Bit-tech plays Fallout 3

[Per]

It seems there won't be enough European hands-ons to do proper round-ups (at least not before Leipzig), so here's a four-pager from bit-tech we've been sitting on for a day or so.<blockquote>Previous Fallout games have always funneled the player into a particular character type based on past actions and responses. Act like a fabulously magnanimous arse for your first few quests in Vault City and certain quests will start dropping out of reach for you – you can’t become Captain of the Guard if you’ve got false citizenship papers and a liberal, peaceful attitude to nearby towns.

Fallout 3 however has a slightly different ethic and has spun this round somewhat because there’s a hidden flaw wrapped in the model of the previous games – that the player doesn’t always know how their options are being trimmed, their choices culled. You might miss out on important quests and information without knowing it, so as well as extending development time by factoring in all this redundant content, you can leave players feeling falsely trapped or locked into a game they don’t want to play.

Fallout 3 avoids this neatly then, giving players a constant string of second chances. You’re reputation is still tracked locally and globally via the karma evil-o-meter that labels you with different titles and insults based on your allegiances and actions, but you have a permanent ability to disobey your own ethic.

[..]

A surprising amount of Fallout 3 is focused on learning how to find your way around the environment and traverse the piled up tumbleweed car wrecks and gutted cement skeletons to get to your destination. If you get tired of it then you can fast-travel, but only to places you’ve already been, so the first journeys are always a strange cross between a parkour assault course and the orienteering course from hell.

Exploration is central to Fallout 3s appeal though and it’s clear that Bethesda has learned lessons from the endless forests of Oblivion and vast expanses of Morrowind. With a ruined cityscape to play in and the constant threat of ambush or reward of salvage, there’s more incentive to look around and you’re no longer limited to identi-kit dungeons, castles and farmsteads. This hammered home quickly in our playtime.

[..]

Fallout 3 though is different [with regard to enemy levelling] and we’re happy to see that the balance has been built back into the game. True, the game still does level with you, kind of, but it works differently now. The game world now has areas that it will always keep as a few levels above you, below you or just at a fixed stage – thus, the game can offer you predictable, easy combat if you stay in the easy areas, but can he-bitch-man-slap your ass if you want more of a challenge.

That sounds a little unfair. It sounds a little stupid. It works brilliantly. Frankly, it restores purpose to the game. When your character gets cooked by a flamethrower-wielding psychopath that you can’t defeat in repeated combat then the game is offering you a challenge you want to accept. You have to get creative with your tactics and find a way to overcome the obstacle.</blockquote>Thanks to kyle.

 

[requiem_for_a_starfury]

Fallout 3 however has a slightly different ethic and has spun this round somewhat because there’s a hidden flaw wrapped in the model of the previous games – that the player doesn’t always know how their options are being trimmed, their choices culled. You might miss out on important quests and information without knowing it, so as well as extending development time by factoring in all this redundant content, you can leave players feeling falsely trapped or locked into a game they don’t want to play.

They didn't really print that did they? Someone give me a massive facepalm post.

 

[ArmorB]

The point is that the masses (read as: target audience) does not like being penalized for making poor conversation choices. There are those that find a true appreciation for penalties for actions, but they are in the minority.

I'd hope/assume that this would be moddable in the future...

 

[13pm]

Fallout 3 however has a slightly different ethic and has spun this round somewhat because there’s a hidden flaw wrapped in the model of the previous games – that the player doesn’t always know how their options are being trimmed, their choices culled. You might miss out on important quests and information without knowing it, so as well as extending development time by factoring in all this redundant content, you can leave players feeling falsely trapped or locked into a game they don’t want to play.

They didn't really print that did they? Someone give me a massive facepalm post.

That piece bugged me too. I can't understand what's wrong in letting the player screw himself, of course, letting to finish the game. Noone railroads you.
Bethesda's so called 'freedom' turns out to be very heavily railroaded. And I see nothing really positive about it.

I see nothing wrong about facing the concequences of your actions. If you miss the important quest because of killing an important NPC - that's your problem.

That's because it's a game for masses. For those, who like action games and won't like to screw their game just because their IQ is low.

 

[ArmorB]

This has nothing to do with IQ. Simply lowest common denominator. Smart people will still like the game and dumb people will still not like it.

It's kind of like trying to sell chess to Americans. There will be a very small group that will really like it, but the masses will not. But if they make a less complex/more dynamic version of chess then more people can find something about it to like and would be more apt to play it.

And to be honest those of 'high IQ' would more than likely question why a smart person would waste their time playing a 'video game' at all...

 

[Ixyroth]

Achievement points and lazy design/coding/writing are the main reasons for the lack of multiple consequences/failure possibilities, I'd guess.

Exploration is central to Fallout 3s appeal though and it’s clear that Bethesda has learned lessons from the endless forests of Oblivion and vast expanses of Morrowind. With a ruined cityscape to play in and the constant threat of ambush or reward of salvage, there’s more incentive to look around and you’re no longer limited to identi-kit dungeons, castles and farmsteads. This hammered home quickly in our playtime.

Identi-kit unrealistic bombed-out suburbs with mailboxes and picket fences intact are so much better.

 

[Ashmo]

The point is that without this kind of "railroading" the games would have become fully generic.

Choice and consequence is all about fucking yourself in the long run. Things come back to bite you in the ass.

It's a natural effect of the branching nature of the game's gameplay.

I bet some people believe games like Solitair or Poker would be much more fun if you wouldn't have to stick with the cards you drew.

And of course it's not fun to permanently die in games, so that should be out as well -- infinite revives, ahoy!

If there are two quests, one to kill the Sheriff and one to kill the Kingpin, it makes sense that you can't do both if the quest is given by the other NPC in question. There's no sane way to have both quests NOT be mutually exclusive.

In fact, having mutually exclusive quests can be strangely fulfilling: seeing all the quests the Kingpin gave you be marked as "Failed" the second you deliver him to justice could serve a nastier character as catharsis following a change of mind towards the more goody-two-shoes.

Having a hundred quests, many being mutually exclusive, can provide more substance (and thus "immersion") than the same amount of quests without any tangible consequences available to every character.

Once again Bethesda misunderstands the revolution in CRPGs the classless model was as a turn towards the generic and applies it where-ever it can.

 

[13pm]

Reading about the radio again I just realised one thing.

If you listen to the radio on your Pip-Boy, then it should be played out loud. Okay, I'm fine with that. But if the music is played loud, then it should be heard well in the deserted and silent environment.

So will it affect the stealth, will it affect your 'visibility' to the enemy creatures? Obviously, it should, if you are making the game as 'immersive' as possible. But it can affect the idea of listening to radio.

So I really wonder, which decision will Bethesda make.

The point is that without this kind of "railroading" the games would have become fully generic.

I can't get, what "railroading" are you talking about. In my opinion, railroading is forcing the player to do/no to do certain things, that will affect the *only* way to solve a quest.

The problem is in the word "only". I do believe, that there is a possibility to make a game with a great branching structure of consequences for each choice you can make.
And when game designers stick to the only way to solve a quest (=the only consequence), they end up with putting restrictions.

 

[Beelzebud]

In other words, Bethesda looks at the fans of their games as half-witted morons that can't be trusted to play a game that is actually open to making meaningful decisions about your character.

They are totally not understanding a major element of the Fallout games... What's the point of "choice" if the choice has no consequence?

 

[soth]

The more I understand about how bethesda reasons, the less I like them. Moron games for moron people by moron project leaders.
Being able to screw up is exactly what makes the game exciting and adds realism.
I wonder why they cannot draw the same conclusion they did about level scaling. It's like they totally lack the ability to deduct and draw generic conclusions.

 

[Garsty]

I think that if you were cut out from some stuff because of the things you've done, it would really improve replayability of the game (assuming that you will act differently). It seems that Fallout3 will be a game that you won't ever want to replay again, because you will have done all the available stuff on the first go...

 

[requiem_for_a_starfury]

The point is that the masses (read as: target audience) does not like being penalized for making poor conversation choices.

The writer has totally failed to grasp one of the core foundations of what makes an rpg an rpg. This is nothing to do with Fallout, Bethesda or mass appeal. It's like complaining that the hidden flaw with shooters is having to kill things.

Hell I'd love to see the writer do a review of a choose your own adventure book.

If people don't like consequences in gaming why are they even playing rpgs in the first place?

 

[Polynikes]

That sounds a little unfair. It sounds a little stupid. It works brilliantly.

You know what else worked brilliantly? The original games' approach to leveling. The funny thing is you'd get the same effect using that old system. There were plenty of times I found an area too hard and had to come back later. It made a goal for me.

Good game designers would ensure that following the main plot line's quests would reward you with enough experience to be able to handle what happened later. Bad game designers, however, just make the main quest line level with you, so you can beat the game at level 5 or 10.

Same effect, you can handle what happens, it's just a matter of execution. There's the lazy way and the right way. Bethesda is taking the lazy way. God forbid they have to figure out how much exp to distribute over the main quest arc and then test it to make sure it works.

 

[Per]

I think this preview is a bit confused about how level scaling will work.

 

[Goral]

Not in every single case, but in a lot of cases [if] the guy who gave you the quest ends up getting killed there’s a plan B. His successor or somebody else ends up being the guy you finish things with. (...) [Rest of his wisdom here]

So if the person giving me some task dies there will be replacement for him and I will be able to finish the quest. I wonder what will happen if I kill deputy, will there appear deputy's deputy? In some cases that would make sense, for example if I had to bring water chip to Vault but he explicitly says that it's like that in lot of quests.

 

[Beelzebud]

Polynikes raises the best argument for why level scaling is horrible. It's just lazy game design.

It actually takes a lot of planning to design an RPG to have good pacing in terms of player power, itemization, and story arch. I don't think many game players realize how much is involved in balancing all of these things so they are paced in a way which makes the game fun. If something is out of balance it makes for a ridiculously hard and frustrating game, or a game that is so easy, that there is no incentive to keep playing.

Making a system where the enemies and items just scale in regards to the player's level advancements is a very lazy way to automate what should be the core of RPG design. Why make RPG games if you don't want to put in the hard effort to actually do it right?

They talk about immersion as if it's something they have figured out, and yet the way their games scale-to-level seem to me to make them more artificial feeling, and less "immersive".

 

[ArmorB]

The point is that the masses (read as: target audience) does not like being penalized for making poor conversation choices.

The writer has totally failed to grasp one of the core foundations of what makes an rpg an rpg. This is nothing to do with Fallout, Bethesda or mass appeal. It's like complaining that the hidden flaw with shooters is having to kill things.

Hell I'd love to see the writer do a review of a choose your own adventure book.

If people don't like consequences in gaming why are they even playing rpgs in the first place?

In most RPGs that I've played, the choices you make are typically regarding character progression, including stats, skills armor, weapons. These same RPGs typically have very linear storylines that give the player very little wiggle room. Now there is the occasional fluke of a game that give you a much more diverse world, but those are not the norm.

 

[Forhekset]

I think that if you were cut out from some stuff because of the things you've done, it would really improve replayability of the game (assuming that you will act differently). It seems that Fallout3 will be a game that you won't ever want to replay again, because you will have done all the available stuff on the first go...

I agree. That's how I felt while playing the first two Fallout games - that I really needed to go back and replay them to explore all the different paths my character could take. "Giving players a constant string of second chances" is possibly the worst thing someone could ever write about a Fallout game, second only to "We've replaced the turn-based combat with a combination of first-person shooting and real-time with pause".

I think this preview is a bit confused about how level scaling will work.

Seems like most journalists are confused about the level scaling. Every time a preview attempts to explain it, it sounds utterly retarded. Then Emil will post a clarification, and while not perfect, it sounds acceptable. Then another journalist writes another incorrect explanation of the level scaling system, and people are outraged, etc. It's a vicious cycle.

 

[Ashmo]

If anyone's really wondering why modern developers value vast generic lumps of quests over replayability, just look at modern games!
Once the hype wears off and the players have adjusted to the eye candy, what else is left to keep them interested and coming back for more? Nothing.

If you put all your resources into hype-able content and enough repetitiveness to keep the early buyers busy, the game is easily profitable. If the players find out, you already have their money.

It's like complaining that the hidden flaw with shooters is having to kill things.

More like having to aim.

 

[Ausir]

More like having to aim.

Not in console shooters.