Fallout 3: A Reflection on the Writing

B

Bukozki

First time out of the vault
Fallout 3 was my first Fallout experience. However, I've talked to at least a dozen people who've played the first two games and I've read some of the lush conversation trees from Fallout 2. I also YouTube'd some of the cinematic possibilities to flesh out my understanding of the series a bit more.

Anyway, I started a series of essays on Video Game theory and I wrote a reflection on the writing of Fallout 3. I'm probably not voicing anything you haven't read or said on these boards regarding the problems in Fallout 3, but I may have approached the game from a fresh stance, having not really experienced the first two on my own. Anyway, a friend of mine read it and recommended that I post the link here. Also, it does contain spoilers... not that I imagine that it would matter at this point.

Fallout 3: A Reflection on the Writing
 
Skimmed it.

While a bit biased, it was genarally well-written, and makes its point well. Good job!
 
I don't think I was shooting for unbiased. I was actually excited when I sat down, impressed by the Vault sequences for the most part, loved the Tranquility Lane portion but ultimately, as a writer, I couldn't help but be disappointed with this game.

Not having played the original Fallout or Fallout 2, I went into this play experience largely optimistic based on the teaser material and without preconceived expectations.

This game fails outside of the series as well as within it. I think GTA4 is a better and more compelling RPG than Fallout 3, and I think the writing in that game is mediocre at best.
 
The games are fundamentally the exact same thing. The only difference is the change in skill over a period of time. In Fallout 3 elements of game play are unlocked as the character encounters new equipment and gains "experience". In GTA elements of game play are unlocked as the character gains new equipment and access to new locations. Both games allow for moral choices that impact outcome of story and play.

A running tally of how much you've killed does not make something an RPG. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that GTA is more immersive than Fallout 3. There are more radio stations, more in game feedback, more ways in which you are reminded of the role you are playing in the game and within the game environment. Most of the mission objectives are structured in the same way in both games: go here, retrieve this, etcetera. The fact that you don't design your own character in GTA and assign skillpoints does not make it any less of an of an RPG than Fallout 3.

The question is, can we adequately recognize the genre of the RPG in such a way that it excludes GTA but includes Fallout 3?
 
I mean, at this point there are no concrete genres in video games because the technology and conventions are constantly developing, so what does and does not constitute a particular type of game is something that can be continuously questioned and considered to be evolving.

In the case of GTA, I'm playing Devil's advocate, I don't actually consider it to be an RPG, but I'm open to argument regarding what constitutes one.
 
I don't consider any GTA title an RPG. Neither do I consider Fallout 3 an RPG. 'RPG' is a pretty spongy term, anyway, and I don't really want to discuss what it takes for a game to be an RPG. JRPGs, cRPGS, wRPGS were discussed often enough and there will never be a conclusion.
 
Bukozki said:
The question is, can we adequately recognize the genre of the RPG in such a way that it excludes GTA but includes Fallout 3?
Click to expand...
Easy, require stats and/or skills which change over time due to actions taken in the game. I can't think of any RPG which doesn't have such so it's a fair requirement, probably not the only requirement mind you, but one. Fallout 3 along with at lest TES III and TES IV are FPS-ARPG hybrids so they aren't a great example of what makes a RPG or even an ARPG due to the FPS elements.

I'm not sure how much I feel like arguing this but it could be interesting. I'll read your paper when I have time which won't be until the end of the week.
 
Buxbaum666 said:
I don't consider any GTA title an RPG. Neither do I consider Fallout 3 an RPG. 'RPG' is a pretty spongy term, anyway, and I don't really want to discuss what it takes for a game to be an RPG. JRPGs, cRPGS, wRPGS were discussed often enough and there will never be a conclusion.
Click to expand...
And they are not. GTA never was and is not supposed to be like a RPG.
 
I don't think Bukozki implied that GTA4 was an RPG, only that it resembles an RPG more than Fallout3 does - or pretends to, rather.

About immersion, GTA4 has it beat ten times over. While taking on the role of Nico I felt like I was part of the story being told, however silly. In FO3, I never felt like I belong to the world - I felt like everything was being told to me, the player, through the 4th wall.
 
Will read & comment [edit this post] when I have the time. In the mean time, I've bookmarked your essay and this thread. One of the goals of the Fallout 3 Compendium (F3C) is to rebuild (or rework) the main quest into a more robust and satisfying plot. I look forward to this read.
 
coliphorbs said:
I don't think Bukozki implied that GTA4 was an RPG, only that it resembles an RPG more than Fallout3 does - or pretends to, rather.

About immersion, GTA4 has it beat ten times over. While taking on the role of Nico I felt like I was part of the story being told, however silly. In FO3, I never felt like I belong to the world - I felt like everything was being told to me, the player, through the 4th wall.
Click to expand...

Completely correct. Fallout 3, mechanically speaking, has more of the markers of an RPG, but when it comes down to doing the actual job of immersing yourself into the role of the main character, I think GTA does more to insert the player into the environment.

I think my primary concern when I'm playing a game, an RPG in particular, is the level of immersion and writing technique: flow of story, quality of written texts and quality of dialog.

If all Fallout 3 has over GTA as an RPG is a mechanical progression of skill, then why even call it an RPG at all? Because I certainly didn't feel like the actual role play aspect was important to Fallout 3. We could come up with a new term for RPGs with terrible writing MPSG, or Mechanical Progression of Skill Game.
 
Bukozki said:
The games are fundamentally the exact same thing. The only difference is the change in skill over a period of time. In Fallout 3 elements of game play are unlocked as the character encounters new equipment and gains "experience". In GTA elements of game play are unlocked as the character gains new equipment and access to new locations. Both games allow for moral choices that impact outcome of story and play.

A running tally of how much you've killed does not make something an RPG. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that GTA is more immersive than Fallout 3. There are more radio stations, more in game feedback, more ways in which you are reminded of the role you are playing in the game and within the game environment. Most of the mission objectives are structured in the same way in both games: go here, retrieve this, etcetera. The fact that you don't design your own character in GTA and assign skillpoints does not make it any less of an of an RPG than Fallout 3.

The question is, can we adequately recognize the genre of the RPG in such a way that it excludes GTA but includes Fallout 3?
Click to expand...
Like you, I believe that an RPG doesn't necessarily have to use stats. But I'm not claiming GTA is an RPG.

Fundamentally, you have to be able to choose a specialisation for your character. And you have to be able to refine that specialisation.

When you think about it, adding +1 to strength is the same as saying "I want my character to specialise more in brute strength."

The game doesn't need to have stats - presenting the choice in text form as I just did achieves the same outcome. In fact I think stats can muddy the water, and introduce uncertainty.

For example, I want my character to be able to wield the heaviest weapon in the game. Will STR9 be enough? Will STR8 be enough?

I can't know this ahead of time, because until I've encountered every weapon in the game and seen it's STR requirement, I don't know how much is enough.

If, on the other hand, the game had presented me with the choice of "stealth, brute strength, diplomacy, marksmanship" those chioces are self-explanatory. Having chosen "marksmanship" I would expect to be able to use any sniper rifle in the game.

Not to find the best rifle and see "uh oh, need 2 more STR than I've got".

For a more advanced system, you could at first choose between "light sniper weapons; light melee weapons". You choose "light sniper weapons".

Later on, you get a choice of "heavy sniper weapons; light melee weapons". It is logical that you can't jump straight to "heavy melee weapons" since you never took light melee weapons. Additionally, you can now you can further specialise in sniping by chosing to wield heavy sniper weapons. You will still suck with all melee attacks.

Ultimately, I haven't played GTA:4. But unless you can choose to be more competent/ less competent in certain areas, then I couldn't call it an RPG.

***

So an RPG, in a nutshell is:

A list of actions your character can take.
A choice to increase/decrease the success chance of some of those actions.
Choosing not to be able to perform some actions at all is valid.

Now, a "shallow" RPG has:

Actions which do not change your path through the game.
Actions which do not change your strategy, in whole or in part.
Actions which perform a similar function, or are implemented by very similar game mechanics:

Ie, given the choice of the following actions:
-shoot with pistol
-shoot with dart
-shoot with rifle

you have 3 valid actions, and you could potentially have an RPG. However, those actions are largely the same. The gameplay is mostly identical. All 3 weapons require aiming and firing. All 3 are hostile actions, and unsuited to a character who wishes to be diplomatic.

A better RPG has:

Actions which heavily affect strategy, in whole or in part.
Actions which enable multiple solutions to problems.
Actions which can change the focus of the game - for example, hostile actions vs peaceful actions. Offensive actions vs defensive actions.
The ability to completely change your path through the game based on your actions.
Encounters which entirely depend on which actions your character is capable of.


On top of that, an RPG might typically have:
A story-driven world
NPCs given life and importance (GTA has; Quake doesn't).
 
Those are all excellent points that can be applied to a number of games.

However, I would ask, mechanically speaking how a skill progression or a stat choice is any different than choosing a weapon in GTA.

The net effect of choosing to do more damage with pistols and choosing to wield a shotgun is practically the same thing.

In both cases the player makes a choice for the character that results in an increase in some sort of game statistic.

Once again, I'm just asking questions about how and why we define our genres.

I did a quick run on Wikipedia (I know, really?) and this definition of an RPG intrigued me...

"A role-playing game (RPG; often roleplaying game) is a game in which the participants assume the roles of fictional characters.[1] Participants determine the actions of their characters based on their characterization,[1] and the actions succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines.[2] Within the rules, players have the freedom to improvise; their choices shape the direction and outcome of the game"

By that definition GTA 4 actually comes closer to the definition of an RPG than Fallout 3.

Now, that actually applies to a table top roleplaying environment. But couldn't you in turn make the argument that there are no true video game RPGs since the imagination of the player is limited to choosing actions based on a limited number of choices set before them during the design process??

We could split hairs over the semantics of what is an is not an RPG for awhile, but what it comes down to is that Fallout 3 adheres to many of the conventions used in RPGs while adopting some conventions used in FPS, which itself is a convention pioneered in Bethesda's earlier works. What Fallout 3 fails to do is successfully break from the existing conventions of the two genres it inhabits or the games that preceded it in the series or in the library of work produced by its designers.

We can say that fairly, without debating the context of what makes an RPG since there are a variety of conflicting approaches to making an RPG as well as individual values that will be placed on those approaches. One could say that all RPGs have "cheese" and someone else could say that RPGs have "cheese" but also usually have "wine" and it is the combination of "cheese and wine" that makes an RPG. Same argument.
 
An excellent point with the San Andreas thing. There is physical specialization as well as role play. I don't recall if there were moral decisions made.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top