FO: NV

[bhlaab]

I'm not talking about some sort of extreme reactivity. Did I put enough E's in there for you? The whole point about Jefferson's rep system is that it allows the computer to keep track of multiple factions and not present those values to the player. You not only don't have extreme reactivity, you sometimes have no activity at all. That is to say, you have had an influence on the world, but what that influence is and the consequence of it is not readily understood and, depending on your actions, you might never know or understand it.

 

For example, you save the town. Great, you saved the town. I didn't say you save the town and every day is now town saving day for the inhabitants. On the other hand, if you do something so absolutely remarkable as saving the town, a lot of folks might be happy to build you a monument. In fact, the "it's all in your head" arrangement (see, we can both be ridiculously simplistic in assessing each others points) fails when the PC does something truly outstanding. However, what if the PC does something truly outstanding and there's no one there to witness it? That's still part of the "different experience" that I cited. Notice, nowhere in my original post did I say, the townfolks should dance around you, offering their naken and nubile daughters for your pleasure.

 

So, somewhere, sometime, there must be a response to what the player does and that response will clearly be expressed at least partly in dialogue. This was my point in my post about story. It wasn't really to create the backstory the game, which I would rather not know before I play it. It was to express the sort of complex relationships between people. That response will often be nuanced. Some of the factions will be overt, either in acceptance or not. Some of the factions might have heard of my exploits, but refrain from letting me know. The factions should all have a relationship with one another and I will have some part to play in the events surrounding those relationships. By playing my part, I'm also forming relationships as well.

 

Finally, don't boil my arguments down to something ridiculously simplistic only to offer what is certainly no less simplistic on your own part.

 

I was bashing bethesda (and a bit of bioware) not you. Calm down.

 

What I recall hearing about Jefferson was that the amount of dialogue required for its reputation system was insurmountable. Everything you're saying sounds like a great system, but as far as implementing it... If it was my game I'd rather the time and budget be spent somewhere else. But then again, I also buy the off-brand cereal.

[Aristes]

I happen to agree about the limits of the technology. I also think that Bethesda was particularly ham fisted in how they approached PC/NPC interaction. They got the feel of the wasteland right, and they got the exploration right. I'm trying to figure out how someone can step in and take what worked and craft a story that accomodates the exploration and open endedness in FO3 with something where I feel like I'm something more than a tourist.

 

Oh, and I was testy 'cause I got a leetle too sensitive and I can be quite vindictive if I don't keep myself in check. Quite petty. At any rate, I know that my ideas surrounding the story and NPCs are demanding, but I also know that we'll get there some day. Will folks want to play it? Will I be happy with the outcome? *shrug* I just know that I want to be part of a larger world, not the center of the universe all the time.

[cronicler]

Despite being "hardcore" defenders of the "golden oldies", we do have some rough estimation of how much work would X require and since there is about only- 9+ months to base the development on FO3's foundations, It is not reasonable to demand both extreme complexity and massive quest numbers at the same time. I guess I would be pretty happy with a solid foundation of main story and gameplay sauced with small to decent amounts of side stuff. The fact that this approach also provides the modders to build upon strong foundations instad of having to fix buggy gameplay and artifical restrictions every other step is also a big plus.

 

 

Personally I would like to see this game consisting of 5 chapters,

 

0: Tutorial chapter that puts you in a relatively safe envirolment and allows you go get your legs firmly on ground. Getting some traits, special "learned" perks depending on your training and so on.

1: The City/Quest chapter allows you to freely work as a wandering problem solver/creator. This chapter should be about small businesses letting you to get "clearance" for serious missions and cash but ultimately it should be the starting point of the Main story.

2: You gain acceptance to real factions and start doing jobs for them. The few pebbles you started rolling in chapter 1 become a landslide as you add more rocks to it

3: Big Trouble chapter, Doing very important, critical, delicate missions for the faction you support. Maybe even a chance to turncoat and sell for the highest bidder

Finale: A chain of events that you will be fighting to stay on top and not get crushed under the crap you started/caused...

Edited May 15, 2009 by cronicler

[Pop]

If there's one thing to be learned from study of Obsidz' prior stints as stewards of franchises it's that they're intent on expanding the concepts behind the games. I would wager that Obsidz is going to add a lot to Fallout 3.

[Wombat]

is this the right thread?

The problem is that FO's story-telling largely depends on non-party member NPC interactions, who are rooted in the world settings.

 

Indeed, Jefferson's reputation system burnt out even Chris Avellone, who normally happy to write lot of dialogues, IIRC. However, at the same time, I think karma system is too simplistic. I have been wondering if J.E.Sawyer found the best spot in balancing it, since I think he must have given a lot of thought about it.

 

As for the impact of the players' actions on the world, I'd like it to be more "realistic" or at least believable. Means, I don't like it to be more subtle although I know this is just my personal preference. In the Witcher, for example, the main character was not a superhero who can change everything in the world. This is partly because the game was based on a novel but I always feel the choices in CRPGs tend to result in huge impacts on the worlds considering a choice is given by individuals and/or small parties. Some may point out it would be boring but I have to add that the impact of choices are measured by subjectivity and that it hugely depends on the context. If NPCs are believable and thus, sympathizable/antipathizable in a way or another, then, players find meaning in his/her choices which potentially have some impact on his/her lives even if he/she is not an important member of a society. Such a choice would let the players feel the output result or the unfolded story personalized. From another perspective, throwing even a "light stone" to a society based on a delicate power balance may give a believable impact on the society. This is, of course, presuming a faction-based reaction system but depending on the number of faction, it won't require as much as karma system does. It simply prevents the main character from being able to be a hero, due to the moral ambiguity.

Edited May 15, 2009 by Wombat

[jero cvmi]

Something Completely Different

[Kjarista]

am actually a little surprised to see the numbers o' people that seem to favor the kotor2 kinda approach. given the history o' the franchise we were thinking that the fanbase (the Faithful in particular) would be advocating the "non-linear" approach. one would expect that josh (personal as 'posed to profeshnul) would favor the de-emphasis o' the critical path, but that is simple conjecture on our part.

I noticed that too. I chalked it up to a desire on the part of supafans to be against whatever it is that Bethsoft was doing. Perhaps the old Fallouts are too similar to the new ones in their structure. With KOTOR and NWN and other games of their type, when you're on the main quest you're on the main quest, whereas in the Fallouts, you're going to Navarro to pick up the key fob but there are 6 or 7 other different things you can do while you're there, and the steps you have to take to advance the main storyline aren't portrayed as being particularly important. I liked that about Fallouts 1 and 2 (it was more the case in 2 but whatever)

 

I think that's what I mean by linear. I would like any quests, especially the MQ to be sufficiently open to leave it to do other things, and then pick it up later. I don't want to be railroaded down the main quest with no other options, which to me, is a big problem in many RPGs these days, and it's probably THE reason I tend to like playing Beth games.

[H]

Something Completely Different

[TwinkieGorilla]

I think where a lot of developers get in trouble is in x-treeeeeeme reactivity, where interconnectivity between quests and visible results becomes so entangled that two quests of N complexity require 4 times as much time as four quests with half-N complexity.

 

i think it was Malcodor who said it earlier...but i liked how FO2 handled interconnectivity just fine. strictly speaking on this topic alone, FO2 had upped the ante for quest structure and any natural adherence/progression from FO2 would be fine with me. i don't think anything more or less is necessary as long as the quests are fun, meaningful and chocked full of C&C. what i don't want to see are the majority of quests be fetches or dungeon crawls. but i like how Obsidian handles things like this anyway, so i'm not very worried.

 

am actually a little surprised to see the numbers o' people that seem to favor the kotor2 kinda approach. given the history o' the franchise we were thinking that the fanbase (the Faithful in particular) would be advocating the "non-linear" approach. one would expect that josh (personal as 'posed to profeshnul) would favor the de-emphasis o' the critical path, but that is simple conjecture on our part.

I noticed that too. I chalked it up to a desire on the part of supafans to be against whatever it is that Bethsoft was doing.

 

well you can count me out of that demographic which you're either seeing or imagining seeing. i certainly don't want a linear quest with no room to breath. i thought the MQ in FO3 was much too rushed. once you started going down that quest there wasn't much that distracted you away from it into other interesting branches of quests. i really liked the spread of the maps of the original games which is to say i liked that early on you become aware of other towns and gradually become aware of others but never are you told "this is exactly where you should go next" so while you're on you're way to find one person or go do something you happen upon another settlement with it's own curiosities, quests and importance. i don't want a straight up sandbox/wasteland exploration simulator like FO3, but i certainly don't want a strict linear quest like KOTOR2 or M.E.

[Wombat]

I think where a lot of developers get in trouble is in x-treeeeeeme reactivity, where interconnectivity between quests and visible results becomes so entangled that two quests of N complexity require 4 times as much time as four quests with half-N complexity.

i think it was Malcodor who said it earlier...but i liked how FO2 handled interconnectivity just fine. strictly speaking on this topic alone, FO2 had upped the ante for quest structure and any natural adherence/progression from FO2 would be fine with me. i don't think anything more or less is necessary as long as the quests are fun, meaningful and chocked full of C&C. what i don't want to see are the majority of quests be fetches or dungeon crawls. but i like how Obsidian handles things like this anyway, so i'm not very worried.

I'd agree. I'd like to see both political intrigues of FO2 and exploration in FO in FO:NV.

 

am actually a little surprised to see the numbers o' people that seem to favor the kotor2 kinda approach. given the history o' the franchise we were thinking that the fanbase (the Faithful in particular) would be advocating the "non-linear" approach. one would expect that josh (personal as 'posed to profeshnul) would favor the de-emphasis o' the critical path, but that is simple conjecture on our part.

Although I like Planescape:Torment, Knight of the Old Republic II and Neverwinter Night: Mask of the Betrayer, I know they are different from Fallout series, which is characterized by its "non-linearity."

[J.E. Sawyer]

it would seem that few things in game development is 1:1 proportional. that being said, how does a Lead establish clear and practical guidelines for interconnectivity? rely on commonsense o' individual developers seems like a risky bet.

There is a bit of "using the Force" to it; lot of the guidelines are reinforced through lead critique and peer review. Even with an established "quest doc", the examples can never catch every angle of what a designer might want to do in practice. Obsidian's area design docs (or faction docs, or character docs, when quests aren't area specific) are required to cover quests, quest states, and repercussions for those states. If they start to get a little too fractious, I will ask the designer to consider revising how the quest develops, explaining the potential problems with their current plan. If something's outright nuts, I just tell them it's nuts, why it's nuts, and that it has to go away.

[Tagaziel]

it would seem that few things in game development is 1:1 proportional. that being said, how does a Lead establish clear and practical guidelines for interconnectivity? rely on commonsense o' individual developers seems like a risky bet.

There is a bit of "using the Force" to it; lot of the guidelines are reinforced through lead critique and peer review. Even with an established "quest doc", the examples can never catch every angle of what a designer might want to do in practice. Obsidian's area design docs (or faction docs, or character docs, when quests aren't area specific) are required to cover quests, quest states, and repercussions for those states. If they start to get a little too fractious, I will ask the designer to consider revising how the quest develops, explaining the potential problems with their current plan. If something's outright nuts, I just tell them it's nuts, why it's nuts, and that it has to go away.

 

Fallout Capital Wasteland could've used someone like you.

[Niten_Ryu]

Interconnectivity can quickly become nightmare later stages of the project when developers have to cut unfinished or otherwise less then optimal content. Better keep it simple or at least have some type of system that allow content to be cut and still avoid worst continuity issues.

[Aristes]

Approaching it from a dialogue perspective is going to create nightmares. I see it as a state perspective.

 

If you save a village from destruction, there is no way that you will not have a reputation. The Villagers will mention it in dialogue. Great deeds will require overt changes in dialogue. Not everything the PC does will be particularly notable. Even if it is notable, some NPCs will lack interest.

 

If we put huge deeds aside, I like to look at the PCs actions as affecting the state of his relationship with factions. Many of these states need no specific reference within dialogue.

 

SO, you cause some strife for the Village Warlord at the behest of the Raider Warlord. Now, assuming that your actions are clandestine, only the Raider Warlord will make references to your action in dialogue. No one else need explicitly acknowledge anything. On the other hand, there will be effects outside of dialgoue. Since trade is hampered by a lack of capital or bartering goods on the Village Warlord side, the number of caravans traveling between the Village Warlord and the City/Lake areas is reduced. Since the trade between the Village and the City is stunted, the opportunities for raiding is likewise reduced. The Raider Warlord, being a clever guy, probably figured this would happen, but crushing the economy outside the City and Lake is probably part of a larger plan anyhow. He doesn't need to tell the PC all this, though. Hell, the PC doesn't even need to know that he's tanked the economy. The Raider Warlord, seeing he can't take the Village outright, has decided to see if he can foment unhappiness. He probably doesn't even tell the PC that fact.

 

However, the Village will cease to have as many goods to barter with the PC, and the quality of those goods will go down as well. Moreover, the morale in the Village will plummet and the people will start to be unhappy. Once again, floating text over the heads of the NPCs would suffice. No big dialogue tree, just something to show the changed state. If anything comes along to exacerbate the situation, then the Village People might even revolt. After all, the only reason the Village Warlord made it into power is because he offered protection and a little prosperity. Once he compares little more favorable to anarchy, anarchy or rebellion might be what he has.

 

Now, all these states might be made known in one way or another to the PC, but I say let the PC be by and large oblivious to the changes other than the immediate impact on gameplay. He's going, doing his own thing. He knows that he's helping the Raider Warlord. He might realize that the quality of trade now sucks because he can't buy ammunition in quanity from the Village and the types of ammunition is now limited also. Later, however, the Raider Warlord steps in and takes over the Village and now uses it as his base of operation. The PC will undoubtedly realize that this has happened as a result of his efforts on the part of the Raider Warlord, but the dialogue necessary to reflect that fact is minimal and need only come from the Raider Warlord.

 

Unfortunately for the Raider Warlord, he now has an even higher profile. The City and the Lake increase their efforts against him, so skirmishes start to pop between the Raider Warlord and the City and Lake. In fact, the City and Lake now have a common enemy. There's a better mutal defence and they strengthen their commercial ties. The PC need not be told any of this explicitly. What he will know is that the City and Lake provide better trade.

 

What I'm getting across is that effects within the game can help convey the story so that dialogue need not be cluttered by excess text and options.

 

At the end of the day, it's an RPG. You will have to write dialogue to reflect PC actions. You can't get away from it. You will probably make some mistakes, and you will be pilloried for them. If you don't reflect player actions sufficiently in dialogue, you will be pilloried as well. You're don't have a choice. What I'm hoping is that there is a way to get around excessive work for your writers while still providing a meaningful story that the PC creates.

Edited May 15, 2009 by Aristes

[Aram]

J.E., are you still going to replace 10mm and .44 with 9mm and .45, or is that no longer an option?

[Wombat]

Approaching it from a dialogue perspective is going to create nightmares. I see it as a state perspective.

(snip)

I wonder what you have been trying to prove. I don't believe the majority expect such level of complexity... Even Jefferson was not completed. There should be some point where they can balance consistency and non-linearity. Is it impossible for Obsidian to realize FO2 level of NPC interactions? Expectations may differ among individuals but I don't think so many people expect the level of complexity presented in your example...

[fastpunk]

I'll chime in with some personal expectations.

 

Now, I realize the game has limited dev time, so I am not expecting FO:NV to have different game mechanics when compared to FO3. It'll probably just have some tweaks. and some small enhancements maybe. That said, since FO1 and FO2 were more about exploration and discovery than they were about story, I expect New Vegas to be the same. My greatest hope is to get a sense of wonder every once in a while, and to discover interesting places and meet interesting characters. And of course, a reactive gameworld would be awesome. I just want a damned game that feels just as fresh and captivating as the first Fallout. Don't really care what perspective it plays from, or what combat system it has. And I certainly hope it won't go for a story-driver approach. Dunno, words seem to come along harder for me tonight for some reason, but overall this is what I hope FO:NV will be about: exploration and discovery.

Edited May 15, 2009 by fastpunk

[J.E. Sawyer]

J.E., are you still going to replace 10mm and .44 with 9mm and .45, or is that no longer an option?

.44 Magnum with .45 ACP or .45 LC?

 

All three calibers are AMERICA SQUARED, just different eras and applications.

[Jaesun]

Not sure where to post this... but something I greatly missed was ITEM DESCRIPTIONS. Please please please be sure to add this.

[TwinkieGorilla]

Not sure where to post this... but something I greatly missed was ITEM DESCRIPTIONS. Please please please be sure to add this.

 

seconded.

[Aristes]

Approaching it from a dialogue perspective is going to create nightmares. I see it as a state perspective.

(snip)

I wonder what you have been trying to prove. I don't believe the majority expect such level of complexity... Even Jefferson was not completed. There should be some point where they can balance consistency and non-linearity. Is it impossible for Obsidian to realize FO2 level of NPC interactions? Expectations may differ among individuals but I don't think so many people expect the level of complexity presented in your example...

I

[Slowtrain]

Don

[Gromnir]

"There should be some point where they can balance consistency and non-linearity. Is it impossible for Obsidian to realize FO2 level of NPC interactions? "

 

ok, first of all, am hopeful that fo2 ain't the benchmark.

 

second, is maybe a misunderstanding 'bout the complexity o' creating a coherent and compelling story that allows for individual player to choose opportunities and alter outcomes. is not simply a given that a satisfactory balance can be found. given loads of time and resources, obsidian could do a fair job o' achieving both aims, but is a horribly complex task.

[crakkie]

Not sure where to post this... but something I greatly missed was ITEM DESCRIPTIONS. Please please please be sure to add this.

 

seconded.

Thirdid. Didn't Mr. Grizzly mod them back into FO3 in a couple of weeks?

 

And put environment descriptions back in as well, both the area descriptions and for certain items, buildings, people, etc. This could be implemented maybe as a key or button that you can hold down while the target of interest was in your crosshairs and within a certain proximity (dependent on your PER). "You see Dinkle. He is still staring at his hands and is profoundly smelly." "This rusty metal lean-to is what passes for a house in this village."

 

You could add some other uses, such as identifying tracks with Outdoorsman, or picking up clues with a high perception/intelligence.

[Jaesun]

Not sure where to post this... but something I greatly missed was ITEM DESCRIPTIONS. Please please please be sure to add this.

 

seconded.

Thirdid. Didn't Mr. Grizzly mod them back into FO3 in a couple of weeks?

 

And put environment descriptions back in as well, both the area descriptions and for certain items, buildings, people, etc. This could be implemented maybe as a key or button that you can hold down while the target of interest was in your crosshairs and within a certain proximity (dependent on your PER). "You see Dinkle. He is still staring at his hands and is profoundly smelly." "This rusty metal lean-to is what passes for a house in this village."

 

You could add some other uses, such as identifying tracks with Outdoorsman, or picking up clues with a high perception/intelligence.

 

This. Oh gawd yes please this!