Fallout 3's Writing issues

[Oner]

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).

I see, okay.

[WriteGuard]

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.

 

Yeah. By bringing in novice voice talent for some characters, you can more clearly differentiate characters. While what you said is cool (about the guy having a conversation with himself in threft), I'm sure there are thousands of decent voice actors who will work for nothing to be a part of a major production.

 

I really want FO4 and possibly FO:NLV to have some half indecipherable regional dialects. Language would fall apart in the waste land. It would be cool trying to interact with post-apocalyptic sand people who just shout a lot. Bring back the whole tribal aspect of FO2. That was interesting.

[Oner]

Considering FO 3's success, I wouldn't be surprised if Obs got a big enough paycheck for more VAs.

[bhlaab]

Considering FO 3's success, I wouldn't be surprised if Obs got a big enough paycheck for more VAs.

 

Considering Obsidian's history, I'd be surprised if they're given enough time or budget to implement voice acting.

[Oner]

Considering FO 3's success, I wouldn't be surprised if Obs got a big enough paycheck for more VAs.

Considering Obsidian's history, I'd be surprised if they're given enough time or budget to implement voice acting.

Point taken.

[jero cvmi]

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.

And there is lack of differentiation in your argument between dumb dialogue and dialogue with the dumb.

Any IN<4 dialogue from fallout 1&2 is far wittier than any dialogue in fallout 3.

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.

But in fallout 3 the plot line is linear. In fallout 1 you could complete its parts in any order, and you could even *gasp* fail.

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.

Because most of the dialogues in fallout 1&2 were text-on-screen only anyway. I see no connection between quality of text and amount of voiceover, sorry. Unless it's the actors that write the text.

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.

agreed.

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.

But fallout 1, like the most successful of "niche, indie" films was also profitable, because profit is relative to the size of investment. And that's no reason to not make fun of fallot 3's lame dialogues. If it's lame, it's being laughed at no matter if it's the Titanic or a B-movie.

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.

aggreed very much.

-Writing aside, bring back gambling.

And throwing. And a large list of other things asked for again and again in this forum.

 

I also aggree about the interface, but i think that's all fallout 3 was superior to the classsic fallouts.

Edited January 12, 2010 by jero cvmi

[bhlaab]

I totally, completely, 100% disagree that the plot in Fallout 3 was better than the originals. Hackneyed, at times completely nonsensical, and linear. If you're so keen on turning Fallout into a sandbox, quit trying to wrestle the controls away from me!

Maybe I don't want to help Dad, and maybe Project Purity is a completely stupid idea I want no part of. How about instead of Dad going "Well I'll be here if you change your mind!" the game actually reacts to my decision.

 

I also don't agree that Fallout 3's interface was much better than the originals. Too console-oriented. To reach its potential for the PC it needs to be a lot smarter about use of space and drag and drop functionality. Still didn't fix the tabs-within-tabs issue of Oblivion. And the green and black was just ugly compared to the rusty neutral colors of the first two.

[TwinkieGorilla]

There is simply nothing I find better about FO3 in comparison to the originals (for the sake of the argument, just take away the preferences of perspective or technological advancement in graphics etc). There are things they set out to do and did them well, I suppose...but even saying "Fallout 3 HAS writing issues" is a fatal understatement.

 

[intelligence] So you say there are issues with the writing in Fallout 3?

[bhlaab]

There is simply nothing I find better about FO3 in comparison to the originals (for the sake of the argument, just take away the preferences of perspective or technological advancement in graphics etc). There are things they set out to do and did them well, I suppose...but even saying "Fallout 3 HAS writing issues" is a fatal understatement.

 

[intelligence] So you say there are issues with the writing in Fallout 3?

 

 

I'm going to say that with the really wonky animations awkward camera usage and melty-face Oblivion syndrome Fallout 3's graphics were worse than the originals as well. Except for maybe the environments.

Edited January 12, 2010 by bhlaab

[WriteGuard]

There is simply nothing I find better about FO3 in comparison to the originals (for the sake of the argument, just take away the preferences of perspective or technological advancement in graphics etc). There are things they set out to do and did them well, I suppose...but even saying "Fallout 3 HAS writing issues" is a fatal understatement.

 

[intelligence] So you say there are issues with the writing in Fallout 3?

 

I agree with most of the points you make, and I believe your sense of loathing for both FO3 and Bethesda comes out of your perceived failure of their efforts to create a great Fallout game. This ergo comes from your love of the fallout series in general. For that, I both commend you for your commitment to the saga, as well as join you in considering FO a worthy game to give adulation to. But I think your complete dismissal of the writing is a bit total.

 

-Yes I agree the writing is bad. Worse than FO 1 or 2

-They lack depth of storyline and dialogue

 

That said, FO3 is a passable alternative to no sequel, or a sequel in an antiquated format. Maybe over time I have become inured to the bad writing in favor of enjoyable game play and the beautifully rendered environment. Maybe I more readily look for cogent and cohesive writing in the literature I read, not the games I play. This, though, is no excuse.

 

My hopes are that sincere critics of the game are vociferous enough to sway the heavy handed writer's at Bethesda and I hope Obsidian learns a lesson from the sundry failures of FO3.

[RPGmasterBoo]

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).

 

Um yes, the F1 and 2 inventory wasn't particularly handy for its time, but Fallout 3 is a prime example of a console friendly interface. The pipboy takes up the entire screen, and the lists are all of the scrolling sort, so that it can all be seen on a tv and used with a gamepad. As far as a pc interface goes, its one of the worst seen in years. The classic avatar with slots, and square spaces for items would have taken up a third of the space for twice the functionality.

 

I mean come on, do you honestly think that any new iteration of Fallout was going to keep the original interface in the day and age of 1680*1050 resolutions?

 

Fallout 3's interface is improved over F1&2 yes, but there has also been a decade in interface development in the meanwhile that Bethesda didn't give a toss about just so they could please the console crowd.

Edited January 12, 2010 by RPGmasterBoo

[WriteGuard]

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.

Because most of the dialogues in fallout 1&2 were text-on-screen only anyway. I see no connection between quality of text and amount of voiceover, sorry. Unless it's the actors that write the text.

 

It's simple. Imagine any of your favorite books that have been translated to screen. Much of the writing on the page that is memorable is lost in translation. While FO1/2's text base dialogue is witty and appealing, I imagine some of that is lost when you have producers, and sound men and actors all trying to recreate what one good writer originally intended.

 

Or, it may simply be that the writers for Beth are worse than those in BIS or Interplay (Feel free to release simultaneous "No Sh!ts" at will for this point).

 

in the end, I think some of the text-based humor gets lost in translation to a full-blown voice produced game. I still love the cafe of broken dreams from FO2. I think that's the zeitgeist of what was lost from FO1/2 to FO 3.

 

[RPGmasterBoo]

That said, FO3 is a passable alternative to no sequel, or a sequel in an antiquated format.

 

That's the whole point - F3 isn't a sequel, it just happens to share the same name and has a 3 by it.

Its nothing like Fallout.

 

I suggest you read the NMA review of it. Its fair, precise and quite witty.

 

http://www.nma-fallout.com/article.php?id=47347

Edited January 12, 2010 by RPGmasterBoo

[WriteGuard]

Um yes, the F1 and 2 inventory wasn't particularly handy for its time, but Fallout 3 is a prime example of a console friendly interface. The pipboy takes up the entire screen, and the lists are all of the scrolling sort, so that it can all be seen on a tv and used with a gamepad. As far as a pc interface goes, its one of the worst seen in years. The classic avatar with slots, and square spaces for items would have taken up a third of the space for twice the functionality.

 

I mean come on, do you honestly think that any new iteration of Fallout was going to keep the original interface in the day and age of 1680*1050 resolutions?

 

Fallout 3's interface is improved over F1&2 yes, but there has also been a decade in interface development in the meanwhile that Bethesda didn't give a toss about just so they could please the console crowd.

 

Absolutely... FO3 is geared towards the console generation. I've played both and it's much more geared to the console rather than computer. That does irritate me, the fact that Fallout was always a computer game, and FO3 does seem console biased.

 

But that's not enough for me to dismiss the game entirely.

[RPGmasterBoo]

Absolutely... FO3 is geared towards the console generation. I've played both and it's much more geared to the console rather than computer. That does irritate me, the fact that Fallout was always a computer game, and FO3 does seem console biased.

 

But that's not enough for me to dismiss the game entirely.

 

Its not enough for me either, but then there's the rest of it.

My favorite:

 

Edited January 12, 2010 by RPGmasterBoo

[WriteGuard]

That said, FO3 is a passable alternative to no sequel, or a sequel in an antiquated format.

 

That's the whole point - F3 isn't a sequel, it just happens to share the same name and has a 3 by it.

Its nothing like Fallout.

 

I suggest you read the NMA review of it. Its fair, precise and quite witty.

 

http://www.nma-fallout.com/article.php?id=47347

 

I did, and very compelling. It's a good article that brings up fair criticism.

 

"Compared to the first two Fallout games, Fallout 3 is a pale imitation that may anger many fans of the original games. However, comparing Fallout 3 to similar games like Morrowind, Oblivion, Gothic, Two Worlds, Assassins Creed, etc presents a much more favourable reaction. I think that it

[Pop]

The circle of life continues.

[HoonDing]

[Tigranes]

Seems like what began as an effort to isolate the discussion to a critique of the writing has splurged onto a free-for-all beat-the-dead-horse, but that's what we always do, so:

 

As for the dialogue, I commend Bethesda for keeping dialogue simplistic: very few people in the wastes would be educated at all

 

I would suggest that you are confusing what is a call for intelligently written dialogue with intelligent sounding dialogue. Nobody wants the Matrix Architect from FO3.

 

That said, I don't think the general quality of the writing throughout FO3's dialogue is that poor. In combination with the VA, some key characters are either pretty poor or uninspiring (e.g. Moira), and there are some attempts at jokes and wit that make you groan, but on the whole it's not 'poor writing'. Just no one-liner or no character's style of speech worth remembering.

 

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.

 

This is true, but it's also a cyclic thing. The more people want X in a game, the more devs/pubs will think people will want X in a game, the more games will feature X, the more customers will think X is the only way to go, the more video game forumers will wax lyrical about how X is inevitable, and it goes round & round. *shrug* It happens.

 

I think the main differences between FO1/2 & 3, for people who don't like the latter, is (a) the lack of truly witty or memorable dialogue; (b) the occasional misuse of profanity or awkward characterisation;

[bhlaab]

That said, FO3 is a passable alternative to no sequel, or a sequel in an antiquated format.

 

in an antiquated format.

 

an antiquated format.

 

antiquated

 

ARRRGGGGGGHHH

[Slowtrain]

But other than that, really, is FO3 writing 'piss poor'?

 

 

Well, for my part I would say yes. The writing is far below the level of even other games like Stalker and Far Cry 2 which no one ever talks about for the writing. And the fact that Fallout 3 is supposedly a crpg, just makes the writing deficiencies even more glaring.

 

 

There are brief moments that work: For example, I think Kimba's lines in Big Town when you first talk to her carry a sense of pathos for their situation that almost make me feel like I am for a brief moment connecting with the gameworld and the horrible situation in which she finds herself. And its those moments that only reinforce how utterly disconncted the vast majority of the writing leaves me from the gameworld that I am traversing.

[vault_overseer]

Trying to justify terrible game design with insane theories that it's meant to be like that? yeah...

 

And thinking that you even need to suggest that JE and MCA to write better plot/dialogues? Hell, I don't think they could write something that bad even if they tried.

[TwinkieGorilla]

My hopes are that sincere critics of the game are vociferous enough to sway the heavy handed writer's at Bethesda and I hope Obsidian learns a lesson from the sundry failures of FO3.

 

Hehe. Your posts read like an overcompensation for Bethesda's lyrical inanity (not that I don't agree with the point of that sentence).

 

 

That's the whole point - F3 isn't a sequel, it just happens to share the same name and has a 3 by it.

Its nothing like Fallout.

 

I suggest you read the NMA review of it. Its fair, precise and quite witty.

 

http://www.nma-fallout.com/article.php?id=47347

 

Agreed, of course...and yet examples like these lead me to wonder if the NMA-hate bandwagoneers actually read anything we post over there?

 

 

Oh, come now. Are you trying to tell me if there was a dead horse in your yard you wouldn't grab a stick and join in the fun?

 

is FO3 writing 'piss poor'?

 

Yes, undoubtedly.

Edited January 12, 2010 by TwinkieGorilla

[WriteGuard]

I'm going to call it a day, and scour the Internet for people with Fallout tattoos and chuckle insoucently.

[entrerix]

And thinking that you even need to suggest that JE and MCA to write better plot/dialogues? Hell, I don't think they could write something that bad even if they tried.

 

 

this.