New Fallout 3 screens

[Zoma]

Oh, also, forgot to say, they've expanded the possible endings from 8-12 to, uh, over 200. I'm sure there's something going unspoken there. Possibly a hair-splitting definition of "ending", possibly a serious case of Molyneuxsis.

 

And Star Ocean 2 has about 250 endings.

 

Eat that Fallout 3.

[Tigranes]

It's a permutations count. E.g. in hypothetical game, Journey of Rowe the Ant-Eater:

 

1. Rowe's loveable sidekick, Herbie, may or may not die.

2. Rowe's requisite love interest may turn out to be either the innocent Amy or the saucy Marilyn.

3. Rowe was able to hold back his natural cravings to save the highly developed civilisation of pacifist Samurai Ants in the equatorial region, or fell into the dark side and devoured the delicious chitins by the dozen.

 

These three variables, in combination, result in an exponentially higher number of permutations. Thus, +200 endings shouldn't require that many variables. According to NMA, FO1 had even more.

 

Furthermore, there is no way they could do 200+ endings in any other way than Fallout slides or some other system that involves a listing of independent outcomes presented in simple text, picture or voiceover manner.

[Musopticon?]

Tigranes, once again, puts it better than anyone.

 

I don't understand this kind of semantics, even from Todd Howard. They can't except people to buy into the number. Or even want to achieve any odd number of endings with only a slight variation to some slideshow or a read monolog every time. I mean, even less variation than between the Bioshock endings 2 and 3, where the only thing that changed was the tone of voice and the music. I have to admit that they have ensured that just about everyone gets a "different ending", no matter how superficial the variations therein.

[Tigranes]

I have to say, though, the original FO-style ending scheme was demanded and hoped for by many FO fans in the years past, and I am personally glad to see it return, even if it may not be as extensive as FO1 (does it need to be?). I think it is a good thing Bethesda is doing here, as far as we know.

 

Of course, I don't like how Todd Howard is hyping it up in a manner that is devoid of context or real explanation, as if purposefully encouraging confusion in order to push forward the magic number - but then, it's Todd Howard. His very discursive nature, it seems, is that of the merchant.

[Musopticon?]

Well, thanks to that nature, it will no doubt sell well, hnh.

[Meshugger]

It's a permutations count. E.g. in hypothetical game, Journey of Rowe the Ant-Eater:

 

1. Rowe's loveable sidekick, Herbie, may or may not die.

2. Rowe's requisite love interest may turn out to be either the innocent Amy or the saucy Marilyn.

3. Rowe was able to hold back his natural cravings to save the highly developed civilisation of pacifist Samurai Ants in the equatorial region, or fell into the dark side and devoured the delicious chitins by the dozen.

 

These three variables, in combination, result in an exponentially higher number of permutations. Thus, +200 endings shouldn't require that many variables. According to NMA, FO1 had even more.

 

Furthermore, there is no way they could do 200+ endings in any other way than Fallout slides or some other system that involves a listing of independent outcomes presented in simple text, picture or voiceover manner.

 

This has to be something from the marketing department. People from the PC-super-human-master-race understand that this is just a number of permutations (3 variables with 3-4 possibilities each), as Tigranes described. The common console-sheep doesn't understand, nor care about these semantics. Therefore, 90% of all comments on the internet will be "OMG!!!11 200+ endings AWESUM!!111"[/RPGCodex]

[Musopticon?]

The common console-sheep doesn't understand, nor care about these semantics.

"baaah"

[SteveThaiBinh]

They can't except people to buy into the number.

Yes, they can. Are you forgetting the reviewers who played Oblivion and then wrote reviews describing Radiant AI as it had been in the hype, not how it was in the actual game?

[Dark_Raven]

I am just excited by this news.

[Rhomal]

It looks stupid

 

Nothing is going to satisfy the NMA type of obsessive FO fans. NOTHING.

 

*shrugs*

 

Until a tile based, 2D, mid 90s era engine is used with the re-assemabled BI designers the FO3 team are never going to 'win'. My suggestion to them, is ignore the hard core FO people and do their own thing. Do their best to keep the overall FO feel but do not attempt to cater to such people. It will only make matters worse and in the end they will STILL be pissy and unhappy with the product.

 

Rather be greateful then someone is picking up our loved gamed and trying to work WITH them to better the product all the hardcore FO fans can do is snipe and condem the game. As it does not fit into their small, limited view of what FO 'is'.

[Sand]

My main beef with FO3 is that they are making it into an action game like Oblivion. Make use of current tech and game engines which is all well and good, but let the damn rules system be at least recognizable from the original 2.

[Tigranes]

Bethesda is hardly 'working with core FO fans', though.

 

I agree with you in general Rhomal, that some FO fans will never be satisfied and there's no point trying to do so, and that there's nothing wrong with changing some things in the franchise in a new iteration. But I think the design process of Bethesda was actually hurt by the buying of the franchise. Bethesda themselves admit that their design process 'begins small' and 'gets bigger'; they have a core 'experience' they want to deliver (i.e. Oblivion=big big world you can explore, alternate dimension, lifelike towns, etc), then as they go along they mix and match every new idea as long as it fits into that general principle. The problem with doing this when you take over an existing franchise is that some of them have never or hardly played Fallout, and come up with their own ideas; others have played Fallout and think of interesting things from it they can adapt into FO3. The end result is a hodge-podge of some things that are very faithfully adapted from FO (e.g. Pipboy), some things which don't have much Fallout in them at all, but mostly, thiings that are oddly Fallouty but oddly not. It is a curious perversion (meant in a literal and not derogatory sense) of the existing atmosphere and image, the identity of what Fallout was, and the real problem is not that it is dissimilar to Fallout of old; the problem is that this new game becomes a misdirected, chaotic hodgepodge of various design motivations and the way in which some FO traditions are involved even hurts the game (i.e. the BOS, the VATS).

 

Of course that's very very subjective, based on my personal opinion of the things about the game we know so far. But I think most people will agree that with the orchestral music, the graphics and all it is going to have more of a recent Hollywood apocalyptic film feel about it with odd, misfitting traces of 1950's futurama; that VATS is going to result primarily in the player watching and going "COOL" while heads blow off in bullet time; that if Emil Pagliarulo's example of a good Fallout black humour is beheading an old lady, putting her head on the table and talking to it, we're going to see a lot more of excessive, juvenile violence and depravity.

[Sand]

With how many changes the game is going through I see a game that is using the Fallout name but not being a Fallout game. No real difference than what FOPOS was. It would have been better if Bethesda created their own PA game, but if you are going to make a Fallout game make a Fallout game.

[Meshugger]

Bethesda is hardly 'working with core FO fans', though.

 

I agree with you in general Rhomal, that some FO fans will never be satisfied and there's no point trying to do so, and that there's nothing wrong with changing some things in the franchise in a new iteration. But I think the design process of Bethesda was actually hurt by the buying of the franchise. Bethesda themselves admit that their design process 'begins small' and 'gets bigger'; they have a core 'experience' they want to deliver (i.e. Oblivion=big big world you can explore, alternate dimension, lifelike towns, etc), then as they go along they mix and match every new idea as long as it fits into that general principle. The problem with doing this when you take over an existing franchise is that some of them have never or hardly played Fallout, and come up with their own ideas; others have played Fallout and think of interesting things from it they can adapt into FO3. The end result is a hodge-podge of some things that are very faithfully adapted from FO (e.g. Pipboy), some things which don't have much Fallout in them at all, but mostly, thiings that are oddly Fallouty but oddly not. It is a curious perversion (meant in a literal and not derogatory sense) of the existing atmosphere and image, the identity of what Fallout was, and the real problem is not that it is dissimilar to Fallout of old; the problem is that this new game becomes a misdirected, chaotic hodgepodge of various design motivations and the way in which some FO traditions are involved even hurts the game (i.e. the BOS, the VATS).

 

Of course that's very very subjective, based on my personal opinion of the things about the game we know so far. But I think most people will agree that with the orchestral music, the graphics and all it is going to have more of a recent Hollywood apocalyptic film feel about it with odd, misfitting traces of 1950's futurama; that VATS is going to result primarily in the player watching and going "COOL" while heads blow off in bullet time; that if Emil Pagliarulo's example of a good Fallout black humour is beheading an old lady, putting her head on the table and talking to it, we're going to see a lot more of excessive, juvenile violence and depravity.

 

Excellent post.

 

It will sell 1 million because of it being juvenile though.

[mkreku]

It will sell 1 million because of Bethesda's great reputation (yes, it's true despite what most everyone on these boards think of Oblivion..).

[Tigranes]

Quite a few core Morrowind fans dropped out in disgust after Oblivion though. I'm not really sure why. I played both games and I thought all in all they were both good games, if not my cup of tea; certainly I didn't really see a case for saying Oblivion was a perversion; Morrowind, when it came down to it, was pretty bland and lifeless anyway.

 

But then, those are longer, Arena/Daggerfall fans we're talking about. I played 30 mins of Daggerfall and my eyes fell out.

[Moatilliatta]

I played 30 mins of Daggerfall and my eyes fell out.

A well known side effect of bad games.

[Pidesco]

Quite a few core Morrowind fans dropped out in disgust after Oblivion though. I'm not really sure why. I played both games and I thought all in all they were both good games, if not my cup of tea; certainly I didn't really see a case for saying Oblivion was a perversion; Morrowind, when it came down to it, was pretty bland and lifeless anyway.

 

But then, those are longer, Arena/Daggerfall fans we're talking about. I played 30 mins of Daggerfall and my eyes fell out.

 

Daggerfall was quite impressive for its time and a step in the right direction, even if it had too many flaws to be considered a great game. It was also ugly as sin, and catastrophically buggy.

 

Morrowind on the other hand is game that "fixed" what was good about Daggerfall, and kept the crap as a central gameplay feature. Oblivion, I'd say it's a slightly better Morrowind.

[Slowtrain]

Daggerfall was awesome. Buggy though, but credit Bethesda for their 9 or so patches + assorted utilities for fixing and cleaning saves.

[Starwars]

I've never been a big fan of TES, but I thought it was a great shame that Bethesda cut down so much on it after Daggerfall, instead of trying to live up more to the great potential found there. I mean, there are seriously awesome gameplay elements in that game (and even more that was planned), even though there are also stuff that annoys the hell out of me. I wouldn't expect them to deliver on it all in Morrowind, but sadly enough there was mainly cut stuff instead of good additions. Something that continued with Oblivion (and it missed the generally interesting setting found in Morrowind as well). This might mean that the game is more accessible, and less of a "hassle" to get into, but in Oblivions case it also means that it's devoid of pretty much anything interesting or "edgy". It's so damn bland, wrapped in a seductive open world with pretty graphics.

 

I think it's fair enough to cut down a little in scope from a game such as Daggerfall, but continuing to simplify and "streamline" (or whatever you're gonna call it) in sequels is definetely not something I like. Just cutting features out is bound to be disappointing for fans of the series of course. I like to see sequels build upon what's there, and improving upon design decisions that were there in previous games. Not flat out removing them, or changing them into something else.

[mkreku]

I still think Daggerfall is the best in the Elder Scrolls series. No other game since has had the same atmosphere as that game had (in the series.. not of ALL games ever). Also, it wasn't that ugly. I thought it looked good when it came. Of course there were plenty of flaws (which has followed the series since) but I absolutely loved the world and the climbing skill and the absolute freedom.. And the horse was cool :D

[Tigranes]

I'm sure Daggerfall was a great game for some. I don't think 30 minutes is enough for me to contradict those opinions. I just mean that, it was just a little too ugly and eye-hurting for me (I can tolerate Fallout and FFVI, but go back to Wasteland it's hard): and there just wasn't much there to grab my interest. Random level design, for example. I could definitely see that there was a huge range of skills though, and some good potential for a nice roguelike experience.

[Moatilliatta]

Daggerfall certainly had a much more interesting character creation than any of the other TES games, if you discount that it was horribly imbalanced. Bethesda really needs to take another look at CC in their newer TES games.

[Tel Aviv]

Quite a few core Morrowind fans dropped out in disgust after Oblivion though. I'm not really sure why. I played both games and I thought all in all they were both good games, if not my cup of tea; certainly I didn't really see a case for saying Oblivion was a perversion; Morrowind, when it came down to it, was pretty bland and lifeless anyway.

 

But then, those are longer, Arena/Daggerfall fans we're talking about. I played 30 mins of Daggerfall and my eyes fell out.

 

Daggerfall was quite impressive for its time and a step in the right direction, even if it had too many flaws to be considered a great game. It was also ugly as sin, and catastrophically buggy.

 

Morrowind on the other hand is game that "fixed" what was good about Daggerfall, and kept the crap as a central gameplay feature. Oblivion, I'd say it's a slightly better Morrowind.

I dunno, Pidy. I kinda regard Oblivion as a simplified Morrowind. Morrowind places greater importance on class. The choice and level of major and minor skills determines the guilds you can join and the position you can progress to, whereas Oblivion doesn't give two hoots who you are, you can join any guild willy-nilly, irrespective of class (Knights of the Nine rectified this, I think, taking into account player infamy). In art design terms too, Oblivion aside, Cyrodiil's a generic fantasy land in comparison to Morrowind.

Edited March 28, 2008 by Tel Aviv

[Slowtrain]

COmparing Morrowind to Oblivion is like comparing a wart to a mole.