection o' quasi-related encounters. there is few, if any, "balanced" games such as wombat and others suggest. why you think that is? look at from pov of writer. reduce plot points. makes many encounters tangential and optional. allow for bifurcation somewhere along the way, etc. every option you consider that bolsters illusion o' player freedom and choice is gonna necessarily make it more difficult to write a compelling and coherent story with well-defined characters. go ahead and try for yourselves... try and outline such a story. now, it can be argued that the tangential stuff IS the story in a game similar to structure o' fallout. allow player to makes their own story via the loosely connected tangential and optional quests that exist within a common setting... maybe bolster common themes as player explores world and characters. fine. great. is a valid approach to storytelling... but you not end up with a compelling critical path story.. you not end up balanced. so, show us. show us examples o' success balanced or show us outline or show us something other than faith in obsidian that they can balance... 'cause if you notice, they ain't never actually stated that they could balance a kotor2/motb story approach with fo kinda openness and freedom. HA! Good Fun!

jane austen would have serious problems writing a tangential and complete optional romance in a crpg. how many romance encounters you got in a game per per romancable character? writers got a relative small number encounters that is near complete dialogue driven and they is 'posed to make keep insular. you don't wanna do romance? is not a problem, 'cause unlike the traditional romance in which winning the girl IS the story, in a crpg such as DA you gotta make so that romance is something that need not touch core plot path. bio and other developers backed selves into a corner. the romances in bg2 were popular, so they is gonna continue providing such stuff, but the basic method o' implementation makes 'em seem invariably rushed, and juvenile... gotta get through entire dramatic romance arc with a handful o' dialogue encounters. developers is stuck with a horrible model. ... maybe the biowarians should hire more poets... somebodies who can does romance in stanzas instead o' pages. HA! Good Fun!

looks like THIS thread got pruned. am not sure why. "By simplification, I didn't mean your discussion but your conclusion" conclusions should always be simple. am not sure you understand "oversimplification." is Gromnir that observed just how complex the tasks is that you presuppose. noted that game writing is cooperative and multi-tiered. has technical, economic and artistic concerns. we further noted that in spite o' your use o' the "balancing" language that there not seem to be any observable black isle/obsidian games that would prove your point. if is so simple to achieve balance, then why has obsidian forgone in the past? why has virtual every developer forgone? furthermore, in spite o' fact that we ain't a developer, we did note that actual developers has conceded the point that the balancing is hardly easy to achieve... and you can review this and other threads for examples o' such developer input. etc. ... of course the conclusions is simple. a good conclusion Should be simple, and ideally it should seem self-evident in retrospect. "Seriously, do you really believe it would be convincing in FO setting, where PC and in-party NPC talk a lot," yes. duh. is a crpg. the pc need not be taciturn if player don't wish. and even if you got the silent type, without substantial narration or use o' real expensive cinematographic cut scenes you is significantly crippling self if you not avail self of the opportunity to use dialogue. but of course, there is a right way to do fo, eh> bah. am having to rewrite the same stuff. "Moreover, I thought Sawyer was talking about the difficulty of keeping the dialogue trees as compact as possible while still reflecting in-game events. That's tricky. I wonder what they'll do." eh, where is the confusion? much o' this gets tied together. illusion o' non-linearity is achieved multiple ways. one way is the tangential side-quest. side quest resolutions can be kept insular and discreet or can be used to further illusion o' non-linearity and player freedom by incorporating critical path dialogue options. meaningful bifurcation o' critical path & main plot point dialogues has a tendency to become complicated no? etc. HA! Good Fun!

"It's oversimplification by Gromnir" am thinking that you not know definition of "oversimplification." Gromnir point out just how complex crpg writing is compared to other media. we then observe that it is axiomatic that the more you attempts to achieve teh Illusion of "non-linearity" the more difficult it is to achieve a coherent and compelling critical path story... an obvious point that has been conceded by the developers more than once. the oversimplification in the present debate is the suggestion that the word "balance" is some kinda magical incantation that makes easy to achieve desirable storytelling depth and player freedom. and is amusing to note wombat's suggestion that what made fo characters great were fact that they were gimped... which thus reinforced "lone wanderer" something or other. anybody wanna point out the logic flaws in that one? HA! Good Fun!

That does seem a bit sexist, yeah. Admittedly the slash writers I happen to know are all women, but still. "poof"? "carth were gay" because of, what, his effeminate tendency to go on and on about his feelings? So your general feeling is that women are gaying up Bioware RPGs? Here I was thinking you were a cut above the game forum rabble. How disappointing. am saying that bioware's attempt to makes female gamers happy resulted in a poof carth. is no secret that carth were developed based on feedback from female gamers... resulted in a very sensitive and high maintenance character who were in serious need o' some lithium. is not female gamer fault, but the bio writer in question ended up with a cliche gay carth. get all sensitive if you wish but Gromnir am not saying that all gay men is poofs or that gayness is bad. am saying that carth, as written in kotor, were resulting in a cliche and unpalatable poof character. btw, regardless o' your opinions o' Gromnir, we wouldn't mind seeing a game that made a gay romance core to game. romance, gay or otherwise, is NOT appropriate tangential. as a optional side-quest such fare invariably becomes annoying juvenile or cliche ghey... without actually intending either. women writers seem far more likely to do gay male romance. bioware has a considerable number o' female writers. therefore... is a simple syllogism. is not a bad thing to do gay romance, but as a tangential side-quest option the gay romance is gonna be terrible... period. is gonna be cliche and stoopid and annoying. did Gromnir mention how much he loathes the typical crpg romance formula? HA! Good Fun! ps Gromnir is not a cut above the game forum rabble. never pretended to be. not feel bad that you were mistaken 'bout that.

and yet he ain't as good as the dog? I don't recall ever saying that. I would chalk up the love for Dogmeat to the general dumbnosity of the Fallout public. Or perhaps it was his tendency to live a bit longer than the other party NPCs. I thought Fallout had some interesting characters (ZAX would be another I liked in the original) never suggested that you had claimed dog superiority. Gromnir implied the dog's superiority by way o' the "dumbosity" o' the fo faithful. HA! Good Fun!

I hope so as well. If not, there's always Dragon Age. Wait what? I have not been following DA that much.. but did they confirm Male/Male romance possible in DA? our reply is gonna seem sexist, but what the heck... with all the female writers that seem to be on the staff at Bio nowadays, it is almost inevitable that a male x male romance will be included in a near future game... even if is only hand-holding poofs or an innuendo kinda thing. HA! Good Fun! ps carth were gay AND bipolar even if his romance were hetero.

Please don't jinx Bethesda obtaining the Torment license. *kills himself* why would bethesda getting ps:t be a bad thing. if same progression is followed, ps:t would become amazing popular and then obsidian would do a sequel/expansion. worst case scenario would be that a terrible game would be released with planescape name... which is somehow worse than no new games with planescape name? is a no lose situation. regardless, it not seem possible. d&d is a wotc property and planescape is a dead setting. is hard to imagine what kinda wackiness would have to occur for a publisher to actively pursue the property AND for wotc to agree to the development. HA! Good Fun!

is because we were again confronted by the Chorus' refrain: Woe unto thee who dost not Follow in the footsteps of Cain. Render unto Cain what is Cain's ... fo were great... so obviously the writing and character development were beyond reproach, no? no. *shrug* am having no genuine problem if obsidian wants to do fo:nv similar to fo, but such an approach does make a coherent and compelling critical path story much more difficult to achieve. fo didn't achieve. fo didn't have even good character development, much less great character development. is it possible to do great story and do similar to fo? yeah, but fo ain't the measure o' success, 'cause fo didn't succeed. HA! Good Fun!

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!