Chris Avellone talks Fallout 3

[maximaz]

MCA has always been fairly positive about Fallout 3 when asked. This blog post is really pointless, not just because he's currently in Bethesda's employ but also because both his positives and negatives are almost all nitpicky, peripheral stuff. He avoids talking about writing, core mechanics, combat and other fairly vital stuff pretty much completely, or only in small chunks.

So meh.

Exactly. He basically avoided the question by talking about random details rather than the whole. He just said a lot without really saying anything.

 

[Khan FurSainty]

Exactly. He basically avoided the question by talking about random details rather than the whole. He just said a lot without really saying anything.

Bethesda has teached him well...

 

[Paul_cz]

You DON'T shit where you eat.
With that said, I have no doubt that eventhough he probably saw a lot of problems with FO3, he still had fun and would classify it as a good game.

 

[jero cvmi]

MCA has always been fairly positive about Fallout 3 when asked. This blog post is really pointless, not just because he's currently in Bethesda's employ but also because both his positives and negatives are almost all nitpicky, peripheral stuff. He avoids talking about writing, core mechanics, combat and other fairly vital stuff pretty much completely, or only in small chunks.

So meh.

I wasn't expecting that he would talk about something more substantial.

Except maybe the beards.

I wonder how Chris Avellone feels about Fallut 3's beards.

 

[frosty_theaussie]

All respect to MCA, but fast travel was rubbish. In FO1 & 2 there was the map, but it wasn't really "fast travel" and you could still have random encounters. In FO3 you just zipped from place to place.. a game mechanic designed for today's "Mountain Dew" generation.

Pretty steep generalisation, there. To say that one form of fast travel is for an attention-deficit crowd while another is substantially better seems to me like you're just trying to keep in line with the hating.

 

[Ausir]

And, even if we don't consider Bethesda, he probably wouldn't mention things that he doesn't like but that Obsidian won't be able to improve upon in New Vegas, since he'd be criticizing his own game this way.

 

[UncannyGarlic]

All respect to MCA, but fast travel was rubbish. In FO1 & 2 there was the map, but it wasn't really "fast travel" and you could still have random encounters. In FO3 you just zipped from place to place.. a game mechanic designed for today's "Mountain Dew" generation.

For a game like Oblivion and Fallout 3, it's probably pretty necessary. Running from place to place isn't very fun and eats up a lot of time, especially when backtracking. Such is the problem with open world games with random encounters. That said, I agree that both Oblivion and Fallout 3 failed to even try to explain the system in universe and that the system was flawed and that a system more like FO 1, 2, & Tactics would be ideal. I haven't gotten around to playing NWN2:SoZ yet but it's system as described sounded good as well.

And, even if we don't consider Bethesda, he probably wouldn't mention things that he doesn't like but that Obsidian won't be able to improve upon in New Vegas, since he'd be criticizing his own game this way.

Yeah, the reasons that he would be light on criticism are numerous and include simple things like professional courtesy. Personally, I'd like to see developers publicly rip apart games, especially if they did so in a group, as I see it as a productive process to break games apart and figure out what does and does not work and why. It'd also be nice if gaming journalists in general did the same.

 

[jero cvmi]

For a game like Oblivion and Fallout 3, it's probably pretty necessary. Running from place to place isn't very fun and eats up a lot of time, especially when backtracking.

Exactly. That's why the travelling dot on the world map is a better solution.

I don't see why that wouldn't work for Fallout 3: You would be able to fast travel to any map marker, and any encounter, location or container on your course would just interrupt the fast travel.
That way you wouldn't be forcefed countless hours of emptiness.
I'm no expert on Bethesda's engine, but it doesn't sound impossible.

Yeah, the reasons that he would be light on criticism are numerous and include simple things like professional courtesy. Personally, I'd like to see developers publicly rip apart games, especially if they did so in a group, as I see it as a productive process to break games apart and figure out what does and does not work and why. It'd also be nice if gaming journalists in general did the same.

But... but that would boost CREATIVITY!

 

[Alphadrop]

There was a mod way back that tried to add random encounters to fast travel in F3. It showed it was possible but was incredibaly buggy.

 

[jero cvmi]

Hmm, sorry i'm not being very clear. I'm not talking about adding random encounters. I meant something more like the option to always fast travel to the closest thing that would appear on your compass in the direction you're moving.

Suppose the player wants to go to the location X which is in the general direction "NorthWest".

In fallout 3, if the player turned towards that direction, several markers would appear in his/her compass according to the Perception stat, right?

Now instead of forcing the player to walk "NorthWest", the game could provide the option to try and fast travel to X.

Then it could relocate the player to the closest mark on the compass, and ask if the player wants to encounter what is there.

If the player accepted, or failed a skill check, e.g. for Sneaking, he/she would teleport to the encounter.

Otherwise the game would compute the compass again and repeat the whole process until the player got to Location X which was the initial destination.

 

[Jet1337]

The way I could see a random enounter mod for fast traveling is like this:

1. You fast-travel ( you go along a straight invisible line from your position ).

2. The game plots the encounter point somewhere along that line if the following conditions are met:
-If the area is clear of any objects and can be accessed normally by the player
-If the random number generator lands in the game's favor ( to spawn the encounter )

3. If the above conditions are met, you will be placed a few meters away from the event when you exit the loading screen. This is to give you some room to work with if you get an encounter like the Yao Guai or other dangerous creature encounter.

 

[Black]

Exactly. That's why the travelling dot on the world map is a better solution.

I agree. Dot + random encounters is basically allowing you to make the world seem alive thanks to encounters and avoid walking just for the sake of walking, without anything going on.
edit: Actually I think that Arcanum had the best idea. You had some random encounters (mostly shitty) but you also could walk manually, if you're that stubborn.

 

[Ausdoerrt]

Pff, if you did your walking manually in Arcanum, then I tip my hat to you, sir. And wonder how long it took to beat the game.

 

[Morbus]

Pff, if you did your walking manually in Arcanum, then I tip my hat to you, sir. And wonder how long it took to beat the game.

I would think that with about one thousand hours you'd have beaten the game. Manually walking takes less in-game time than fast travel, from my experience. I remember walking from the zepplin to this dude's house, which took me relatively little (like 15 minutes?) while with fast travel it would take quite a bit more.

But I may be wrong.

 

[Dionysus]

Exactly. That's why the travelling dot on the world map is a better solution.

I don't see why that wouldn't work for Fallout 3: You would be able to fast travel to any map marker, and any encounter, location or container on your course would just interrupt the fast travel.
That way you wouldn't be forcefed countless hours of emptiness.
I'm no expert on Bethesda's engine, but it doesn't sound impossible.

In Fallout 3, you don't explore the world with world-map travel. You only use fast-travel to backtrack to places you've been before. Adding random encounters to fast travel would just be counterproductive and annoying. Throwing in some sort of travel process screen would be OK as long as it doesn't take much time.

Pff, if you did your walking manually in Arcanum, then I tip my hat to you, sir. And wonder how long it took to beat the game.

Yeah, the manual walking option is pretty pointless in Arcanum, although they did exploit it at least once that I remember.

Personally, I prefer Fallout 3's style of exploration. The original style feels more like a minigame in comparison. Of course, there's a cost in terms of scale and the emphasis on settlements.

 

[Public]

You DON'T shit where you eat.
With that said, I have no doubt that eventhough he probably saw a lot of problems with FO3, he still had fun and would classify it as a good game.

Reading his mind you can, I see.

 

[jero cvmi]

In Fallout 3, you don't explore the world with world-map travel. You only use fast-travel to backtrack to places you've been before.

I know, that's the problem i'm talking about. You are forced to spend a very long time exploring empty spaces, and i think it would be possible to discover the same amount of content in much less time if a world-map travel system was used.

 

[TyloniusFunk]

Time in FO1/2

For me, the debate about travel is really getting at something else: a grand, overarching sense of scale. In FO1/2 you had a time sensitive mission from the outset and the time passed quickly enough on the world map so that you always felt just a little bit rushed. Every time you traveled from one main location to another. The entire game. FO3 lost this for me. I think the entire main story play through took me maybe 3-5 in-game days. (Yawner. Not epic.)
So listen up Obsidian. If you want NV to be epic, figure out how to blow weeks off the calender. Desolate years should mark the wasteland. Give us some elliptical editing. You don't necessarily need a time sensitive main mission, but give time a purpose other than the robotic storekeeper hours and video gamey day-night cycle.
(You know, the reason there's no instant travel in WoW is to make the world feel big, right? Perception(Time) = Space.)

To coin a phrase: The world's a smaller place for those with longer legs.

 

[UncannyGarlic]

Adding random encounters to fast travel would just be counterproductive and annoying. Throwing in some sort of travel process screen would be OK as long as it doesn't take much time.

Yeah I agree. Random encounters (pointless combat ones) really just add grinding and time wasting. Having time elapse from the travel would probably do the trick, make it do something like sleeping in Fallout 1&2 with the clock ticking by.

(You know, the reason there's no instant travel in WoW is to make the world feel big, right? Perception(Time) = Space.)

Gotta say that it's crap design not to have a fast travel system in your MMO, most have one that they charge money for.

 

[Dionysus]

I know, that's the problem i'm talking about. You are forced to spend a very long time exploring empty spaces, and i think it would be possible to discover the same amount of content in much less time if a world-map travel system was used.

Well in this case, the problem you've identified is one of the major strengths of the game.

In Fallout 3 the player actively navigates terrain, avoids or engages random travelers and monsters, and spots and pursues landmarks. For many that enjoyed the game (like Avellone), the exploration is one of the more entertaining aspects. Now, if you generally don't like exploration, then you might want to see it relegated to minigame status, but that would really just be changing the focus of the game rather than fixing a problem.

Having time elapse from the travel would probably do the trick, make it do something like sleeping in Fallout 1&2 with the clock ticking by.

Technically time does elapse, but they could throw in a special loading screen to make it more obvious.