Bethesda and PnP mechanics

[Paladin Solo]

Only the person would buy the Mona Lisa, take off her clothes, put on some eyebrows, shave her head, give her a nose ring, make her black, jizz all over the painting, then spray-paint their names on the bottom and call it the most immersive work of crap ever conceived by corporate pigs.

You can't comprehend what it means for something to be raped, and you think we're the blind ones? Go sit in a corner and keep telling yourself that. I'll be outside with a cup of reality for you when you're ready.

Buying a franchise just to steal the story so the lazy bastards at Bethesda don't have to spend their shit-breaks thinking of a new one and then to shit all over the game is not revolutionising anything other than giving the PR department a job in taking advantage of stupid people and/or casual gamers who just don't give a damn. There is no dimension that is being magically opened up or some new theory on life being thought of. They are not providing for anything other than entertainment and a possible bed-time story. So why not just be honest about it? Because they're a bunch of rotten crooks, that's why.

 

[Tyshalle]

That's kind of melodramatic, don't you think?

And tell me you wouldn't pay good money for a black, naked punk-rock Mona Lisa with cum on her face.

EDIT: FUCK! Forgot the smilies!



(The previous post was meant in good humor! Do not mistake it for death threats or racism against the caucasian Mona Lisa, nor sexual prejudice against women, or bikers.)

 

[Ravager69]

I think Bethesda honestly *wanted* to do a good Fallout game, but when they realised it is faaar too difficult for a non-talented bunch such as them, they reached for the "cool" stuff.

 

[Brother None]

These are linked a lot more than you seem to realize. That's my argument. Bethesda is taking the stuff of the originals that are purely defining elements of Fallout, and, for better or worse, they're abandoning the rest.

You completely missed my point. The PnP emulation is a purely defining element of Fallout, but it's not something only Fallout has, which is different for the setting.

Whether you attribute, and whether the Dev's attribute the other stuff as defining characteristics of Fallout is ultimately irrelevant, because in the end, even you admit that there is a difference between stuff that's specific to Fallout and stuff that Fallout uses, but plenty of other people use as well.

No I don't. I admit that people are easily confused when that happens, not that it changes anything.

Bethesda doesn't seem to believe TB/ISO is a requirement to a good, and marketable Fallout game. There are plenty of people looking forward to Fallout 3, which means that, even if they don't agree, they can at least stand to not have it. In the end, Fallout 3 is probably going to be enormously successful, monetarily speaking, both with new players and old Fallout fans.

Funny, people told us the same about Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel. Including that we'd all buy it anyway.

NMA has no problem with people like Fallout 3 for what it is. That doesn't mean we're buying any "true sequel" lines, though. Like Oblivion, like Fallout 3? Fine, why would I care, go ahead and love it, hope you have a good time. But don't come here with paper-thin arguments telling us we're a bunch of extremists because we don't think it's a sequel just because it shares the name.

Setting? Fallout: BoS shared the setting too. It's not a sequel.

Gameplay? Fallout and Fallout 3 are both RPGs, but they'll be completely different classifications of RPGs. Just because they both fit under one genre umbrella doesn't mean Fallout 3 won't be as different from Fallout 1 as Tactics was.

It's being passed around as fact around here that this game is being designed for stupid people, by stupid people, and like I said, we've danced around these subjects enough that it just doesn't need to happen anymore.

What? That's not something I agree with, and I doubt many people here are claiming it is "fact". It's just their opinion.

Strawman much?

Also, the original Developer's intentions having relevance or adding weight to arguments in this discussion is also a matter of perspective.

Is it? Yes it is. But it's also the only possible basis of common argument. You seem intent on just shouting "it's all just opinion, anyway!" That's why your position is very weak, and mine isn't, at all.

You continue to ignore parts of my post where convenient, I'll note here. I really wonder where you (and darky) come off acting all superior-like, considering your modus operandus.

regardless if they overweigh the value of conserving what many of us deem to be worthless game features for worthless design philosophies.

Funny thing is, we don't overweight anything. I don't consider my opinion on Fallout relevant enough to be a determinant, it's just an opinion. If all of us were just shouting "it's just our opinion", we wouldn't be anywhere.

But we're not. All we're doing is supporting facts. I don't care about TB myself, on a personal taste level, I've enjoyed plenty of RT RPGs, even played Arcanum in RT instead of TB first time I played it. But so what? Just because those are my tastes doesn't mean I have the gall to declare bits of Fallout's design "worthless"? Who the fuck am I to determine what's worthless or not?

It's funny how you seem to think your opinion is important enough. Maybe you should learn some humility from us.

 

[Paladin Solo]

And tell me you wouldn't pay good money for a black, naked punk-rock Mona Lisa with cum on her face.

I wouldn't. And that was my point. People think "wait, that's so kool, sign me up." Then they find out it's a hunk of crap. And yes, I know you're being sarcastic, just sayin'.

People will enjoy Fallout 3 like people enjoyed Oblivion. I was one of them. But I wouldn't call Oblivion a good game. It was fun to play for about two days, then I got bored and never touched it again. According to the facts we have at hand right now, to me Fallout 3 will probably be something like that. If only Bethesda didn't try to kid themselves and everyone else (and didn't hype something to an unnecessary degree), they'd get more credit.

I remember the PnP elements of Fallout and Fallout 2 were essential to the feel I got from it. If I had played a first-person real-time w/VATS game, I wouldn't think of it as the same. As has been said, a story is an important element, but a story is not what makes a game a game- It is design.

 

[Tyshalle]

You continue to ignore parts of my post where convenient, I'll note here.

I'm ignoring the parts where I've already answered or responded, and I don't feel like repeating myself. I've been repeating myself a lot (you have too), and it isn't getting either of us anywhere.

I don't believe that developer intention determines what ultimately matters to a game once it's been released. Like most things, what you were hoping to do only matters up to the point that you actually do it. I think that if the developer is good enough, then intention matches up with perception. With a game like Fallout 3, there are so many facets to it that what makes up the core of it that it'll ultimately be interpreted in many ways, and what's "core" to one person won't necessarily be that important to another. What every intellectually honest person should be able to agree upon, is that the setting/story/freedom of choice/yadda yadda is core to Fallout. Without it, you couldn't call it a Fallout RPG. ISO vs. FPP/RT vs. TB, these things matter a lot to some people, and don't matter much at all to others. Developer Intention doesn't matter a lick to the people who don't care about ISO/TB, and arguing that their views are less valid than the next simply because that's not what the developer intended is stupid. Demanding that I agree to Developer Intention as being Doctrine and the basis of all arguments is childish, and you cling to it for exactly the same reason that I ignore it: Because it helps your argument to do so.

You're insinuating, however, that I actually believe you're right about Developer Intention, and I'm just choosing to ignore it to avoid being "proven wrong," which makes all your arrogant bullshit about learning humility laughable, or in my case, completely ignorable.

And at any rate, I seriously doubt there's going to be any meaningful revelation at this point. We're just bitching about each other's arguments, and I imagine it's as boring for you as it is for me. I'm not going to agree with you about Developer Intention, and it's obvious you're not about to agree with me, so, as you've said, we have no common ground to build our arguments on in any meaningful way.




And Paladin Solo, I even agree that the PnP elements of Fallout and Fallout 2 were essential to the feel I got from it. I don't think that if you played those games in the Fallout 3 engine you'd get anywhere near the same feel as you did from the first one. I'm not going to argue which one would be better (though personally I think the first one would be). I would argue, however, that the game would still be Fallout, and could probably still be fun.

 

[Paladin Solo]

Fallout RPG. ISO vs. FPP/RT vs. TB

ISO vs. FPP isn't a big issue for me. I like both. But making a PnP game real-time is just asking for a hard game to make. And, like Ravager mentioned, they found that out without caring to think about it (unless they did before but didn't want to come out and say 'fuck off' right away) so they copped out with immershun. The setting for Fallout is important for the story, but the game is a PnP cRPG. Again, as my post above states, a story (and setting) is not what makes a game a game. Without these things, a game can still be Fallout in the sense that it's a continuation of the story/timeline, but it's not going to be the same game especially when the in-game setting changes (Fallout 2 was about the descendants of the Vault Dweller, Fallout 3 is about some guy in Washington D.C.). That is why people do not consider Fallout 3 the third in the series, but instead, a remake/beginning of a new series that branches off the Fallout, Fallout 2, and probably Fallout Tactics.

 

[Tyshalle]

I see your point with that, Paladin Solo, and I don't even disagree to some extent. Fallout 3 is definitely going to feel completely different than the first two in terms of gameplay. In that respect it'll feel like a completely different game.

I think, at least in the case of you and I, we're getting our wires crossed when we start talking about what we consider a sequel to be.

I'm looking at it in the TV/Movie sense, where the story remains relatively the same. Though in this respect, you could make the argument that Fallout 2 is a spin-off to Fallout 1 too, since we don't actually deal with characters from the original series except as occasional side-characters, but since we can all agree that Fallout 2 is a sequel to the original, by the same requirements that I'm personally using, Fallout 3 would be as well, despite the major overhaul of the technical stuff. I'm also looking at it in terms of, this is an RPG, like the other ones were RPG's. It's not strategy game like tactics, and, at the very least, it's not being marketed as an action game.

 

[fedaykin]

This debate is getting interesting. I'm going to go a bit offtopic and share some of my thoughts on this. I am, of course, generalizing here.

We have a sort of discourse (and metadiscourse) emerging in which the positions of the opposing sides somewhat resemble the debate in literary criticism about text. Author intention vs reader interpretation.

BN's standpoint is similar to that of text-oriented critics, who profess that the reader is not free to interpret the text (in our case the game) in any way he likes. BN appeals to the stated intentions of the creators as the ultimate authority in determining whether a Fallout game that abandons PnP elements can be considered a sequel. But what is interesting is that he also recognizes the importance of the wishes of the Fallout fanbase, to the extent that these wishes are in accordance with author intention.

Tyshalle's arguments resemble those of reader-response critics, who stress the role of the reader in determining the meaning of the text and study reader interpretations. Tyshalle appeals to the player as the decider of the value of Fallout 3 as a sequel.

It appears to me that while both BN and Tyshalle recognize the importance of the role of player interpretation, they do so to varying extents. Futhermore, they do not seem to be appealing to the same kind of player. Tyshalle's player is one who stands (almost?) completely apart from the creators' intentions, while BN's player is at least to some extent knowledgeable of them.

The difference from literary criticism is that in the case of a computer game we do not have a single text crafted by one author, but rather a work created by a multitude of people. In a way, it contains multiple layers of interwoven "texts" which manifest themselves in different forms. The visual text, the audible text, the dialogues and the narrative/storytelling that binds the game together. Furthermore, we can distinguish the narrative of a computer game from its mechanics, because the latter appears to be primarily functional rather than meaningful.

One might also say that this is actually not a difference at all, because the literary text also has many subtexts and contexts.

 

[Tyshalle]

Most of my philosophy about this is being taken from my philosophy about books, and movies and any art really.

I am somewhat knowledgable about the background and details surrounding Fallout. Not nearly as much as BN, probably, but I think it's worth noting that my position here isn't stemming from ignorance of what the developer's original intentions was. I am aware of it, but I just don't think it's relevant to the argument.

Also, I think it's worth noting that I don't think creator intention is worthless. I think that it matters a great deal prior to the creation being released to the public. I also am a great fan of director commentaries, and I have spoken to authors of books I adore, sometimes in great detail about their intentions with their work. Sometimes, especially in particularly bad movies, when I watch the special features and certain things are explained and shown to me, I occasionally gain new perspective and a new appreciation for the movie. There are some movies that people wouldn't give a second look at and just assume it's pure shit on every conceivable level, but this stems out of bias or ignorance. Movies like Showgirls, which is actually a very deep and compelling story (with fairly poor acting) but because of the subject matter, nobody takes it seriously. Getting some behind-the-scenes insight here is very useful, and can and should influence your opinions and perspectives.

But that's not the same thing as saying that you should mold yourself to the developer's/creator's perspective. Ultimately, all art is subjective, and what you take from art might not be at all what the artist was hoping to give you. This doesn't make you stupid or bad, nor does it make the artist a bad artist, but that's what's great about art. People can find themselves in different ways over the same piece of work.

Ultimately, all good art (bad art too, really) is a mirror that reveals new layers of yourself, or shows you old layers you may not have been thinking of. To suggest that you need to conform to the perspective of the creator simply because he was thinking of something different when he was making it than you were thinking when you were seeing/experiencing it is egotistical pretentious crap.

And ultimately, the reason I don't think Developer Intention should even come into the equation in this particular argument is because when we speak of Fallout, we speak of it as a finished product. Developer Intention stopped being relevant a decade ago when it was released. Since then, it's become a cult classic as a result of lots of different people loving the game from tons of different reasons. Bethesda is choosing to capitalize on certain aspects of Fallout, the aspects that pertain less to the technical side of Fallout, and more to the creative side. This, naturally, is going to piss everyone off who loved the technical side of the original Fallout, and that's completely understandable, but demonizing Bethesda for doing so, and trying to turn what is simply a misalignment of tastes into something it's not, purely to villianize Fallout 3 and its developers is a childish push to make an unfortunate (for the pissed off players) change to game mechanics into a fight of morality, so that, rather than behaving like rational adults and at least acknowledging that this is simply something that doesn't jive with them, they can say that Bethesda is wrong and evil and that this is dumbing down the game, and that players who like the new version are stupid or bunny-hopping FPS fans, not true RPG fans, or people who just don't "get" Fallout.

And you see this going on all the time in the world, where what could easily be a friendly disagreement gets turned into a stupid fight between Good and Evil, when it's anything but.

 

[Per]

BN's standpoint is similar to that of text-oriented critics, who profess that the reader is not free to interpret the text (in our case the game) in any way he likes. BN appeals to the stated intentions of the creators as the ultimate authority in determining whether a Fallout game that abandons PnP elements can be considered a sequel.

I think the evil rabid fan standpoint can be taken without directly invoking author intention (although it certainly doesn't hurt - knowledge seldom does). Just because art is subjective and it's all opinions and blah blah blah it doesn't mean a work's merits and their significance can't be analysed and discussed with more or less rational arguments. If a new Sherlock Holmes novel casts Holmes as a wisecracking James Bond character, the burning question isn't whether it's got a stamp of approval from the Estate of Arthur Conan Doyle on the cover. And laughably, the people who defend Bethesda's move away from the gameplay of the original have been forced to adopt the direct equivalent of the view that "what Sherlock Holmes is" isn't detective work or deduction, but foggy streets with particle effects and a hat that's more than four pixels high.

 

[Morbus]

Pretty much like Sherlock is a private detective (he is, isn't he?), Fallout is a GURPS (inspired) role-playing game. Sherlock has a mustache and all the other stuff, Fallout is set on a retro-futuristic PA setting.

 

[requiem_for_a_starfury]

Most of my philosophy about this is being taken from my philosophy about books, and movies and any art really.

We are talking playing games here people, not watching movies or reading books, or any other passive pastime. You can discuss the artistic merits of the story or graphics but don't forget the gameplay.

If the next Football Manager game came out as a Sims clone with your goals to be get laid with as many starlets as possible, avoiding the press and the wife and do have more drugs than a pharmaceutical company. Then it might still be a simulation of the world of soccer but I doubt many fans of the series would be happy.

Forget intentions or subjectiveness look at the gameplay, that is the ultimate defining factor of your Fallout experience. Fallout's gameplay is based on pnp mechanics, it permutates through everything you do in Fallout. No matter what you take from Fallout's story, your entire perception of the game has been coloured by the gameplay. Mechanics define the gameplay, and gameplay is core to what makes a game.

Take the story and slap it onto another type of game and you've got a spin-off not a sequel (BTW I'd class FO2 as a standalone expansion pack ) this isn't TV land and their definitions do not apply.