FO: NV

[Aram]

I was always confused about where the player was getting some of the item descriptions--how a 3 intelligence, 0% science or energy weapons character can identify the make, model, and even designer of a plasma pistol.

[jjc]

That is one thing Fallout 3 did very well. My favorite is going into a blown apart house and seeing two skeletons spooning on the bed.

 

I think the text box was simply born out of necessity since a low-res isometric world is so abstracted. And you'll notice that Fallout 3 still has it in when it needs to in the form of popup boxes ("You notice bite marks on the neck of the corpse")

 

I miss the extra gags as much as anyone, but as the rule goes: when you can, show don't tell.

With the truncated item descriptions you're still telling, just less (which is even worse I'd say) So that's my beef with that.

"Show don't tell" is an axiom you hear most commonly in the world of film and screenwriting. When you work in an interactive medium, especially when you make a 3D first-person game, you abandon the tools of cinema. Composition, movement, montage are out of your hands and the control ceded to the player is not equivalent to the control you would possess as a filmmaker crafting a linear visual sequence.

 

The low-res worlds of Fallout and Fallout 2 were abstract, but I don't see Fallout 3's as significantly less so. These are still modular dollhouses made from the same few pieces of furniture and architecture that you'll see copy-pasted with great frequency everywhere. I can see objects sitting on a shelf instead of "examining" a shelf to open a separate window; I still understand that I can't interact with the shelf in any other meaningful way. It won't tip over, it can't be destroyed, it looks identical to every other shelf of its specific type in the world. It's no less a "symbol" of a shelf than Fallout's isometric shelf sprite.

 

If the text box was a necessity before, it still is now. The black humor and irony in Fallout were conveyed through text, and not just the text in the dialogue screen. It was a pervasive presence that colored every location and encounter, prompting the player to apply imagination in order to "see" details that would not be depicted visually. It takes no less imagination to "see" a living world in Fallout 3's wilderness of randomly spawning robots, samey industrial areas, or its stiff, patrolling NPCs. Abstaining from flavor text in favor of an "invisible" interface only removes the ability to supply additional detail, additional context, or a unique voice behind the narrative.

Edited July 3, 2009 by jjc

[Tagaziel]

I was always confused about where the player was getting some of the item descriptions--how a 3 intelligence, 0% science or energy weapons character can identify the make, model, and even designer of a plasma pistol.

 

Uh, in-built PIP-Boy 2000 encyclopedia? Scanner? Read the manufacturing stamp on the weapon?

 

There's a myriad of possibilities, all fitting in with the universe.

 

That is one thing Fallout 3 did very well. My favorite is going into a blown apart house and seeing two skeletons spooning on the bed.

 

I think the text box was simply born out of necessity since a low-res isometric world is so abstracted. And you'll notice that Fallout 3 still has it in when it needs to in the form of popup boxes ("You notice bite marks on the neck of the corpse")

 

I miss the extra gags as much as anyone, but as the rule goes: when you can, show don't tell.

With the truncated item descriptions you're still telling, just less (which is even worse I'd say) So that's my beef with that.

"Show don't tell" is an axiom you hear most commonly in the world of film and screenwriting. When you work in an interactive medium, especially when you make a 3D first-person game, you abandon the tools of cinema. Composition, movement, montage are out of your hands and the control ceded to the player is not equivalent to the control you would possess as a filmmaker crafting a linear visual sequence.

 

The low-res worlds of Fallout and Fallout 2 were abstract, but I don't see Fallout 3's as significantly less so. These are still modular dollhouses made from the same few pieces of furniture and architecture that you'll see copy-pasted with great frequency everywhere. I can see objects sitting on a shelf instead of "examining" a shelf to open a separate window; I still understand that I can't interact with the shelf in any other meaningful way. It won't tip over, it can't be destroyed, it looks identical to every other shelf of its specific type in the world. It's no less a "symbol" of a shelf than Fallout's isometric shelf sprite.

 

If the text box was a necessity before, it still is now. The black humor and irony in Fallout were conveyed through text, and not just the text in the dialogue screen. It was a pervasive presence that colored every location and encounter, prompting the player to apply imagination in order to "see" details that would not be depicted visually. It takes no less imagination to "see" a living world in Fallout 3's wilderness of randomly spawning robots, samey industrial areas, or its stiff, patrolling NPCs. Abstaining from flavor text in favor of an "invisible" interface only removes the ability to supply additional detail, additional context, or a unique voice behind the narrative.

 

If I wasn't taken, I'd be booking a flight to your location to have sex with you, you're that awesome.

Edited July 3, 2009 by Mikael Grizzly

[Aristes]

I'm not quite so impressed that I want to have sex with you, jjc. I agree that text is necessary. However, text is no more central to the Fallout experience than graphics. Oops, should I say 'graphics' or 'graphical representation' or some other jargonistic term?

 

Yes, text is vital, but conveying ideas through pictures or even music is no less powerful and has no less a place in the Fallout experience than written words. I mean, I don't know how many copy BIS produced for blind players, but I assume not a lot.

 

So, in some cases I'm sure the design team wants to use text. In other cases, I'm sure they want to use pictures. The idea isn't that one is inherently better than the other. The point is that both are necessary and each lends its own strength in telling the story.

 

Frankly, I like text. I'm for more text.

[bhlaab]

That is one thing Fallout 3 did very well. My favorite is going into a blown apart house and seeing two skeletons spooning on the bed.

 

I think the text box was simply born out of necessity since a low-res isometric world is so abstracted. And you'll notice that Fallout 3 still has it in when it needs to in the form of popup boxes ("You notice bite marks on the neck of the corpse")

 

I miss the extra gags as much as anyone, but as the rule goes: when you can, show don't tell.

With the truncated item descriptions you're still telling, just less (which is even worse I'd say) So that's my beef with that.

"Show don't tell" is an axiom you hear most commonly in the world of film and screenwriting. When you work in an interactive medium, especially when you make a 3D first-person game, you abandon the tools of cinema. Composition, movement, montage are out of your hands and the control ceded to the player is not equivalent to the control you would possess as a filmmaker crafting a linear visual sequence.

 

The low-res worlds of Fallout and Fallout 2 were abstract, but I don't see Fallout 3's as significantly less so. These are still modular dollhouses made from the same few pieces of furniture and architecture that you'll see copy-pasted with great frequency everywhere. I can see objects sitting on a shelf instead of "examining" a shelf to open a separate window; I still understand that I can't interact with the shelf in any other meaningful way. It won't tip over, it can't be destroyed, it looks identical to every other shelf of its specific type in the world. It's no less a "symbol" of a shelf than Fallout's isometric shelf sprite.

 

If the text box was a necessity before, it still is now. The black humor and irony in Fallout were conveyed through text, and not just the text in the dialogue screen. It was a pervasive presence that colored every location and encounter, prompting the player to apply imagination in order to "see" details that would not be depicted visually. It takes no less imagination to "see" a living world in Fallout 3's wilderness of randomly spawning robots, samey industrial areas, or its stiff, patrolling NPCs. Abstaining from flavor text in favor of an "invisible" interface only removes the ability to supply additional detail, additional context, or a unique voice behind the narrative.

 

It's not the fact that it's 3D or HD or whatever. For example, Neverwinter Nights has text descriptions, and I think it works for it.

 

Here's what I think the difference is:

 

In Fallout 1 and 2, the player is looking at the world from up high. An objective viewpoint. For this reason, the player must be told what the character sees and how he or she sees it.

 

Fallout 3 uses a subjective camera-- you're constantly looking at the world in relation to the character. What the player sees is what the character sees. Instead of panning and scanning around the environment, you're actively looking around. It's for this reason if, say, you put the crosshair over a chair and it said "You see a chair," I think most people would have the reaction "Duh, no ****." whereas it's something you can get away with in a top-down view (especially one without direct control like point and click RPGs)

 

You have a good point about the dark irony, but I think that Fallout 3 does have those elements. But again, zoom the camera out really far and remove the player from the context of the world and something could be very darkly funny. However, put the player inside the world and that same thing will be dramatic and sad. This is one of the reasons I feel the Fallout series should have never made that jump to first person-- it changes the whole ballpark.

 

The world of film and screenwriting isn't quite so far removed from games.

[Wombat]

The idea I had in my mind when I wrote about Shalebridge Cradle (a level of Thief Deadly Shadows) while back was that there must be a way to reduce texts without reduce the content. Especially something like Alien setting, I think it can be a way to deal with the issue about reduced texts. So, I guess I basically agree that it would be suitable for the designers to use all means at their hands.

 

Talking of Aliens, how was "radio" in FO3? Is there way for the radio communication to work with the atmosphere and/or story direction? From what I read, it seems to be nothing more than a jukebox to receive radio broadcast. Also, gameplay-wise, in FO, IIRC, there was a radio transmitter. In FO 3, is there a way for scientist type character, for example, catches the transmissions between third party organization and spy on them and/or feeding them wrong information?

[bhlaab]

The idea I had in my mind when I wrote about Shalebridge Cradle (a level of Thief Deadly Shadows) while back was that there must be a way to reduce texts without reduce the content. Especially something like Alien setting, I think it can be a way to deal with the issue about reduced texts. So, I guess I basically agree that it would be suitable for the designers to use all means at their hands.

 

Talking of Aliens, how was "radio" in FO3? Is there way for the radio communication to work with the atmosphere and/or story direction? From what I read, it seems to be nothing more than a jukebox to receive radio broadcast. Also, gameplay-wise, in FO, IIRC, there was a radio transmitter. In FO 3, is there a way for scientist type character, for example, catches the transmissions between third party organization and spy on them and/or feeding them wrong information?

 

If you've played Oblivion, it was an audio version of the black horse courier

[Wombat]

If you've played Oblivion, it was an audio version of the black horse courier

Thanx for the info. Then, guess it's one-sided communication device although it is somehow tied to quest developments.

[alanschu]

That is one thing Fallout 3 did very well. My favorite is going into a blown apart house and seeing two skeletons spooning on the bed.

 

I think the text box was simply born out of necessity since a low-res isometric world is so abstracted. And you'll notice that Fallout 3 still has it in when it needs to in the form of popup boxes ("You notice bite marks on the neck of the corpse")

 

I miss the extra gags as much as anyone, but as the rule goes: when you can, show don't tell.

With the truncated item descriptions you're still telling, just less (which is even worse I'd say) So that's my beef with that.

"Show don't tell" is an axiom you hear most commonly in the world of film and screenwriting. When you work in an interactive medium, especially when you make a 3D first-person game, you abandon the tools of cinema. Composition, movement, montage are out of your hands and the control ceded to the player is not equivalent to the control you would possess as a filmmaker crafting a linear visual sequence.

 

 

I disagree on some level. For instance, I don't care to read something like "<NPC X> gets in a huff, crosses his arms and paces around the room." I'd much rather they show me that.

 

 

The nice thing about Fallout 3's "stories" is that they let you draw your own conclusions, since that's what you'd have to do in the position of the player anyways. It's a bit different, but there's a uniqueness of "Hmm, what happened here....I think this is what happened" that comes with how Fallout 3 does it, rather than the descriptive ways Fallout 1 and 2 do it.

 

I can agree with Aram's concern that it's a bit silly that some "Wubba wubba" type character is able to discern that the armor is made of advanced defensive polymers.

[alanschu]

I was always confused about where the player was getting some of the item descriptions--how a 3 intelligence, 0% science or energy weapons character can identify the make, model, and even designer of a plasma pistol.

 

Uh, in-built PIP-Boy 2000 encyclopedia? Scanner? Read the manufacturing stamp on the weapon?

 

There's a myriad of possibilities, all fitting in with the universe.

 

 

I disagree that it's fitting with the universe. Playing the game with an intelligence of 1 where your character's dialogue is little more than "wubba wubba" would lead me to believe he wouldn't even know how to read about something from the PIP-Boy 2000.

[Oner]

I was always confused about where the player was getting some of the item descriptions--how a 3 intelligence, 0% science or energy weapons character can identify the make, model, and even designer of a plasma pistol.

 

Uh, in-built PIP-Boy 2000 encyclopedia? Scanner? Read the manufacturing stamp on the weapon?

 

There's a myriad of possibilities, all fitting in with the universe.

 

 

I disagree that it's fitting with the universe. Playing the game with an intelligence of 1 where your character's dialogue is little more than "wubba wubba" would lead me to believe he wouldn't even know how to read about something from the PIP-Boy 2000.

And how does he use a weapon? Or how does he make a difference between torso, groin and head? And so on, bla bla, yadda yadda.

Pleeaase, those descriptions are directed at the player, the character and the setting only acknowledge their existence and handwave it.

[alanschu]

Too bad Mikael didn't make the response you just did.

 

No need for the sardonic "pleeeaase." Unless you're actually trying to incite more hostile responses.

Edited July 4, 2009 by alanschu

[crakkie]

Finding the skeletal remains of a guy that shot himself in the head, with the gun sitting next to him, isn't really "show, don't tell". That's saying it pretty frikkin explicitly, leaving little for the viewer to decipher or interpret.

 

I don't have a problem with this kind "visual storytelling" as a medium in itself, but it was never done well in F3.

[Aristes]

See, now I had the opposite experience. I thought some of the vignettes were relatively subtle and I enjoyed most of them I noticed in the first place. They're in place for folks who enjoy them. On the other hand, some of the text was clever and funny in FO 1/2, there was a lot that lacked delicacy or was downright hammer handed.

[Oner]

Too bad Mikael didn't make the response you just did.

 

No need for the sardonic "pleeeaase." Unless you're actually trying to incite more hostile responses.

Mea culpa, not intended.

[Tagaziel]

Here's what I think the difference is:

 

In Fallout 1 and 2, the player is looking at the world from up high. An objective viewpoint. For this reason, the player must be told what the character sees and how he or she sees it.

 

Fallout 3 uses a subjective camera-- you're constantly looking at the world in relation to the character. What the player sees is what the character sees. Instead of panning and scanning around the environment, you're actively looking around. It's for this reason if, say, you put the crosshair over a chair and it said "You see a chair," I think most people would have the reaction "Duh, no ****." whereas it's something you can get away with in a top-down view (especially one without direct control like point and click RPGs)

 

And how would the game show off smell? Texture? Softness? Visual and audio cues only stimulate two of our senses (although only four are relevant, unless you lick every item you find, Jack Sparrow style).

 

Too bad Mikael didn't make the response you just did.

 

No need for the sardonic "pleeeaase." Unless you're actually trying to incite more hostile responses.

 

It's called 'life' and 'need for sleep'.

 

See, now I had the opposite experience. I thought some of the vignettes were relatively subtle and I enjoyed most of them I noticed in the first place. They're in place for folks who enjoy them. On the other hand, some of the text was clever and funny in FO 1/2, there was a lot that lacked delicacy or was downright hammer handed.

 

Something rubs me the wrong way about this post, the end result is "Fallout 3 is subtle and deep, Fallout is shallow and primitive", which is clearly not the case, it's more like the other way around. Fallout 3 has nice setpieces and vignettes, but those alone a deep game don't make (especially if they don't make sense).

[Aristes]

Look, you've got me wrong. I'm not putting down Fallout 1 and 2. I actually prefer FO1. FO2 is my favorite of the series. There were some great moments, goofy moments, and hours upon hours of enjoyment in each title. I'm a hardcore Fallout fan also. The thing is, there were subtle moments that made for great storytelling in each game, but each game also offered some pretty blunt material as well. I guess what I'm really saying is that the visual vignettes aren't any more or less subtle and I appreciated how they played out in FO3. What FO 1/2 did more with the text is provide more, whether in flavor text for weapons or floating text for npcs. ...But I've always said that my biggest hope for Obsidian is that they improve such things.

[alanschu]

Too bad Mikael didn't make the response you just did.

 

No need for the sardonic "pleeeaase." Unless you're actually trying to incite more hostile responses.

Mea culpa, not intended.

 

 

It's okay. I've been pretty snappy lately.

 

Real life is annoying sometimes

[alanschu]

And how would the game show off smell? Texture? Softness? Visual and audio cues only stimulate two of our senses (although only four are relevant, unless you lick every item you find, Jack Sparrow style).

 

I agree and totally support text descriptions for that sort of stuff.

[bhlaab]

And how would the game show off smell? Texture? Softness? Visual and audio cues only stimulate two of our senses (although only four are relevant, unless you lick every item you find, Jack Sparrow style).

 

Text only stimulates the imagination. And when you're sitting inside of the world as opposed to above it, you don't want to rely on imagination to get a point across.

 

Compare Fallout 1's "For the first time in your life, you see natural sunlight" to Fallout 3's blowing out your vision as you exit the vault. Same idea requires different execution.

[Hell Kitty]

Compare Fallout 1's "For the first time in your life, you see natural sunlight" to Fallout 3's blowing out your vision as you exit the vault. Same idea requires different execution.

 

In a situation like that, having both makes little sense.

 

I often see people claim that consoles are the reason we don't get text descriptions, but I really like the type of thing you usually find in survival horror where examining objects gives you the characters thoughts on what it is they're looking at, in the form of text like the Silent Hill and Resident Evil series, or a voice over in Call of Cthulhu.

[Oner]

Umm.. when I posted that pic, I mainly meant the combat messages (and stuff like the story of your 6th toe), not the 'you see a chair' descriptions.

[Tagaziel]

Text only stimulates the imagination. And when you're sitting inside of the world as opposed to above it, you don't want to rely on imagination to get a point across.

 

Answer.

 

The.

 

Question.

 

How?

[Wombat]

I watch films as well as reading novels and I don't even try to decide which of them is a better form. They are just different types of presentations and I simply want to see them in most optimized forms.

 

Text only stimulates the imagination. And when you're sitting inside of the world as opposed to above it, you don't want to rely on imagination to get a point across.

 

Answer.

 

The.

 

Question.

 

How?

I agree that it's a rather weak argument. Imagination plays a great role in any art form but it is tough to be defined...even in Kantian philosophy.

[bhlaab]

Answer.

 

The.

 

Question.

 

How?

 

You said "How does it stimulate smell without audio or visual cues?"

That's like asking "How does text describe something without using any words?"

 

Unless the descriptions you read in books are so powerful that you can physically smell them, there's not much difference.

 

I agree that it's a rather weak argument. Imagination plays a great role in any art form but it is tough to be defined...even in Kantian philosophy.

 

What I mean to say is not that imagination only has a part in text-based forms. I'm using imagination here very conservatively-- Focusing the mind to construct a world out of descriptive text. My point was that words lack what video and audio cues have and vice versa. They're both completely means to the same end. The end being, in this case, describing a smell.

 

I think that if the player is fully entrenched ("IMMERSED" is what i think the PR people want me to say) in a game world, or meant to be, I think it's awkward and pointless to try to construct an imaginary world with text that looks and acts exactly the same way

If you pull out and increase the emotional distance, it's more appropriate. If New Vegas did turn out to be isometric, I'd be all for it. I'm not saying text is worse than cool grafix, I'm just saying that it's much less appropriate in the type of game Fallout 3 (and likely New Vegas) are trying to be. Do I wish they were trying to be an isometric game with lots of text? Yes, of course!

Edited July 5, 2009 by bhlaab