Fallout 3's Writing issues

[WriteGuard]

I apologize for reviving an old topic in this thread; I was intrigued by the discussion of writing (or lack thereof) in Fallout 3. I agree that in most ways, the writing of Fallout 1/2 is superior, but I feel there are a few points the previous discussions missed:

 

1. There was a lack of differentiation in this board's argument between written/spoken dialogue of characters and the actual storyline itself. For the purposes of clarity, I will refer to the dialogue as dialogue, and the plot, character development, conflict etc.. as storyline development.

 

As for the dialogue, I commend Bethesda for keeping dialogue simplistic: very few people in the wastes would be educated at all; oral language would dominate, and in F4 or F:NLV, I say dumb down the population even more. Sometimes I felt the dialogue was banal, and in some cases contrived, but I didn't think it wasn't as weak as other aspects of "writing" in F3. If anything, the dialogue should be more varied, including accents, and characters who are difficult to understand. I hate Borderlands, but at least they had characters with backwater pigeon speak.

 

As for storyline development, the writing is solid enough. Plot line development in F3 is superior to F1&2 and is more cogent. I do feel side quests and secondary quests in F1&2 are more enjoyable and better written.

 

 

2. Fallout 3 is, for the lionshare, contains scripted, voiced dialogue. This is in stark contrast to the minimal voice work in fallout 1 & 2. While this is no excuse for the often low quality of the writing in F3, it does highlight some of the problems Bethesda had in creating all spoken dialogue. I found some of the most meaningful, creative and witty dialogue in F1&2 was text-on-screen only.

 

I do abhor the minimal use of voice talent in F3. I'm sure Mr. Burke in F3 is the Grey Fox (and a number of other characters) from Oblivion. It makes it really boring when everyone looks and sounds the same. Big flaw.

 

3. It behooves us to keep in mind what context this discussion takes place: a video game. While many people in this board seem well read, or at least seem to appreciate literary elements in a good video game, I imagine the overwhelming population of VG players prefer graphics and playability over storyline. unfortunately, Bethesday (and to some degree Obsidian) need to do what's in the best interest of the people who supply the money- which is to create a profitable game. That means simplifying it a suitable enough amount to have some broad appeal. While that broad appeal is what offends most of us, it makes the game eminently more playable.

 

We need to look at the accomplishment of F3 in it's context: we're talking about a game that cost tens of millions to create. If we were to compare the Fallout series to the movie industry, Fallout 3 might take on the role of a blockbuster, while F1&2 would be more niche, independent films. This creates a challenge for the creators: how to keep the game true to its "Indie" following, while making it profitable. Imagine if F3 was only enjoyable to the few hundred thousand die-hard fallout fans? Right, there would not be a F4 or New Las Vegas, or, eventually, a possible MMOG.

 

I'm not sponsering selling out. I'm simply elucidating the fact that Bethesda probably had significant pressure to make certain decision which made the game, err, a bit more bland. Hopefully the Obsidian designers listen to this debate and keep a couple things in mind while crafting F:NLV:

-Storyline is important. Start there.

 

-Amazing graphics and a enormous sand box filled with baddies is great, but keep the edge that made the Fallout series famous.

 

-Good dialogue is important and we will get bored if it is more of the same. If you are going to have expansive dialogue, have enough disparate voice talent. Take a page from the Rockstar playbook and pay them all minimum wage. We don't care.

 

-Sidequests are what make the Fallout series great. Give us more thoughtfully crafted sidestory.

 

-Writing aside, bring back gambling.

 

Humbly Submitted,

 

Writeguard

[GreasyDogMeat]

Good post! Agree on most points, my only real point of contention being that F1/2's sidequests were better. I personally loved F3's sidequests and, for me, they saved the game from the horrible main story. The main story actually started out pretty good. I liked the father character, and was motivated to find him. It ended up taking a nose dive somewhere around the middle of the main story.

[vault_overseer]

Right, Bethesda are smart guys that deliberately made a dumb game, so it sells. Riiiigghhhht

[RPGmasterBoo]

We need to look at the accomplishment of F3 in it's context: we're talking about a game that cost tens of millions to create. If we were to compare the Fallout series to the movie industry, Fallout 3 might take on the role of a blockbuster, while F1&2 would be more niche, independent films. This creates a challenge for the creators: how to keep the game true to its "Indie" following, while making it profitable. Imagine if F3 was only enjoyable to the few hundred thousand die-hard fallout fans? Right, there would not be a F4 or New Las Vegas, or, eventually, a possible MMOG.

 

I think the comparison isn't really adequate since Fallout was backed by a relatively strong studio and was marketed just like any other game at the time. It only becomes a niche thing when you look at it from today's point of view and see a hundred reasons why it wouldn't make money. That also speaks volumes of the time we live in, since a strong studio today would rather strangle itself than stand behind a game that dares to be different.

 

What's grating about Bethesda IMO is that they never tried to make a Fallout game, rather they shoehorned Fallout concepts it into an Elder Scrolls game. Which is ultimately unnecessary. If you want to make an Elder Scrolls game, go ahead but why screw with a license that you obviously have no idea what to do with and can't match in creativity? That's what infuriates people.

 

Just to make it clear, while I appreciate Fallout games - I've never really enjoyed them, but I can see what the NMA people are talking about and back their views on the matter.

 

Bethesda effectively raped Fallout, but knowing their track record that was to be expected. Thus the guilt is squarely on the shoulders of the people who sold them the license.

[Guest Slinky]

What's grating about Bethesda IMO is that they never tried to make a Fallout game, rather they shoehorned Fallout concepts it into an Elder Scrolls game. Which is ultimately unnecessary. If you want to make an Elder Scrolls game, go ahead but why screw with a license that you obviously have no idea what to do with and can't match in creativity? That's what infuriates people.

There.

 

I was about to say the same thing, just not that nicely.

[Oner]

they shoehorned Fallout concepts into an Elder Scrolls game. Which is ultimately unnecessary. If you want to make an Elder Scrolls game, go ahead but why screw with a license that you obviously have no idea what to do with and can't match in creativity? That's what infuriates people.

+1

[Malcador]

There was plot line development in Fallout 3?

[WriteGuard]

What's grating about Bethesda IMO is that they never tried to make a Fallout game, rather they shoehorned Fallout concepts it into an Elder Scrolls game. Which is ultimately unnecessary. If you want to make an Elder Scrolls game, go ahead but why screw with a license that you obviously have no idea what to do with and can't match in creativity? That's what infuriates people.

There.

 

I was about to say the same thing, just not that nicely.

 

Agreed. But looking at and having played bits of the failed Van Buren (the original BIS attempt at FO3), it's clear to me that stylistically, the Beth version is much more visually stunning and eminently more playable. I don't ever think that was debated. Whether the completely realized BIS FO3 would've been written better is up for debate.

 

When I first played FO3 I was a bit turned off by the very "Shoehorned" way the Fallout series was turned into an Elder Sctroll. But there is validity in thinking it worked on some levels.

Specifically:

-The wildly more enjoyable peregrination through the wastelands in 1st (or 3rd) person.

-The experience of fallout is vividly improved and more actualized in the 3d environment.

-More expansive and freer gameplay is allowed (as it is sought after by many players)

 

I'm in no way saying Bethesda did the best possible job on FO3 as other may have. I don't even feel they did as well as they could've; but I'm happy to see FO realized in an epic, eminently playable world.

 

IMO, I believe that aside from Bethesda's many shortcomings with this game, many complaints about Bethesda and their games (FO3, Oblivion, et al) come not in their specific failures, but in their drastic departure from the RPG games some here may enjoy more. There seems to be a bias toward RPG-style games that preserve the tennets of the genre.

 

True RPG fans must see Bethesda's 1st person-ification of these games as more of an affront and a bastardization than most.

 

As not a fan of RPG's per se, but rather the Fallout series, I am willing to overlook FO3 being Bethesd-ized; so long as they continue to improve the other, more glaring faults of the game. Notably, the lackluster dialogue, and the depth of all the quests. They also need to bring back the highly entertaining easter-egg style references and allusions to pop culture, like FO1&2 did.

 

And if anyone fromt Obsidian is listening- the game is rated M for mature: let's bring back more of the sex, drugs and gambling that made FO1&2 fun.

[Hurlshort]

I agree with Writeguard.

[RPGmasterBoo]

You're comparing a finished multi-million dollar product with what remains of an older and never completed game? That's not really just is it?

 

I'm not rooting for Van Buren per se, though it stands to reason that the original creators of a game would have a better idea what to do with it that anyone else. Regardless its not a question of Van Buren vs F3, it the question whether it would have been better that Fallout 3 was never released if it was going to be done this way.

And I'd say yes.

Bethesda should have made their own post apocalyptic license that can resemble Fallout as much as it wants and spared many people the grief of waiting for something for years to ultimately get a slap in the face.

 

Some of your other arguments are perhaps also debatable.

Such as:

 

The experience of fallout is vividly improved and more actualized in the 3d environment.

 

3D is the standard, and Fallout 3 would have been 3D regardless of who made it.

The wildly more enjoyable peregrination through the wastelands in 1st (or 3rd) person.

 

Perhaps (though I'm more inclined towards isometric), but it led to a serious conceptual problem. If everything was to be walked in through in first person, the empty areas would be horribly boring. Thus the "wasteland" had to be stuffed full of creatures and locations, which turned it into a zoo, which in turn beats the very idea of a wasteland.

 

-More expansive and freer gameplay is allowed (as it is sought after by many players)

 

Which as is the custom of sandbox gameplay leads to a meaningless scavenger hunt. Fallout itself was far more open than other contemporary RPG's (F2 especially), and I never heard anyone complaining about a lack of freedom or options in Fallout. Actually that was the game's greatest virtue.

 

 

True RPG fans must see Bethesda's 1st person-ification of these games as more of an affront and a bastardization than most.

 

First person RPG's have been around as long as isometry, perhaps even longer. With Baldurs Gate and Diablo rising in popularity they in turn fell until finally the Might and Magic series bit the dust.

Bethesda is the only company to still make them and make money of the concept, mostly because they ditched much of the role play and went for the Grand Theft Auto approach, of creating a big world and stuffing it with "cool sh!t".

 

The perspective is not an issue as to what makes a true RPG, rather its a satisfying combination and depth of story, characters and game mechanics. Sometimes just one of these aspects is enough.

 

The trouble with F3 is that it has none of that. Its characters and story are paper thin, its game mechanics simplistic and broken - but my greatest gripe with it is that I didn't want to play Oblivion again - I wanted to play Fallout.

[TwinkieGorilla]

Agreed. But looking at and having played bits of the failed Van Buren (the original BIS attempt at FO3), it's clear to me that stylistically, the Beth version is much more visually stunning and eminently more playable.

 

DUDE.

 

it was an alpha demo, meant to show basic game mechanics in progress. the heck is wrong with you?

[RPGmasterBoo]

Be nice to the guy, he just arrived.

[Morgoth]

I found most of the F1/F2 writing shallow as well.

[Slowtrain]

I'm sure Mr. Burke in F3 is the Grey Fox (and a number of other characters) from Oblivion. It makes it really boring when everyone looks and sounds the same.

 

 

Wes Johnson is the best voice actor Bethesda has used over the last few games. It's just too bad he has to do so many different NPCs.

[Slowtrain]

As for storyline development, the writing is solid enough. Plot line development in F3 is superior to F1&2 and is more cogent. I do feel side quests and secondary quests in F1&2 are more enjoyable and better written.

 

 

While I will agree that the main stories of Fallout 1 and 2 are not particularly riveting, the main quest in Fallout 3 is a freaking joke.

 

 

Mostly because Fallout 3 uses the pc's "relationship" with the father as the lynchpin for most of the MQ, yet NEVER makes any attempt to develop the relationship between the two.

 

 

There's some brief interaction at the start, then he disappears, but there's be no reason established why I, as the pc, would go waste any time finding my father. Bethesda just assumes that labeling an NPC "father" means the relationship needs no actual development and they don't have to strain themselves trying to write something meaningful.

 

 

Its the epitome of really lazy and inept writing.

 

 

 

edit: spelling

Edited January 12, 2010 by Slowtrain

[WriteGuard]

You're comparing a finished multi-million dollar product with what remains of an older and never completed game? That's not really just is it?

 

To both posters who said Van Buren was just a crudely alpha demo, I agree, but that's not the point. The point is in 2003 when the game was being created, BIS opted to stay with the same approach to the game, in terms of interface. And I think that of everything I liked about FO1&2, I liked the interface the least. It was prosaic and uninspired. The game's rich story, the vivid idea of a post-apocalyptic reality where good struggles daily against evil, this is the firs two game's legacy.

 

And I think that brings us to the point we agree on. Aside from style and the game's world engine/interface, we agree that the storyline is thin and does not incorporate the same depth into the FO universe's canon that the other FO's did(or more aptly, it doesn't create the same rich canon). I only hope Obsidian delves deeper into a more realized storyline in NLV, and FO4 is more than the same.

 

Which as is the custom of sandbox gameplay leads to a meaningless scavenger hunt. Fallout itself was far more open than other contemporary RPG's (F2 especially), and I never heard anyone complaining about a lack of freedom or options in Fallout. Actually that was the game's greatest virtue.

 

What I spoke to, more specifically, was the lack of wasteland to be visited. True, the quests in FO1&2 were great and free, but there was nothing to do in between the limited amount of cities. A shame. What you call a zoo, I see as an honest attempt to imagine the spaces in between what are left of organized groups of people. The ideas of random encounters and nomadic traders is neat; the monsters prowling would exist as well, as they've lost the bulk of their natural predators and searched everywhere for food.

[HoonDing]

There's some brief interaction at the start, then he disappears, but there's be no reason established why I, as the pc, would go waste any time finding my father.

Isn't that the point? If you don't want to bother with the main quest, don't. The same goes for all Beth's RPGs.

[Oner]

And I think that of everything I liked about FO1&2, I liked the interface the least. It was prosaic and uninspired.

Give me an example of an inspired interface please.

[Slowtrain]

There's some brief interaction at the start, then he disappears, but there's be no reason established why I, as the pc, would go waste any time finding my father.

Isn't that the point? If you don't want to bother with the main quest, don't. The same goes for all Beth's RPGs.

 

 

Fine. But that's not really good writing then, is it? It's just a token crap story to hang the game on. Which is fine. But that's different from saying it's good writing.

 

 

I mean, it's a hard thing to even debate, Beth's writing is so horrible. Dont' get me wrong, Beth has some things they do well, but writing isn't one of them. They make freaking Bioware look like Shakespeare.

[HoonDing]

I mean, it's a hard thing to even debate, Beth's writing is so horrible. Dont' get me wrong, Beth has some things they do well, but writing isn't one of them. They make freaking Bioware look like Shakespeare.

Post-Morrowind Bethesda, yep.

[WriteGuard]

Mostly because Fallout 3 uses the pc's "relationship" with the father as the lynchpin for most of the MQ, yet NEVER makes any attempt to develop the relationship between the two.

 

There's some brief interaction at the start, then he disappears, but there's be no reason established why I, as the pc, would go waste any time finding my father. Bethesda just assumes that labeling an NPC "father" means the relationship needs no actual development and they don't have to strain themselves trying to write something meaningful.

 

Its the epitome of really lazy and inept writing.

 

edit: spelling

 

You make an interesting case for lazy writing. I do agree the storyline is thin, but the plot moves more seamlessly than FO1&2.

 

I like the guy who plays Mr. Burke and the sundry characters in Oblivion. It's problematic when he plays so many characters with lack of voice modulation/modification. And admittedly, when you use so few people to create so many characters, it comes across as lazy when they sound a like. Seth McFarland metaphysically criticized himself on Family Guy when The Dr. and Puterschmidt(SP?) had the same voice.

 

It makes the case for more voice talent.

[Slowtrain]

I mean, it's a hard thing to even debate, Beth's writing is so horrible. Dont' get me wrong, Beth has some things they do well, but writing isn't one of them. They make freaking Bioware look like Shakespeare.

Post-Morrowind Bethesda, yep.

 

 

I agree that MW was the pinnacle of Beth's writing ability, almost surprisingly so, since then it's just been eeewwww.

 

I still enjoy Fallout 3, because Fallout 3 doesn't need good writing to be fun, but that doesn't alter the fact that the writing is almost completely inept. Whether through a lack of effort or lack of ability, I couldn't say. MW indicates that possibly Beth could do better in the writing departmkent if they tried harder, but that wa some years ago, so who knows.

[Slowtrain]

I like the guy who plays Mr. Burke and the sundry characters in Oblivion. It's problematic when he plays so many characters with lack of voice modulation/modification. And admittedly, when you use so few people to create so many characters, it comes across as lazy when they sound a like. Seth McFarland metaphysically criticized himself on Family Guy when The Dr. and Puterschmidt(SP?) had the same voice.

 

It makes the case for more voice talent.

 

He was the Imperial Male voice in Oblivion and there were several quests in which you could listen as he talked to himself, such as the Save the Farm from Goblins quest outside Chorrol, where he does the voices of both brothers. He actually does the father as well, so you can listen as he has a three way conversation going with himself. When you listen to him in that context, you can see he does have pretty good ability to make subtle alterations to his voice.

 

I think the guy has a lot of talent and Beth must as well, because he gets a lot of the more potentially interesting characters in their games.

 

But yes, I totally agree that Beth really needs to bring in more voice talent for their games. I would say it doesn't even have to be good voice talent. Just different voices.

[WriteGuard]

And I think that of everything I liked about FO1&2, I liked the interface the least. It was prosaic and uninspired.

Give me an example of an inspired interface please.

 

Ease of use that maximizes the game's features while not detracting from the overall playability of the game.

Examples:

 

FO3 Pip Boy over F1/2 Underdeveloped PB

FO3 Inventory selection over FO1/2 laborious item selection screens

Not to be nit-picky, but clicking on those little red selector's in FO1/2 was downright annoying.

 

To be fair, FO2 vastly improved game play over 1. Logistical issues like random encounters and combat were improved, and I can admit that BIS's FO3/VB Might have gone even further in improving interface.

 

One thing that troubles me is the lack of interface between FO2 and Broth. of Steel. Game over game, I was unimpressed by the interface improvement (Except from 1 to 2).

[bhlaab]

I agree that MW was the pinnacle of Beth's writing ability, almost surprisingly so, since then it's just been eeewwww.

 

I still enjoy Fallout 3, because Fallout 3 doesn't need good writing to be fun, but that doesn't alter the fact that the writing is almost completely inept. Whether through a lack of effort or lack of ability, I couldn't say. MW indicates that possibly Beth could do better in the writing departmkent if they tried harder, but that wa some years ago, so who knows.

 

Morrowind indicates that the team who made Morrowind could make a game as good as Morrowind.

 

Oblivion and Fallout 3 indicate that the people who made Morrowind good are either long gone or playing to a significantly lower common denominator