FO: NV

[Slowtrain]

Fewer choices; more consequences.

 

 

If a crpg has 5000 choices but none of them matter, then it is a complete waste of time.

 

If a crpg has 3 (three!) choices and they all have a major consequences, then it is probably a crpg worth playing.

 

 

The one choice I dislike more than any though is the 11th hour choice, the one you make in the very last moments of the game to decide which end movie plays for you.

 

Much more awesome to make the final outcome of you crpg experience a cumulative result of the 3 or 4 major choices that you made along the way.

 

 

I used to be much bigger fan of the non-linear, free form, side quests up the wazoo, crpg experience. But somewhere along the line it just stopped doing much for me.

Edited May 15, 2009 by CrashGirl

[Gromnir]

Fewer choices; more consequences.

 

 

If a crpg has 5000 choices but none of them matter, then it is a complete waste of time.

 

If a crpg has 3 (three!) choices and they all have a major consequences, then it is probably a crpg worth playing.

 

 

The one choice I dislike more than any though is the 11th hour choice, the one you make in the very last moments of the game to decide which end movie plays for you.

 

Much more awesome to make the final outcome of you crpg experience a cumulative result of the 3 or 4 major choices that you made along the way.

 

 

I used to be much bigger fan of the non-linear, free form, side quests up the wazoo, crpg experience. But somewhere along the line it just stopped doing much for me.

 

keep in mind that Major Consequences is always easier to do at the end of a quest/game. any yutz can create 4 different possible outcomes at the End of a game. tough part is giving the player to choose and change opportunities mid-quest. is one reason why the tangential side-quests is great fodder for choice illusion... has those end-quest choices affect the rest o' game in a minor way, but makes seem important 'cause it were a Big Choice relative to the individual quest. such stuff probably can be worked into game without having to worry 'bout possibility o' breaking the critical path story.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Kjarista]

I used to be much bigger fan of the non-linear, free form, side quests up the wazoo, crpg experience. But somewhere along the line it just stopped doing much for me.

 

Need not be mutually exclusive. The earlier Fallouts provided many side quests of course, and the decisions made on those quests played a big part determining the ending cutscenes. many of the quests didn't really change the world, but it was fun to see how your decisions changed the future. This sort of thing would be much easier to code, I'd guess, and and it's still somewhat satisfying.

[Slowtrain]

keep in mind that Major Consequences is always easier to do at the end of a quest/game. any yutz can create 4 different possible outcomes at the End of a game. tough part is giving the player to choose and change opportunities mid-quest. is one reason why the tangential side-quests is great fodder for choice illusion... has those end-quest choices affect the rest o' game in a minor way, but makes seem important 'cause it were a Big Choice relative to the individual quest. such stuff probably can be worked into game without having to worry 'bout possibility o' breaking the critical path story.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

I think it would be neat if instead of making the "final" or "climactic" choice at the last minute of a game, the "final" choice is made at the mid-point of the game, and the remainder of the game is dealing with the consequences of the choices that have been made. Rather than just getting an end movie showing what happened because of what you chose.

 

Again to me, personally, its those consequences that are so dang important. Its the consequences that I, as a player, want to see and deal with. Be a part of.

[Gromnir]

"The earlier Fallouts provided many side quests of course, and the decisions made on those quests played a big part determining the ending cutscenes."

 

such stuff is a cop-out insofar as meaningful is concerned. is no different than giving 5 different options at end of game... doesn't actually change anything that haapened during game, but gives you a different end sequence?

 

*snort*

 

such stuff should not get any kind applause from fans as it is the easiest sorta approach.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Kjarista]

"The earlier Fallouts provided many side quests of course, and the decisions made on those quests played a big part determining the ending cutscenes."

 

such stuff is a cop-out insofar as meaningful is concerned. is no different than giving 5 different options at end of game... doesn't actually change anything that haapened during game, but gives you a different end sequence?

 

*snort*

 

such stuff should not get any kind applause from fans as it is the easiest sorta approach.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Well, I want a gold plated Ferrari, but I settle for a Focus because I can't afford the Ferrari. It would be possible to load a game with decisions that branch in combination that would make the national telecom grid look lame, but imagine th cost of that. The cutscenes in teh original fallouts were fun, I thought, and they were easy to do. Heavily branched quests are not easy to do.

[Slowtrain]

"The earlier Fallouts provided many side quests of course, and the decisions made on those quests played a big part determining the ending cutscenes."

 

such stuff is a cop-out insofar as meaningful is concerned. is no different than giving 5 different options at end of game... doesn't actually change anything that haapened during game, but gives you a different end sequence?

 

*snort*

 

such stuff should not get any kind applause from fans as it is the easiest sorta approach.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Well, I want a gold plated Ferrari, but I settle for a Focus because I can't afford the Ferrari. It would be possible to load a game with decisions that branch in combination that would make the national telecom grid look lame, but imagine th cost of that. The cutscenes in teh original fallouts were fun, I thought, and they were easy to do. Heavily branched quests are not easy to do.

 

 

I don't think it is neccessary to write enormous branching critical paths to just give consequences some teeth.

[Pop]

I think it would be neat if instead of making the "final" or "climactic" choice at the last minute of a game, the "final" choice is made at the mid-point of the game, and the remainder of the game is dealing with the consequences of the choices that have been made. Rather than just getting an end movie showing what happened because of what you chose.

To an extent, that's what they did with the end of Fallout 2, though they didn't put a whole lot of effort into it, it was just a victory lap.

 

Problem as I see it is that I've never really had fun playing games beyond the main storyline. This goes for Fallouts as well as the Elder Scrolls and all other games that offer the option. I stopped caring because the world stopped responding dynamically (in whatever small ways it did in the first place) to me, all that was left was grinding and combat. Making the conclusion of the game foregone halfway through has basically the same effect. The whole problem with most RPG endings is that the choices are binary and isolated, not that they take place at the end. Dragging the choices out to the middle of the game doesn't make it any better.

[Kjarista]

I don't think it is neccessary to write enormous branching critical paths to just give consequences some teeth.

 

Sure, but if we want those consequences to effectively change the game world, each consequence, in combination, dramatically increases the number of outcomes (squares it? It's been a long time since I studied statistics), and each outcome needs to take into account potentially a great number of world factors. These things get complex real fast.

 

Some consequences are easier...like the ones that only affect the state of the character. If you go down the evil path, for example, you should expect real world consequences of that action. Social consequences like this are a bit easier, if we have a robust faction system.

 

Thing is, from our other discussion, the player is going to have to feel that they are "winning", no matter what they do, because if they think they are losing, they will complain and quit playing. We'd like to see this game being sold a year or two after published, if possible.

[Slowtrain]

Problem as I see it is that I've never really had fun playing games beyond the main storyline. This goes for Fallouts as well as the Elder Scrolls and all other games that offer the option. I stopped caring because the world stopped responding dynamically (in whatever small ways it did in the first place) to me, all that was left was grinding and combat. Making the conclusion of the game foregone halfway through has basically the same effect. The whole problem with most RPG endings is that the choices are binary and isolated, not that they take place at the end. Dragging the choices out to the middle of the game doesn't make it any better.

 

 

I totally see your point and agree that could be a problem. The key as I see it is to make part of the story about dealing with the consequences of the choices.

 

In other words, the story doesn't end with the choices, rather it ends when the consequences have been dealt with, as best they can be. But the game still responds dynamically throughout the second "phase"

[Aram]

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.

Well for the roles they served in the original Fallout, I'd prefer the 10mm pistol had been a 9mm pistol, and the .44 Desert Eagle a .45 pistol. This could account for the former's lower damage and higher capacity, and the latter's lower capacity and higher damage. They could in fact have exactly the same stats and make as much or more sense.

 

If 10mm was really chosen because of the 80s and 90s fad cartridge, it makes sense in neither the Fallout alternate reality setting or regular reality, and is a piece of errata that could excusably be repaired. The same could be said for the Desert Eagle. The .44 Magnum, being the most powerful factory loaded pistol cartridge of the 50s, should be in the game, but it should be the top dog--serving the sort of role the .223 pistol serves. Ammo rare, but very powerful, and very low capacity.

 

Calibers in RPGs should start low and work up. Having the first pistol you find be a cannon like a 10mm, and having it do such low amounts of damage even against rats, isn't good math. Neither should a .44 Magnum be something you later discard for something more powerful--you've already reached the power/recoil pinnacle of what one could ever sensibly consider a defensive handgun. It just makes no sense that everyone and their mother would be packing one.

[Wombat]

Fine, I guess I’ve gone on long enough. Don’t want to piss off everyone.

I simply asked of your motive. You write a lot of things and I found them rather entertaining but I couldn't see your point. So, I simply asked. I don't know why you take it emotionally.

 

Sawyer talks about Devs taking their games seriously, but it doesn’t matter if they use proxies or parodies when they lack the means for any realistic complexity. You talk about moral ambiguity? Nice touch. Let’s make moral ambiguity the equivalent of moral irrelevancy. Not only are we not sure, but we really don’t care. Is that our selection of choices? Moral ambiguity, moral intrusion, or moral irrelevancy?

Although the morality is just an aspect in traditional formats such as novels and films, in a traditional RPG format, somehow, the theme is fixated to simplistic moral choice. IMO, mainly, Fallout's "story" is "told" through PC-non party NPC interactions. NPC has their own lives in FO world and, through interactions, the protagonist can change their lives in a way or another. So, why should it be fixated to simple morality slider? Doesn't it make the world less believable? Isn't it interesting to see the world is filled with people with their own beliefs and opinions? Personally, I liked the approach of Jefferson since it gives a new aspect while it's faithful to the core story-telling of Fallout. However, I don't expect too much complexity here.

 

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.

From my experience of Oblivion, I found that game-play can be eventually modified through mods but content is a different type of beast. So, I'd like Obsidian to spend more on their forte, making the content interesting enough since the engine is done by Bethesda and there are already some mods out there for the players to fit the gameplay to their own tastes.

 

Problem as I see it is that I've never really had fun playing games beyond the main storyline. This goes for Fallouts as well as the Elder Scrolls and all other games that offer the option. I stopped caring because the world stopped responding dynamically (in whatever small ways it did in the first place) to me, all that was left was grinding and combat. Making the conclusion of the game foregone halfway through has basically the same effect. The whole problem with most RPG endings is that the choices are binary and isolated, not that they take place at the end. Dragging the choices out to the middle of the game doesn't make it any better.

I totally see your point and agree that could be a problem. The key as I see it is to make part of the story about dealing with the consequences of the choices.

 

In other words, the story doesn't end with the choices, rather it ends when the consequences have been dealt with, as best they can be. But the game still responds dynamically throughout the second "phase"

That's the life of story-telling of Fallouts, IMO. The world composed of various lives, with which the PC can interact so that the players can get the feel of "personalized" stories while they are sharing the same "world".

Edited May 16, 2009 by Wombat

[Aram]

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

 

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

Also, some single-action sixshooters in .45 Colt in the holsters of a gunslinging lawman would be fairely bitichin'. You could just cut a corner and let the one .45 be universal. It's also not totally wrong for the 50s setting, as there was still enough nostaligia and interest in single-actions that Ruger got started on them in the 50s, and a .44 Mag Ruger was available less than a year after the Smith & Wesson.

Edited May 16, 2009 by Aram

[Wombat]

Aristes, after reading some of your posts, I found you had been serious. When I replied to your post, I simply spotted one of your posts and I wondered if you were just ridiculing the possibility of more believable world since its very detailed. Personally, I wish such complexity and convincing outputs of interactions would be possible, but I becomes suspicious especially when I think of the given time to Obsidian. As CrashGirl says, I found your posts interesting, too. It's just I cannot frequent the boards often and cannot keep tracks of posts. In any case, I think this is just a case of simple misunderstanding.

[Aristes]

I simply asked of your motive. You write a lot of things and I found them rather entertaining but I couldn't see your point. So, I simply asked. I don't know why you take it emotionally.

 

Although the morality is just an aspect in traditional formats such as novels and films, in a traditional RPG format, somehow, the theme is fixated to simplistic moral choice. IMO, mainly, Fallout's "story" is "told" through PC-non party NPC interactions. NPC has their own lives in FO world and, through interactions, the protagonist can change their lives in a way or another. So, why should it be fixated to simple morality slider? Doesn't it make the world less believable? Isn't it interesting to see the world is filled with people with their own beliefs and opinions? Personally, I liked the approach of Jefferson since it gives a new aspect while it's faithful to the core story-telling of Fallout. However, I don't expect too much complexity here.

 

Rest assured, as damaging as the exchange has been to my tender soul, I will only cry on the inside. Hey, at least you found my posts entertaining. I LIKE that! haha

 

My motive, which I find silly to question in the first place, is simply to argue for things I want. What motive do you think I have? I'm trying to infiltrate the Obsidian boards in order to subvert them and arrange their overthrow to my evil mutant overlord masters?

 

As for the rest, I refuse to be in violent agreement with you. I violently refuse.

 

I've actually always thought that we more or less had the same views concerning this issue. We want to get away from simplistic and morally didactic CRPG storytelling. We both see the player as the best person to decide the morality of gameplay decisions. I disagree that morals are irrelevant. Morals are relevant, whether we call them morals, ethics, or simply significant decisions. I don't mind moral questions or conundrums. I mind the CRPG writer taking it upon themselves to force feed me answers to intricate and often timeless moral questions.

 

Mostly, I disagree with the idea that the writers need to provide exponential increases in dialogue or text in order to intimate significant consequences. They will undoubtedly be forced to do so, but not in every case and not exponentially so.

 

Just to show I'm not emotional, I decide to make myself a liar and respond.

 

EDIT: Wombat, you simply must understand, I will not hold a grudge over these arguments. I'm serious, bro, I might sound irritated when I respond, but we're all a bunch of internet geeks. I won't hold anything against you tomorrow for even a heated exchange today.

Edited May 16, 2009 by Aristes

[Gromnir]

"Mostly, I disagree with the idea that the writers need to provide exponential increases in dialogue or text in order to intimate significant consequences. They will undoubtedly be forced to do so, but not in every case and not exponentially so."

 

of course you not gotta endlessly split choices... is what josh were talking 'bout when he suggested that there is some guidelines regarding such stuff. nevertheless, the more insular and discreet you keeps quests and consequences, the less meaningful those consequences will seem. make your consequences more meaningful and you is necessarily is creating potential problems.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Aristes]

Yes, I think the consequences should be big. However, I think the text need not be so. Maybe a state checking for floating text. Some time ago, while I was lurking around here or maybe some other board, I saw a post by Sawyer saying that a very small amount of floating text could properly convey an idea outside of dialogue.

 

Also, I think consequences should be apparent and could be handled... procedurally? I think that's what they call it when the program handles something instead of forcing the design team to script that specific event. For example, if the PC (et al) destroy the source of the monster infestation, there will be no more respawning monsters in a specific area. That's a huge consequence in terms of gameplay. ...Or the PC does something that hurts trade. His consequence might be to lessen the amount and quality of goods available for trade.

 

The design team can't avoid bifurcation in the dialogue trees. I'm just trying to figure out ways that they could keep it down to a manageable level while still convey meaningful consequences.

[Wombat]

Wombat, you simply must understand, I will not hold a grudge over these arguments. I'm serious, bro, I might sound irritated when I respond, but we're all a bunch of internet geeks. I won't hold anything against you tomorrow for even a heated exchange today.

Actually, a "grudge" didn't even exist at my end since I was simply confused, wondering most part, which is why I decided to track down your posts to find out what you really meant. After reading your posts, I was surprised to find that I agree with you quite a lot of things...so, mostly confusion and embarrassment in my part. *blush*

[Aristes]

Frankly, my post are ponderously long and sometimes confusing. I wish I could restrain my more exhuberant impulses.

 

Still, my posts also tend to be more strident than I feel. I'd like to figure out if this is feasible in the first place, assuming the design team is willing to give it a shot, which is unlikely.

 

Increasingly, I believe there is no chance in hell that we're going to get anything even resembling the Jefferson faction system soon.

[Tagaziel]

Another point: make the factions make sense in the context of the universe.

 

Quite frankly, one of my greatest sources of annoy and amuse is the Lyons / Outcast debacle. It seems to me as if Bethesda tailored Lyons' Brotherhood to be that likeable faction, one every good gamer wants to be a part of, with knightly armours, guns, a giant robot, a citadel! But to me, it end ups trying too hard to be likeable, with medieval overtones, middle ages speech and that gung-ho attitude so cliche nowadays.

 

Outcasts on the contrary, seem to have been made with evil in mind - gruff attitude, black/red power armours... but in the end, they come off as most professional and most useful, since it's them, not Lyons, who patrol the wastelands and nuke creatures that might hurt you or others.

[Gizmo]

Also: There should be a canned food item in New Vegas called "Chef Boyarsky"

I always thought (since it was based on TES4), that there should have been a mad "magician" in the wastes blowing up cars and barrels with an enchanted cane.

 

*Edit: I'm guessing there's too many that won't get that one, so...

 

I won't hold anything against you tomorrow for even a heated exchange today.

Some how that sounds a lot like Wimpy Edited May 17, 2009 by Gizmo

[Jaesun]

Another point: make the factions make sense in the context of the universe.

 

Quite frankly, one of my greatest sources of annoy and amuse is the Lyons / Outcast debacle. It seems to me as if Bethesda tailored Lyons' Brotherhood to be that likeable faction, one every good gamer wants to be a part of, with knightly armours, guns, a giant robot, a citadel! But to me, it end ups trying too hard to be likeable, with medieval overtones, middle ages speech and that gung-ho attitude so cliche nowadays.

 

Outcasts on the contrary, seem to have been made with evil in mind - gruff attitude, black/red power armours... but in the end, they come off as most professional and most useful, since it's them, not Lyons, who patrol the wastelands and nuke creatures that might hurt you or others.

 

Do you honestly think Obsidian would continue something like that?

[Slowtrain]

I did think the red and black armor was pretty ugly.

 

But truthfully I ddin't like the look of the power armor in general.

 

Actually, I really didn't finding any armor in the game particualrly appealing from an aesthetic pov.

 

Also, the male human avatars, at least the ones for the pc you played, had heads that were slightly too large for their bodies resulting in a slightly scrawny appearnce

Edited May 17, 2009 by CrashGirl

[Aristes]

Well, I'll gladly make you pay Tuesday for pissing me off today. lol

 

Anyhow, I think the point about the outcasts is well made. The outcasts who spoke with the PC didn't make a very compelling case for their side. They didn't even try. Between the red/black power armor, their sneering contempt, and their overt hubris, the Outcasts might as well have snatched a glowing lightsaber, lifted a hand in front of the PC's face, and said that he'd failed them for the last time.

[Tagaziel]

Another point: make the factions make sense in the context of the universe.

 

Quite frankly, one of my greatest sources of annoy and amuse is the Lyons / Outcast debacle. It seems to me as if Bethesda tailored Lyons' Brotherhood to be that likeable faction, one every good gamer wants to be a part of, with knightly armours, guns, a giant robot, a citadel! But to me, it end ups trying too hard to be likeable, with medieval overtones, middle ages speech and that gung-ho attitude so cliche nowadays.

 

Outcasts on the contrary, seem to have been made with evil in mind - gruff attitude, black/red power armours... but in the end, they come off as most professional and most useful, since it's them, not Lyons, who patrol the wastelands and nuke creatures that might hurt you or others.

 

Do you honestly think Obsidian would continue something like that?

 

Doesn't hurt to state my opinion.