FO: NV

[Slowtrain]

Hey, I love FO. But it ain't exactly bursting with riveting narrative. It's characters aren't bad: Killian, Gizmo, Aradesh, Butch, Harold etc. They have some personality, but they don't really contribute much drama to the game.

Here, while I agree with you, I cannot but think overly emotional/close relationship would have ruined the feel of FO. FO puts more focus on the world rather than drama between individuals, which makes it feel dry for better or worse. NPCs are relatively convincing and they have their own lives in the setting but they don't have too much emotional bond with PC.

 

On the other hand, role-playing games such as Planescpape:Torment focus on drama between characters. In such games, however, settings on the player character tends to be more detailed and fixated to enhance the emotional experience.

 

Either type of "story-telling" is established in its own way. That said, in FO:NV, I wonder how Obsidian designers to keep the balance between drama and the dry feel, especially if Chris Avellone is working on the dialogue. IMO, I think he improved some parts of FO2 but diminished the feel of FO, to some extent.

 

 

For me, Fallout was able to make wandering around in a mostly empty world, poking your nose into things for no reason other than it's there, convincing and enjoyable in a way that Bethesda has never been able to do. Not in their ES games and not in FO3. I'm not entirely sure why that is, really. Fallout 1 suffers from some of the same flaws as Fo3 because of that mode of story-telling, yet it seems to work better.

 

 

FOr example:

 

Junktown, for me personally, is the greatest "level" I have ever played in a crpg. A great feel to the town, a huge amount of interesting content jammed into place. The main Junktown quest of Killian vs Gizmo was fun. But ultimately, when it was all over there were once again no consequencs to what you had done. Gizmo's casino stood empty; Killian didn't acknowledge your pc. Similar to Fallout 3. Difference being that overall Junktown still kicks the poo out of Megaton in terms of just about everything.

[Tagaziel]

There was the end narration of course. I think one of the reasons is that some choices don't have much immediate consequence to them and it's present in Fo1.

 

Killian doesn't acknowledge? That's an obvious oversight.

 

Hub has better scripting, just kill Decker (or any of the bigger factions) and talk to people. Word actually travels around :]

[Slowtrain]

There was the end narration of course. I think one of the reasons is that some choices don't have much immediate consequence to them and it's present in Fo1.

 

 

It's just a personal thing, but I don't really consider endgame narrations or movies as in-game consequences. I kind of consider tham a design cop-out instead of actually doing the harder work of making my pc's actions matter within the context of the time I spend actually playing the game.

 

 

Killian doesn't acknowledge? That's an obvious oversight.

 

 

Yeah. IIRC after you finish helping him, then come back to see him, he never really treats you any differently from when he first meets you. ALthough I think his prices are better becasue he likes you more.

[Wombat]

For me, Fallout was able to make wandering around in a mostly empty world, poking your nose into things for no reason other than it's there, convincing and enjoyable in a way that Bethesda has never been able to do. Not in their ES games and not in FO3. I'm not entirely sure why that is, really. Fallout 1 suffers from some of the same flaws as Fo3 because of that mode of story-telling, yet it seems to work better.

Considering my experience from Oblivion, I highly doubt that they could even realize FO level of story. Reviews and posts on boards didn't seem to deny my doubts.

 

Junktown, for me personally, is the greatest "level" I have ever played in a crpg. A great feel to the town, a huge amount of interesting content jammed into place. The main Junktown quest of Killian vs Gizmo was fun. But ultimately, when it was all over there were once again no consequencs to what you had done.

Again, I agree. Although there may be some exceptions, locations feel pretty isolated and I haven't seen too many interactions between them. Only the simple reputation slider influenced NPC reactions, which is why I'd like to see more realistic reactions through a reputation system like Jefferson, which could track each action of PC and reflect to NPC iterations, making "the world" more reactive to player's choices. However, I admit it's almost impossible to realize a reputation system with the same complexity of Jefferson's, (they couldn't fill it with enough content in the Black Hound, IIRC). Then again, seeing the latest Alpha Protocol trailer's name, I don't think Obsidian has totally given up something like that in FO:NV in a way or another.

[Aristes]

That's why I hope technology gets to the point where some of the burden of the Jefferson system can become procedural. Right now, the changes must be coded in on every action. So, a PC decides to take X course. Now the faction standings must be altered based on that event. What if the PC kills an NPC? What if the PC gives his commerce to Faction Y instead of Faction Z? In real life, even very simple actions can have far reaching, unexpected, and sometimes unknown consequences. This is not true of the game and cannot be true as long as the designers must account for these things on a case by case basis. Even the procedural solution, assuming it didn't just dish out gibberish, would not be perfect.

 

This is where the talk about linearity and non-linearity confuse me. We're caught up on linear and non-linear where I prefer a discussion of choice and impact. In a highly linear story, it's much easier to show the impact of the PC's actions. The problem is, PC is forced to undertake that action in the first place, so it's really not a player choice, it's a designer choice. If the design team puts in five ways to complete a quest, the only choice the player has is between the actions the design team provides.

 

...and I'm not slamming the design team. They can't provide unlimited options. Real life can't provide unlimited options. Why should a computer game, which is an inferior reflection of reality, yield something so fundamentally alien to our reality that it simply cannot exist? Unlimited choices. And even in a pen and paper game, the players and dungeon masters are still confined by their own imagination. You simply cannot fathom what lies outside the boundaries of our imaginations. Even assuming you've got a great imagination, there are still limits to what you can do. "I'm going to use my wish spell to change this plane of existence so that everything in it is part of a single living organism and thus end all conflict for all eternity!" What kind of game would that be? Who would play it? The player and dungeon master are still limited by each other. In short, life is linear. The possibilities might seem endless, but they aren't.

 

As Gromnir and Wombat agree, designers have currently handled this question is to include a lot of optional quests and allow some lattitude in the sequencing and time frame of the quests. That seems like a good enough approach, for what it is. This whole part of my post, regarding linearity, is kind of a tangent, though. I don't see that as the essential issue.

 

Since I can buy into the FO (less structured story) or P:ST (more structured story) options, what I'd really like is to change the choice and impact. On the choice side, and I think this is where Wombat and I have always agreed, I don't want a good/evil or even a law/chaos solution. I want to have a variety of solutions each with a rational basis. On the impact side, I want to leave the judgement as to whether the choice was good/evil, lawful/chaotic, or kind/cruel to the player. The player can decide. On the flip side, the NPCs, when they know what the PC does, can have an morally based opinion. That's fine. ...But the decisions should not be presented as good or evil and there should be some variety in how the NPCs view PC activities. This is an area where I've thought Wombat and I agree. I know I'm putting words in your mouth, Wombat, and I beg forgiveness if they're the wrong words.

 

Now, some NPCs might literally be 'evil.' Which is to say, they would state that their motives are either amoral or evil. That's fine. A PC who thinks of themselves as evil might throw in with them. A PC who had a larger plan might throw in with them temporarily. A PC who believes that the NPC's motives are evil might throw in with the NPC because he is convinced the NPC might have the right idea even if his motives suck. Most players might be unlikely to throw in with an overtly evil NPC, but some might and their reasoning should be just that -- their reasoning.

 

Likewise, some NPCs might be literally insane. They might believe they are right, but a rational PC (and player) will likely see that he the NPC is unhinged. In that case, he will undoubtedly have the same sort of choice as a PC facing an 'evil' NPC.

 

For myself, the worst thing about computer games is not that they're linear or that they lack focus. The most egregious sin of computer games is that they're so. damned. shallow.

[Slowtrain]

For myself, the worst thing about computer games is not that they're linear or that they lack focus. The most egregious sin of computer games is that they're so. damned. shallow.

 

 

I think a huge part of that has to be because video games are still considered a kid's hobby. Even though the average age of gamers is now around the mid-late 30's, for some reason developers and publishers are still pushing out game content that is more suitable for an adolescent than for someone who is 38.

[Gromnir]

Edited May 22, 2009 by Gromnir

[Aristes]

Actually, that's exactly what I mean, although I have not put it that way. This is where I repeat my mantra about putting good arguments in the mouths of the NPCs. Make a real question as to which side is right and which is wrong. Want to include stereotypes? Sure! Include them whenever it suits your artistic vision. Don't just throw them out like asphalt in a pothole. Don't lean on them like a crutch. Give us real characters who believe in what they say and say it well. Give us characters who are so compelling in telling us what we don't believe that we almost believe it. Dostoyevsky feared that the anti-religious argument he put in the mouth of Ivan was so good he could not adequately answer it. Give us Ivan!

 

Where are the Shylocks of computer games? Where are the Raskolnikovs? Where is Oedipus Tyrannos? Where is Satan saying, "Better to reign in hell, than serve in heav'n?"

 

I think contemporary issues are perfectly legit and timely, but any issue can serve if the design team can refrain from creating characters all but sporting the words 'bad guy' on their forehead.

 

...And I'm going to hold forth for just a bit more on this issue. Compelling characters, whether a well placed stereotype or a complex villain, will carry the day. As long as they don't interupt gameplay and create a wall of text, compelling and adult characters will carry the day and leave the player wanting more. I understand the complications of the medium. I understand the constraints of the publisher. I understand the nature of the consumer. ...But I also know that there is a market out there for such characters. I believe fervently it is already there, waiting for someone to tap it.

 

I'll stop myself before I go completely gonzo on the issue, but I do believe.

[Tagaziel]

Make a real question as to which side is right and which is wrong.

 

And this is precisely why most games will remain shallow. The primitive concept of absolute good and absolute evil, right and wrong. It's this very notion that dooms a writer.

[bhlaab]

Fallout does a lot of things well. Creating a dramatic and engrossing story is not one of those things however.

 

 

Personally, Fallout IS my fave crpg ever, but I'm not going to claim it does stuff well that it doesn't do well.

 

And it shouldn't. Games aren't books. You try to create a super-strong linear narrative and you've thrown out so much potential for a game to be a game.

 

The story of Fallout is engrossing, because it's the story the player is creating as he or she plays. That's why people are attached to the NPCs-- because they don't NEED to be over-written and be the stars of BS unskippable cutscene melodrama. You protect Dogmeat because he's your doggie buddy, or because he's useful, or you don't care and let him die. The gameplay feeds the story and the story feeds into the gameplay.

[Aristes]

I don't disagree as to the idea of keeping New Vegas non-linear.

 

However, Dogmeat is probably the most popular NPC in Fallout (and that's an assumpion) because he's a dog. It's not because he's a clever gambit to give the PC ultimate freedom. It is also true that, being a dog, he doesn't do the things that make some of the other NPCs so irritating. For example, he doesn't empty the clip of his sub machine gun into the back of your head.

 

Otherwise, where are the great NPCs of the Fallout games? I'm not just talking about joinable NPCs, either.

 

And why are so many fans of the original games asking for more meaningful dialogue and consequences for their actions? Look, I understand folks not wanting to slam into the wall of text that was PS:T. Yeah, it had it's great moments, but it also had its over-written melodrama. Nevertheless, the NPCs from Planescape have remained an example to the industry. I remember listening to one of the Bioware designers talking about how the team wanted to capture the feel of the PS:T joinable NPCs when they created KotOR. Like it or not, NPCs who offer some depth are popular.

 

On the other hand, I agree about two important parts of your statement. First of all, NPCs need not be over-written nor melodramatic. In fact, I think most NPCs should have some sort of rationale and be able to express it clearly and concisely. I generally don't think there should be a lot of cut-scenes and none should be unskippable.

 

Finally, while some NPCs might offer dramatic elements, the PC should never be required to add an NPC to his party and he should be able to engage joinable NPCs with as much or as little discussion as he desires. Plot/Quest critical NPCs should be as verbose or terse as necessary to further and enhance the story.

 

For example, an Aristes NPC would go on for several paragraphs whereupon the PC would probably shoot him whereas a Bhlaab NPC would merely flip off the PC and be shot immediately.

Edited May 22, 2009 by Aristes

[Oerwinde]

Actually, that's exactly what I mean, although I have not put it that way. This is where I repeat my mantra about putting good arguments in the mouths of the NPCs. Make a real question as to which side is right and which is wrong.

 

Bethsoft actually did a decent job of this in The Pitt. When it comes down to your choice at the end, you are actually somewhat torn as to what to do, because there are virtues to both sides. I'm not totally against some black and white parts, but most evil people do evil because they believe they are doing good.

[Wombat]

fantasy/sci-fi, by its very nature, has a tendency to keep crpgs from being taken serious. *snip* josh gets wish and games tackle Mormons and Catholics and Islamic fundamentalists? won

[Aristes]

I don't really mean like Ivan in the sense of giving a particular speech. I mean like Ivan in the sense that he conveys an idea that is at once unwelcome but at the same time convincing. In the same way, the classic Milton quote is less important than producing a character who, like Satan, can make an eloquent and heroic speech for why he is doing something the PC should clearly see as very bad. Note, this is were I point out that I don't mind thinking that the PC should think that Satan is bad. I just don't want the design team to take it on themselves to tell the PC Satan is bad. Let him put his best argument forward and if it convinces the PC, so be it.

 

I don't know who Tim Schafer is, but I'm glad he and MCA agree on something. Are you Tim Schafer?

 

As regards the age of the players and the designers, I have to say that I think this discussion is a prime example of why we're pretty much where we are. The very discussion is melodramatic. After all, we have someone like me making an impassioned plea for more adult themes and better NPCs. We have someone like bhlaab putting down melodrama with one breath and literally lamenting the commercial nature of game publishing (and offering us jars of his dead skin as well) in the other. We have someone like Entrerix who contends that Fallout is a work of art. Gorilla contends that Planescape is a work of art. Age is not a universal indicator of shared tastes. Even background and education only go so far. Hell, even the steadfast fans of Fallout don't agree about everything. Some think that anything more than a bark and two woofs is melodramatic while others want to have complex joinable NPCs.

 

I take Oerwinde's testimony as to the more nuanced story in the Pitt as a good sign for Fallout 4, assuming Bethesda does it. I doubt I buy any of the DLC, but it's all a bit short for my tastes. I'll just hold out for New Vegas.

 

At this point, I'm not even advocating a side. I'm just enjoying the discussion. ...And a discussion that doesn't warrant some sort of investment in the part of the participants isn't worth having in the first place.

[Blinzler]

Apparently I'm one of the few gamers who actually liked the humor of Fallout 2, a lot.

 

I dunno, I see it as a defense mechanism against the really f'ed up world the character lives in. Just be a smartmouth about it and try to smooth over things with a bit of humor when you once again stepped in big steaming pile of brahmin poo.

That's one option I sorely missed in Fallout 3.

[Blinzler]

I don't really mean like Ivan in the sense of giving a particular speech. I mean like Ivan in the sense that he conveys an idea that is at once unwelcome but at the same time convincing. In the same way, the classic Milton quote is less important than producing a character who, like Satan, can make an eloquent and heroic speech for why he is doing something the PC should clearly see as very bad. Note, this is were I point out that I don't mind thinking that the PC should think that Satan is bad. I just don't want the design team to take it on themselves to tell the PC Satan is bad. Let him put his best argument forward and if it convinces the PC, so be it.

 

I don't know who Tim Schafer is, but I'm glad he and MCA agree on something. Are you Tim Schafer?

 

As regards the age of the players and the designers, I have to say that I think this discussion is a prime example of why we're pretty much where we are. The very discussion is melodramatic. After all, we have someone like me making an impassioned plea for more adult themes and better NPCs. We have someone like bhlaab putting down melodrama with one breath and literally lamenting the commercial nature of game publishing (and offering us jars of his dead skin as well) in the other. We have someone like Entrerix who contends that Fallout is a work of art. Gorilla contends that Planescape is a work of art. Age is not a universal indicator of shared tastes. Even background and education only go so far. Hell, even the steadfast fans of Fallout don't agree about everything. Some think that anything more than a bark and two woofs is melodramatic while others want to have complex joinable NPCs.

 

I take Oerwinde's testimony as to the more nuanced story in the Pitt as a good sign for Fallout 4, assuming Bethesda does it. I doubt I buy any of the DLC, but it's all a bit short for my tastes. I'll just hold out for New Vegas.

 

At this point, I'm not even advocating a side. I'm just enjoying the discussion. ...And a discussion that doesn't warrant some sort of investment in the part of the participants isn't worth having in the first place.

 

You should give "The Pitt" a try.

If not for the story itself, then for the design, because they truly hit the idea of the Fallout world with the look of this one.

[Aristes]

I'll see. If there's a deal that allows me to pick up all of the DLC, I might try that. I just don't want to spend money on the DLC only to have it offer very little in terms of expanding gameplay. I really enjoyed Fallout 3, though, so who knows? Hey, I'm also a Fallout 2 fan. It only gets love nowadays because Fallout 3 is the new target. haha I kid! I kid!

[Wombat]

I don't really mean like Ivan in the sense of giving a particular speech. I mean like Ivan in the sense that he conveys an idea that is at once unwelcome but at the same time convincing. In the same way, the classic Milton quote is less important than producing a character who, like Satan, can make an eloquent and heroic speech for why he is doing something the PC should clearly see as very bad. Note, this is were I point out that I don't mind thinking that the PC should think that Satan is bad. I just don't want the design team to take it on themselves to tell the PC Satan is bad. Let him put his best argument forward and if it convinces the PC, so be it.

I guess I was lost due to my interpretations of listed characters. I can understand Ivan's view on Christianity as a person who lives in modern world. Shylock was often considered as a villain, but not so in modern interpretations especially after Nazi holocaust experience. In Oedipus' case, too, he is not a "villain" since he didn't know what he was doing. However, seeing your point is that making characters three dimensional or have their own views which can be understandable, then, I agree with you. In fact, a part of my confusion is that they are often presented in that way.

 

Here is a relatively old interview with Brian Mitsoda about Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines.

I don

[Blinzler]

FYI:

 

Finally, new Fallout 3 products will be available at retail this year.

 

Fallout 3 Game Add-on Pack #1 includes The Pitt and Operation: Anchorage on a disc and will be available for Xbox 360 and PC on May 26.

 

The Fallout 3 Game Add-on Pack #2 includes Broken Steel and Point Lookout on a disc and will be available for Xbox 360 and PC in August.

 

Retail versions of the game add-on packs for PS3 are not possible and the DLC will only be available for download online via PlayStation Network.

 

A Fallout 3 Game of the Year edition will be available in October. It will include the original game plus all five add-ons for $59.99 for Xbox 360 and PS3, and $49.99 for PC.

 

From the official press release via Pete Hines.

[Aristes]

It's been pretty clear to me that we're actually very much aligned in our essential views, Wombat. Hell, we even seem to be fans of a certain Russian novelist. The thing about my outlook is that I really want to have a more "meaningful" game, but I'll be happy with any sort of game. I can enjoy the endless navel gazing and sometimes outright weirdness of PS:T. I can enjoy the boot to the face gritty and campy Fallout games. Hey, give me a shotgun and a couple of imps and I can forget all about the dialogue.

 

I didn't hate Oblivion. I actually liked it in various parts, but it was fairly shabby on the story and NPC side. It always amazes me that Bethesda can get such good talent and give them such crappy lines. For my purposes, though, I'd like to point out that I usually mean NPC as non-joinable but interacteable NPCs. I don't really like to let people in my party. Dogmeat is one of my favorite joinable NPCs from any game, and that's because he was my dog. Don't **** with my pet, man. I wish we had more pets like dogmeat in these games and fewer romances.

 

Blinzler: Thanks for the info, bro.

[CoM_Solaufein]

For myself, the worst thing about computer games is not that they're linear or that they lack focus. The most egregious sin of computer games is that they're so. damned. shallow.

 

 

I think a huge part of that has to be because video games are still considered a kid's hobby. Even though the average age of gamers is now around the mid-late 30's, for some reason developers and publishers are still pushing out game content that is more suitable for an adolescent than for someone who is 38.

M rated games FTW.

[CoM_Solaufein]

Apparently I'm one of the few gamers who actually liked the humor of Fallout 2, a lot.

 

I dunno, I see it as a defense mechanism against the really f'ed up world the character lives in. Just be a smartmouth about it and try to smooth over things with a bit of humor when you once again stepped in big steaming pile of brahmin poo.

That's one option I sorely missed in Fallout 3.

I love Fallout 2's humor, sadly missing in Fallout 3. Now that Obsidian is doing Vegas, perhaps they can bring that humor back.

[Gromnir]

Apparently I'm one of the few gamers who actually liked the humor of Fallout 2, a lot.

 

I dunno, I see it as a defense mechanism against the really f'ed up world the character lives in. Just be a smartmouth about it and try to smooth over things with a bit of humor when you once again stepped in big steaming pile of brahmin poo.

That's one option I sorely missed in Fallout 3.

I love Fallout 2's humor, sadly missing in Fallout 3. Now that Obsidian is doing Vegas, perhaps they can bring that humor back.

 

dunno. lead developer has expressed some conflicting views on game humor... particularity the fo2 kinda humor. also, as you note, much o' the fo2 brand o' humor were missing from fo3, and that means the largest group o' current fo fans probable don't get the fo funny. and keep in mind that the Faithful still criticize fo2's humor as something approaching sacrilege.

 

personally, we would loves to see some humor directed at the fans... throw in a furry, talking deathclaw dual-wielding desert eagles... have her explain her surefire, no-lose gambling strategy while lamenting that she can't get access to any casinos... drive away in a toyota prius with 1950's styling.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[entrerix]

damn straight fallout is a work of art

 

 

of course, in my opinion there are dozens of games that I consider art.

 

Fallout was just the first one I played so it has special place in my heart

 

 

disclaimer:

i still liked fallout 3, just for completely different reasons.

 

disclaimer the second:

fallout is art, but art is imperfect, so don't mistake me for a crazed fan who thinks it was perfect. the inventory system, the lack of being able to go prone in combat, only a handful of great characters, inconsistent difficulty - the game had its problems.

 

but goddamn the end of that game makes me tear up every time. That game had soul.

 

And soul is really at the core of what was missing for me in fallout 3, there were snippets of it, in some of the recorded notes you find (the teacher in little lamplight comes to mind, so does the story of why the kids started hating "mungos"). But largely the game lacked that special something that lets you connect with it emotionally. For all its melodrama, there are truly some heartbreaking moments in PS:T, and those moments plus the sheer epic level of creativity in that game really put it firmly in the realm of games with real soul.

 

An interesting conversation is why does fallout create that emotional connection with so many players? I think its largely because of the implied impact the player has on the people, you feel like when you leave the town after doing the quests there (ie junktown etc) that the people there will always remember you and the things you did for them, it makes you feel like a hero (or villain) in a way that many games attempt to do, but fall just short.

 

fallout 3 almost gets there sometimes - big town for example. But it always falls short in a way thats a bittersweet. when the people thanked me for saving them from the supermutants all I could think was "i dont feel like a hero, there were only 4 supermutants, you could have handled that without me" it just didnt feel like I accomplished anything. Unlike going with the sherriff to clear out gizmo when half the deputies die and we really would have lost without my presence - then I feel like a goddamn hero (i still agree that the people could have recognized it better - but the end cutscene was enough for me)

 

anyway, fallout 3 is a great game, but with a little more special sauce it could be a game really worth remembering ten years from now. and THATS why I frequent these boards. (ie I think obsidian is bringing more sauce to the BBQ that bethesda organized).

[bhlaab]

Apparently I'm one of the few gamers who actually liked the humor of Fallout 2, a lot.

 

I dunno, I see it as a defense mechanism against the really f'ed up world the character lives in. Just be a smartmouth about it and try to smooth over things with a bit of humor when you once again stepped in big steaming pile of brahmin poo.

That's one option I sorely missed in Fallout 3.

I love Fallout 2's humor, sadly missing in Fallout 3. Now that Obsidian is doing Vegas, perhaps they can bring that humor back.

 

dunno. lead developer has expressed some conflicting views on game humor... particularity the fo2 kinda humor. also, as you note, much o' the fo2 brand o' humor were missing from fo3, and that means the largest group o' current fo fans probable don't get the fo funny. and keep in mind that the Faithful still criticize fo2's humor as something approaching sacrilege.

 

personally, we would loves to see some humor directed at the fans... throw in a furry, talking deathclaw dual-wielding desert eagles... have her explain her surefire, no-lose gambling strategy while lamenting that she can't get access to any casinos... drive away in a toyota prius with 1950's styling.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

The Fallout setting is supposed to be pulpy, and that can be done with a more sensible style and wit than Fallout 2 managed.

 

I appreciate the lighter tone of Fallout 1/2, but the jokes themselves tended towards the computer nerd variety. You know what I mean: Monty Python references, intenet jokes, 'wacky' monkey cheese sort of stuff. The kind of humor that wore out its welcome in about 1999. No harm in smartening it up and having the humor come more from the attitudes of the characters and the ironies that play out in a post apocalyptic wasteland instead of quoting The Goonies for laughs.