Emil Pagliarulo impromptu fan Q&A

Re: Emil Pagiarulo impromptu fan Q&A

Brother None said:
Good stuff.

Also, anyone else think buying a game franchise just because you like the setting is a pretty dumb idea?
Click to expand...

Is this a hypothetical question?

Because Emil didn't say that they only liked the setting in his answer.

S.P.E.C.I.A.L is a game-mechanic aspect of Fallout that was also mentioned specifically.


But, to answer your hypothetical, I don't neccessarily agree that buying a game franchise because you like the setting is a dumb idea anyway. There's been quite a few franchises out there that I've really liked the world, or setting, but would change the gameplay for if I was working on them.
 
Re: Emil Pagiarulo impromptu fan Q&A

Autoduel76 said:
Because Emil didn't say that they only liked the setting in his answer.
Click to expand...

Be serious, Autoduel. The question was "since you're not keeping the mechanics, why buy the franchise?" The answer was "we like the setting", and...

Autoduel76 said:
S.P.E.C.I.A.L is a game-mechanic aspect of Fallout that was also mentioned specifically.
Click to expand...

Yes, they also like (parts of) SPECIAL, big whoop.

Autoduel76 said:
But, to answer your hypothetical, I don't neccessarily agree that buying a game franchise because you like the setting is a dumb idea anyway. There's been quite a few franchises out there that I've really liked the world, or setting, but would change the gameplay for if I was working on them.
Click to expand...

And once again personal tastes come into play.

I'm not discussing that, though, am I? If you like the setting but don't like the mechanics, don't play the game. Or better yet, hope for a spin-off, because that's the very definition of what you're looking for: same setting, different gameplay...that's a spin-off.

I generally prefer TBS to RTS. If someone threw the Warcraft franchise in my lap, should I really make a TBS called "Warcraft IV"? I prefer single player RPGs to MMORPGs, so if I get the World of Warcraft franchise, do you think people will think it a-ok if I make a single-player RPG that has the mechanics of a MMO (like Oblivion) and call it "World of Warcraft II"?

It's so odd that this logic applies to switched to "more immersive" gameplay changes, but not to anything else. It's a sign of the times, when creativity is being squashed for a singular corporate vision. That's exactly what "immersive" stands for, in my book.
 
Witchlock said:
Well, I'm glad he finally had some time to talk on the forum a bit. It is quite nice to see developers do that.

Mord_Sith said:
I've already made my decision after the evidence has been brought forward against Bethsoft, I'm sure that they love to make games for themselves, but they've forgotten something, the game was made by people who's motto was 'By gamers FOR GAMERS' not 'By gamers FOR OURSELVES' say what you want about interplay, they still gave us some of the best times of our childhoods (or even now for some people!)

Beth's design problem does not stem from their lack of understanding, more their lack of understanding that the game was originally made for the fans to enjoy first, the designers second.

I believe there is a saying 'you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink' that seems to fit Bethsoft pretty damn good right about now.
Click to expand...

You know Mord_Sith, that entire rant would make a lot more sense if you replaced 'FOR GAMERS' and 'fans' with 'Fallout Fans'. Seriously, if Bethesda made the type of game 'Gamers' want, we'd get dumbed down shit fit for a two year old. That's the way to sell game, just look at EA's business (or you could go with mindless violence like GTA). I want games made for Adult RPG Gamers, not Gamers in general.
Click to expand...

The problem is though, is that based on their track record with oblivious, we aren't going to see your preferred game either, effectively it was a comment about the whole 'we program the game for ourselves' comment, not all 'Gamers' are simps, but the ones that are most often noticed are the simps because that's the 12 yr old group just starting out that has no gaming etiquette yet.

Sure simping a game is great for the bottom line, it makes the game production cheaper and it appeals to a larger base group, however those games won't have any kind of longevity attached to them, their fangroups will disband after a few years at most and odds are that they won't get many sales on sequels.

The general market's been simping things for a while now to access the lowest common denominator and like you it annoys me to no end, button mashing mowronz on teh intarwebz are in my opinion, one of the lowest forms of life on this planet, second only to Scientologists and lawyers (I couldn't resist! :P :D)

But that doesn't change what I said, as I mentioned their focus is inherently flawed, Blizzard for example listens to feedback and look what they've got, a game that's internationally played to this day, with official tournaments and everything!

Why? because they programmed for the gamers, listened to the gamers, and didn't treat them like morons or like their opinion didn't matter.

Bethsoft's approach is completely opposite with their stance of 'we program what we like and if you don't like it we'll take our ball and leave!' as many people here have found when expressing a dissenting opinion on the Bethsoft forums or a critique that was given without malice but as a point of view.

What you're describing is making games for the bottom line, not for gamers, because gamers, real gamers, the ones that keep playing games past the age of 16, don't want stupid, redundant plots, with about as much depth as a kiddie pool and twice as tainted with effluents.
 
i guess we all agree that beth won't produce a bad game at all, but a game that appeals to a whole different target group than the 'old' fanbase of fallout.

see, the last games beth developed that were based on an existing franchise, were simplified and dumbed down, which in turn made them appeal to a broader market of casual gamers.

sadly, beth has every right to do this, since they own the franchise.

what i really have to criticise is the way beth treats the old fanbase - they act like they bought them along with the franchise and can dictate them how to react.
 
Voice Of Reason said:
i guess we all agree that beth won't produce a bad game at all
Click to expand...

Well, that remains to be seen. We can assume Fallout 3 will be mediocre-to-good based on the last two Beth products, the pretty good Morrowind and the mediocre Oblivion, but do we know? No we don't.
 
It's rather weird but I liked that interview because, for once, he was not trying to sell how awesome Fallout 3 was and how unsignificant the changes brought to the gameplay were. He was being honnest and even if reality sucks, it's better than a lie.
 
What was so mediocre about oblivion? From what i've heard the only positive aspect was the graphic engine (which looked like disneyland fairytale american dreamland, if you ask me) and the rest negative (fed-ex/kill-this quests, focus on combat, bad AI, unoriginal standard fantasy setting, world shaking invasion waits forever for you, consolized interface, "empty" world without character, etc..). So, what is it that made oblivion not a shitty game but a mediocre one? The multi-million dollar budget?
 
Pretty nice mini-interview.

Earlier in this thread Black was talking about not wanting to play Stalker because of the gameplay, not the setting. Oblivion is sort of the reverse for me. It's a hell of a lot more generic a setting than Morrowind, so you lose the more interesting dunmer architecture and culture, it's mysteriously filled with ruined forts and ruins of elves who lived in caves, supposedly set in the center of a world-spanning empire that is somehow not connected to anywhere outside the province, and various other weird world issues. On the other hand, the combat (Especially when tweaked with mods) is pretty entertaining, especially since you can end up with moments like where a baddy knocks your weapon out of you hand and you see it tumble down a chasm, the world itself is fun to run around on even if it doesn't particularly make sense, the AI is fun to mess with, and some of the quests are pretty fun. Add on top of that a healthy layer of mods to tweak things to your personal preference and it's a pretty fun game. Sort of play it in a similar fashion to Diablo 2. Not something I want play if I want to think, but if I just want to unwind and crawl around some dungeons, it's really good.

Really hope they release a toolset for FO3 though. Even though the TES modders turn out a lot of crap, people have done some pretty awesome things to them over the years. Then even if FO3 sucks in the Fallout department, presumably some modders could patch things up and improve it.
 
well, oblivion has its audience. it's fine for casual gamers and those who aren't into the genre. it has nice visuals and the gameplay doesn't have any fundamental flaws.

problem is that it totally doesn't work for people who enjoy rpgs with depth, such as arcanum, morrowind to some point, fallout and so on.

that would be like comparing solitaire to chess. they aren't very different concerning visuals, yet appeal to a very different audience, because of their differences in game depth and complexity. And yet, they both are very successful games.

That's what I meant by "a bad game" - i guess more than a few people will enjoy it on some level, and be it for the casual gamers.

But I highly doubt that it will appeal to the original fallout audience.
 
I got a pretty fair bit of enjoyment out of Oblivion, and I'm very much a fan of deeper, more dialogue heavy, skill based RPGs.
That said, it only lasts for one playthrough. I tried to replay it but it doesn't work since the game reacts exactly the same to you whatever your build is. And the actual gameplay simply isn't fun enough (or strangely addictive like games like Diablo or whatever) to warrant playing through it again.

There are a few creative quests in there. I liked the one with the painter, exploring some ruin to the far north (where the quest compass was disabled) etc.

But yeah, the game is huge, it works pretty nicely for the most part, the environments are beautiful (still think Bethesda have some outstanding people working on environments, though I don't much agree with the direction on Oblivion or what little I've seen of Fallout 3).

The biggest flaw in Oblivion for me personally is that it is just so incredibly unoffensive and uninteresting all in all. The setting is just very boring, characters are also boring and often lacking character, quests are also often (with a few exceptions like I said) boring.

There is no real edge at all in the game, nor is there any sense at all that you're actually doing something or affecting the world. You can never get in real trouble (pay up or go to jail, everythings fine again!) nor does it feel like anyone gives a damn if you're the hero of heroes. Due to level scaling, you never feel like you're really getting in over your head, nor does it feel like you really become powerful.

It's a huge game, but oh so shallow, bland and unoffensive.
 
I read the whole thing, and what sticks in my mind are all the comments equating first-person perspective with immersion. More immersive this, first-person that. Bullshit, I say. The first two Fallout games did a great job of immersing the player into the game world. If you're playing a good game, it's going to suck you in, period, regardless of perspective.

I can eventually get over the fact that the series has made a shift to first-person in the hands of Bethesda, but what I can't accept are all the bullshit reasons as to why the change was made. At least Emil simply said "first-person is what we do" at some point in between all the nonsense about immersion, though.

Also, to turn Brother None's question on its end...I actually avoid games because I dislike certain settings. You'll never catch me playing any sort of game set during WW2. No WW2 shooters, no WW2 RTS games, no nothing. I have to admit I can be attracted to a game because of its setting - but I'm not so stupid as to blindly buy the game and expect to enjoy it simply because of the setting. That would just be retarded. As someone else said, it's all about the gameplay.
 
Has anyone played Penumbra: Black Plague or its demo? That's a first person shooter that uses text descriptions to set its setting well. I felt much more immersed when I read the description of the room or the nasty mattress on the floor than just looking around and inspecting myself. I don't see why Fallout 3 couldn't have any of this.

I also wish to see interviews from game development companies that aren’t doing Fallout about how they would handle Fallout 3 if they were making it. Sure, they wont be taking the time to design the damn thing and think about it in depth, but I'm curious how important keeping true to the genre is to other professionals in contrast to what Beth is doing.
 
Wasteland Stories said:
I don't see why Fallout 3 couldn't have any of this.
Click to expand...
Actually, did you play Oblivion?
Click to expand...

Yes, Oblivion seemed to be absent of descriptive text as well. What I’m saying is Fallout 1-2 had that element that goes beyond what we can see and hear with what we can smell, touch, taste. Maybe if Fallout 3 had a perk of 'Awareness' that would provide a deeper form of immersion through text descriptions rather than relying on audio and visual alone. or, you know, include it in the damn game like it was in it's predecessors.
 
So, the guy stopped for a moment to courteously explain WHY he has to keep destroying the franchise, and WHY he really won't stop doing it.

Why, thanks, guy !
 
shihonage said:
So, the guy stopped for a moment to courteously explain WHY he has to keep destroying the franchise, and WHY he really won't stop doing it.

Why, thanks, guy !
Click to expand...

At least we don't have to bother with hope anymore, since we know from the source what they're doing.
 
I also refuse to be villified or accept that I -- or any other member of the Fallout team -- is somehow doing something wrong simply because we're making the game we want to make.

I refuse to accept that "making the game we want to make" means you're not doing something wrong, or justifies it. I also refuse to be villified, but despite my refusal the villification continues.
 
Tale of Two ... Altered States

Tale of Two ... Altered States



Do game dev's and the fellow traveling hired scribblers have a patent on 'immersion', or just it's restrictive exploit as a marketing prod?

The nex gen use of 'immersion' is jargon,
pure propaganda,
to groom aesthetics, restrict world view, and limit choice of action,
'Immersion' is now double speak dictating the consumer to specific BUYing frenzies.

I don't see Bethsoft dev's as social predators. They are -- immersed -- in the confines of their aesthetic epiphanies and emoting the jargon of the nex gen fashion de jour. They say that they know what they like, so they have a pallet for expressing their art.

When does the victimization enter?
Why, when 'immersion' of the hand eye visual hemisphere is pontificated by the marketeer's and fellow travelers as the sole essence of entertainment. The job ain't done until a straw man is kicked in the crotch. Grooming what is liked is not sufficient, ain't 'white' enough, is not politically correct. The strategy and tactics of ... any other point of view is put down faster that a two legged dog.

Wish I could recall more of "'Drawing From The Right Side Of The Brain""
even if that book is decades old.
Mental function localization may be too simple a model and deny a holistic person exploiting their whole brain,
not just the domination of primate frontal lobes or reptilian medulla oblongata.

Consider his judo trip: 'immersion' can occur from mental activity localized in either brain hemisphere.
Choose the visually dominate ping pong,
or the strategic analysis of logic puzzles,
... or a sensuous synapse trail mix trafficked by us assorted nuts who seek to negotiate the complementary combinations.

Each form of immersion is a focus of mental abilities,
an altered state,
a source of pleasure,
and can be as addictive as it is rewarding.

Are we witnessing a market guided by competing states or one restrictive addiction?

Choosing which side of the brain one wishes to play on, seems like the option of winners who can risk having it all.

Sad that the addiction to single hemisphere states of mind is offered as the 'only game in town'.





4too
 
Re: Tale of Two ... Altered States

4too said:
The nex gen use of 'immersion' is jargon,
pure propaganda,
to groom aesthetics, restrict world view, and limit choice of action,
'Immersion' is now double speak dictating the consumer to specific BUYing frenzies.
Click to expand...

Nothing new there, though.

I had a short talk about this on RPGWatch a while ago (starting from post #8 here).

Essentially I'd argue that the usage of the word "immersion" has become corrupt in the linguistic sense, as far as gaming is concerned. Its definition hasn't changed and it surely is a valid concept, but the way it is used had made it largely invalid.

I think.
 
Thanks to Lingwei, who I think is starwars, for the pm on the Bethesda forums that I thankfully got fulltext in my email (please don't pm my account on the Bethesda forums, it is too banned to be of any use).
Click to expand...

Actually Lingwei is Lingwei, I'll pm you on these forums in the future if I spot anything over the Elderscrolls for- Falloutscrolls forum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top