FO: NV

[Wombat]

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.

I don't know...I also thought of something like this after I played KotoRII since the game only had only one potential opponent. If you are interested in her, it didn't cause problem but if you are not... The totally different point of myself from Gromnir's one is that I imagined it for something in line of knight Jedi story, where, I think, toe-to-toe combat is expected in climax.

 

As I wrote before, 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. Thus, it doesn't necessarily be ended with the confrontation of an UBG. Probably, a threat should be overcome in the last but I don't think it is necessarily to be UBG or something like that, in FO series.

 

Of course, considering the tradition of CRPG, although it is a heavily clich

[Pop]

That is kind of sort of what they did with NWN2 upon first entering Neverwinter. You had two distinct sides and you chose which one you sided with. In a new game your allies could be your enemies. Of course that only covered a small portion of the game.

You mean, a party civil war? I haven't finished NWN2 OC but I believe it was planned for KotoRII.

Not intra-party, no, although that does happen. I was referring to the point at which you have to get into the Blacklake District and have to choose between the thieves' guild and the city watch. Depending on which side you chose you would conduct missions differently (raiding a warehouse vs. protecting it, etc.) and the people you reported to in one game might be minibosses in another.

Edited May 18, 2009 by Pop

[Wombat]

Thanks, pop. I remembered it now since I played the game till the trial, which was nicely done but quite many people said it is the best part of the game and I couldn't make myself to go further than that.

[entrerix]

i have that same problem with nwn 2, i get past the trial (awesomeness) to the part where i build up my stronghold and then have to do that ruins quest and I just ... stop playing, i have no idea why I keep hitting a wall there

[Wombat]

i have that same problem with nwn 2, i get past the trial (awesomeness) to the part where i build up my stronghold and then have to do that ruins quest and I just ... stop playing, i have no idea why I keep hitting a wall there

The problem I found with NWN2 OC is that it tried to be as many as thing possible...which made the campaign kind of spread thin without focus. Also, the story was heavily cliche. In any case, if I fail to be interested in content, gameplay doesn't help me to get back into the game (The same thing happened to Oblivion). Even about gameplay, I found Mask of the Betrayer combat was better than that in OC.

 

Related with FO discussion, IIRC, NWN2 had a region-based reputation in a limited way, where PC's reputation are different in Neverwinter and Targos. However, since the focus was on narrative rather than interactable world like in FO series, I wonder how much of it was useful in terms of story-telling. In fact, Dragon Age doesn't seem to have faction/morality-based reputation system. Of course, the choices of players seem to have consequences but they seem to be simply based on flag or something.

Edited May 18, 2009 by Wombat

[Gromnir]

"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!

[Wombat]

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.

I don't agree with it. Details may change but, to my eyes, FO's story-telling develops around PC's actions influencing the world. This is why the original FO's ending was ironical since the overseer denies the reason d'etre of PC himself/herself. He found the PC dangerously influential. In this way, FO's story-telling is quite different from Bioware's formula of a hero/heroine starting from humble beginning. IMO, FO is FO in its way while Bioware's heroic fantasy are what they are in that way.

 

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.

In FO, the best NPC is a dog since, in FO, the player character is da man/woman. Ironically, this feature is, I think, enhanced in Bethesda style game-play rather than the party combat in the original Fallout. On the other hand, not having party members don't make full use of Avellone's strength of writing deep relationships. However, if the core story is developed through the relationships to the other party, then, their character development of PC and the other party member could become deeper, influencing each other (Just like PC and Kreia in KotoRII). At least, the relationship between PC and the other party member would be deeper than that between PC and ordinary NPCs. This will, at the same time, reduce the amount of "tangential" side-quest actions since more quests will be related with the relationship between PC and the other party NPCs directly or indirectly. That said, all of this is not more than my assumption.

[Gromnir]

"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!

[Wombat]

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.

It's about not superior or inferior but simply about difference: different types of story-telling.

 

the Faithful never seem to realize that the aforementioned observation is a scathing criticism of the fo character development.

It's not criticism when you don't see what differentiate/characterize the story telling of Fallout. Also, if you are implying something by word "faithful," I think you totally misunderstood me since I'm simply getting tired of the same old scheme of story-telling of role-playing games.

[Gromnir]

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!

Edited May 19, 2009 by Gromnir

[Pop]

I thought Harold was pretty good.

[Gromnir]

I thought Harold was pretty good.

 

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!

Edited May 19, 2009 by Gromnir

[Wombat]

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.

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.

 

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.

To my eyes, it simply explains that you can find value only in a certain type of story-telling.

[Slowtrain]

IIRC, the npcs in FO were initially intended as disposable tagalongs. The pc was supposed to start and finish the game alone. It was ony after seeing the popularity of the npcs in FO1, that they got a more robust treatment in FO2.

[Gromnir]

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.

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.

 

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.

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!

[Wombat]

IIRC, the npcs in FO were initially intended as disposable tagalongs. The pc was supposed to start and finish the game alone. It was ony after seeing the popularity of the npcs in FO1, that they got a more robust treatment in FO2.

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.

[bhlaab]

there is fo:t and fo3 and a bunch o' other games, and they not all follow fo scheme.

 

yeah and they're undoubtedly inferior

[Wombat]

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.

Oddly, I can enjoy both Hemingway and Faulkner, I think both stand out in their own ways. I wish computer role-playing games would have more ways to tell stories and am often frustrated by how they tend to be lack of imagination even compared with more older materials such as novels and films. FO started something interesting and I'd like it to keep its own character. If anybody can improve/expand it in a way or another it would be even better.

Edited May 19, 2009 by Wombat

[Gromnir]

IIRC, the npcs in FO were initially intended as disposable tagalongs. The pc was supposed to start and finish the game alone. It was ony after seeing the popularity of the npcs in FO1, that they got a more robust treatment in FO2.

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!

Edited May 19, 2009 by Gromnir

[Aristes]

I hate to admit I've gotten a bit confused about the discussion.

 

I don't think that Obsidian needs necessarily to go to a funneled story driven approach, although I'm sure pretty much all CRPGs end up there eventually. While they'll have to tighten up the ultimate bad guy, there is plenty of opportunity to create potential allies and enemies, especially in the early game. If they plan it right, then the effect the PC has on the landscape in the early game will still have consequences and will provide the underpinnings of the plot in the later game.

 

On the other hand, aren't there things in real life that happen despite the best plans and are consequences of events outside our control? You eat healthy all your life, go to the doctor regularly, excercise faithfully, and you can still have a heart attack. You can involve yourself in any number of machiavelian plots, masterfully interweaving your schemes, only to have some event beyond your control throw all of them to hell.

 

I can trust the design team to construct the end game boss and setting, but I just hope that they give us plenty of room to maneuver in the early and mid game. Then give some reasonable weight to our earlier decisions as we finish the story.

[Slowtrain]

Ian was some starting help for the pc through Shady Sands and Vault 15, plus provide the location of the Hub.

 

Tycho was an extra gunhand for dealing with Gizmo and the Skulz.

 

Katja was um....I don't know what she was really, but she had green hair. err..purple hair? Can't remember, really.

 

Dogmeat was a Mad Max easter egg.

 

Why the last became the most popular was probably because a) people always like animal companions, b) people like dogs, c) no romance options in the game.

[Gromnir]

I hate to admit I've gotten a bit confused about the discussion.

 

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!

[Pop]

I thought Harold was pretty good.

 

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)

Edited May 19, 2009 by Pop

[Gromnir]

I thought Harold was pretty good.

 

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!

[bhlaab]

Katja was a contingency plan for those who didn't put any points into lockpicking.