Fallout 3: A Reflection on the Writing

[Bukozki]

It only becomes confusing when you start to deconstruct what it means. When you parse the words out you get something very broad. Which is why, in different communities, you'd get different definitions of what a role playing game is. For example, someone performing psychological observation on children playing house might call it a role playing game (which would make cops and robbers an Action RPG), likewise a sex therapist might recommend role playing games to a troubled couple (clearly, there is no correlation between 20-sided dice and getting laid), and to a video game player an RPG manifests itself in many of the ways that its been defined here.

I think, when defining genre, we should avoid overly broad terms and instead define them according to their features. In that respect we can't be afraid to lump games that, in the past, have been considered as separate genres.

 

[Brother None]

I think, when defining genre, we should avoid overly broad terms and instead define them according to their features. In that respect we can't be afraid to lump games that, in the past, have been considered as separate genres.

I disagree for one simple reason: we can't. We can't retro-actively undo or redo all the work done by popular mouth-to-mouth and (recently) PR has done on defining and redefining RPGs...

And I don't think it's that important. What "sucks" about the definition of RPGs isn't even that someone can call GTA or Saints Row an RPG and by modern PR-induced definition be correct, it's the meaninglessness the term has got because of this.

If I walk into a store, pick up a game, ask the clerk "what is this?"; he can answer "FPS" and I'll know immediately how the game plays. If he answers "RPG" I know nothing, because RPG has come a meaningless umbrella term: even games with no plot like Mount & Blade are RPGs, or games with no stats like Space Siege? RPG.

Even if someone offers clean definition, there's no way everyone will agree with it, and popular usage certainly never will.

Me? I just prefer subterms. Call RPG an umbrella term and accept how meaningless it has become. Then define GTA: San Andreas, Fallout 3 and Deus Ex as FPSRPGs, while Arcanum, Fallout, Gold Box and Realms of Arkania are all pen and paper-emulating RPGs. Sure, there will still be conflicts and confusion, but at least most of the useless word games are out of the way.

 

[Bukozki]

Technically, GTA is third-person, but neither here nor there.

You're absolutely right, insofar as the market is concerned. I'm more interested in discussing games academically. From an academic standpoint misleading or false terminology should be eliminated and replaced with more exact definitions. I'm not really suggesting that we change the words on the box.

 

[Brother None]

Even in academic circles definitions can be hazy, especially considering gaming academics is hardly a mature academic circle (some of the writing is so faux-intellectual it's not even funny, truly clever analysis is a rarity). But heck, if a widely-used socio-anthropological term like "discourse" does not even have a singular definition how could one hope to narrow something that has such a broad popular definition as RPG down?

It's a lost battle. And even from an academic standpoint, what would be wrong with accepting RPG as an umbrella term and then simply adding hyphenates?

Remember yourself "democracy" as a political analytical term. The closest anyone ever got to encapsulating it in a single definition was Huntington with the two-turnover rule. That has failed (more or less), but it's not like this means we can't use democracy in modern academic discourse just because it is nebulously defined. Just specify. "Mature democracy" is a media term, but academicians are fine with using such concepts as delegative democracy to define democracies in transition like Russia.

It's annoying, but it's no big deal. And it's certainly academically valid. If you don't accept when subdefinitions of terms simply become more effective, you're strangling yourself with definitions. And definitions are the playing ground of baby academicians, not of serious research.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Interesting in this context then when I look up for "delegative democracy" (as I guess its a more or less english term) the german synonym would be "defect democracy". Particularly interesting by thinkin about Russia ...

 

[Brother None]

No, delegative as in delegated; you have elections which sign of full powers to a person for a set amount of time. It's like an elected dictatorship, just less charged than that. It describes quite a few democracies-in-transition quite well, but there's on way you can translate it as defect democracy.

As I said though, it doesn't stop the discussion. There will always be papers discussing the need of a new discourse regarded conceptual frameworks like delegative democracies.

But - and this is important - as an academic myself I consider it below our stature to niggle about definitions. It is first and foremost vital to recognize a conceptual framework is just that, a conceptual framework. Defining a certain concept differently does not actually change the debate, just the way in which it is held. And that's pretty important, and shows why such definition debates are always on the lower ranks of academic work.

 

[Bukozki]

I would argue that in the relatively fledgling discussion of video game theory (those discussions pertaining to the games themselves and not necessarily where games intersect with other disciplines) that now would be the time, if ever, to establish or amend the language of the discourse.

Off the top of my head, I would argue that games can fall into three basic camps...

Those which seek to tell a story, or more correctly: those which seek to emulate or adapt the conventions of other mediums (i.e. literature or film.)

Those which seek to emulate an activity without attempting to provide a meaningful narrative. (i.e. racing, games of sport, board and card game simulators.)

Those which make no attempt to emulate an activity or provide a narrative (i.e. Puzzle games)


So the Halo series could fall into both the first and second category, since the main story provides a narrative, but the multiplayer only simulates combat without any real attempt to make sense of the situation through narrative.

 

[Bukozki]

Keep in mind, I am approaching that from the standpoint of someone primarily interested in the writing of video games.

 

[failout]

Just like I said, I do not think HL2 is a cRPG, I'm just f'ing around with the definition you posted to point out its flaws. The distinction between "assuming a role" and "controlling" in a computer game is close to 0, and definitely not as clear-cut as you are trying to make it out to be.

The difference is perfectly clear to me.

CRPGs are first and foremost computer games, so they must represent a genre of computer games.

I never said they aren't a subgenre of video games. I said they aren't a subgenre of roleplaying.

All computer games are based on the choice-consequence system, it's just that it plays out differently in different genres. An FPS is created with real-life experience in mind, yet it's not the same as real-life war; cRPG is not the same as roleplaying in PnP.

Apples & oranges. It is utterly impossible for a video game to replicate or approximate a physical activity like real life combat or real life freerunning or whatever, but it is not impossible for a video game to replicate or approximate roleplaying.

It only becomes confusing when you start to deconstruct what it means. When you parse the words out you get something very broad. Which is why, in different communities, you'd get different definitions of what a role playing game is. For example, someone performing psychological observation on children playing house might call it a role playing game (which would make cops and robbers an Action RPG), likewise a sex therapist might recommend role playing games to a troubled couple (clearly, there is no correlation between 20-sided dice and getting laid), and to a video game player an RPG manifests itself in many of the ways that its been defined here.

I don't see what's confusing about any of that.

 

[Bukozki]

I know, I wrote it clearly. My point isn't that it is fundamentally confusing, but that it can be made to be confusing. I was simply saying that it might be valuable to use terminology that can't be as easily compromised by semantics.

It's not a terribly relevant point, as Brother None pointed out. Just something I'm interested in since the framework of discourse regarding video games is only lightly established in formal settings.

 

[TyloniusFunk]

The difference is perfectly clear to me.

Oh! Well then!

It only becomes confusing when you start to deconstruct what it means. When you parse the words out you get something very broad. Which is why, in different communities, you'd get different definitions of what a role playing game is. For example, someone performing psychological observation on children playing house might call it a role playing game (which would make cops and robbers an Action RPG), likewise a sex therapist might recommend role playing games to a troubled couple (clearly, there is no correlation between 20-sided dice and getting laid), and to a video game player an RPG manifests itself in many of the ways that its been defined here.

I don't see what's confusing about any of that.

I see the problem: you lack the ability to objectively analyze something. Do us all a favor, from now on, only post statements that argue against your own personal opinion instead of making others do it for you. If you don't understand why you would do that, just STFU.

 

[Oeolycus]

RE: BN
Good example with the term "democracy" and its vague definition. Let me present another: republic. For those who don't know, it's from the Latin res publica, or "the public thing (or affair)." Talk about vague! I can just see the wealthy Roman families coming up with that term when they switched from a monarchy to a plutocracy.

Back to the OP's essay though.

I reread your article, and I wanted to offer one place where you may be too generous with the original Fallout titles. I highly recommend you play both, so you can form a better and more personal argument.

The first two installments of the series designed by Black Isle Studios were very writing centric, and the mechanics of design were largely built as a vessel around that writing.

I don't know if this is entirely true. Fallout 1 and 2 each have you exit a starting area in search of a MacGuffin in order to save that community. This, in each game, is poor motivation as you end up interacting with every other community in a more meaningful way. I find this fault in FO3 as well.

I'm by no means drawing a similarity between FO1-2 and FO3's actual text. By comparison, FO1-2 are far and above FO3, and that needs no further argument. But your essay is on writing as a veneer for quest design and I see the same sorts of go here-do this in each game.

The most important difference for me is that the NPCs are more memorable (and less retarded) in the first two iterations.

 

[TyloniusFunk]

Fallout 1 and 2 each have you exit a starting area in search of a MacGuffin in order to save that community. This, in each game, is poor motivation as you end up interacting with every other community in a more meaningful way.

That the "story" of the game gets swept up in the larger world is partly what made Fallout so exceptional. If the main quest was the driving motivation the entire game, it would be more linear and less immersive. The writing in Fallout wasn't just a success in terms of telling a story, but also successful in terms of adopting narrative technique to a new, nonlinear medium. The games that pull this off are few and far between; and I think that's why Fallout 3 was such a disappointment. It seems Bethesda wasn't really aware of what they had. For more on this see this Gamasutra article.

 

[Brother None]

One note, Bukozki: we prefer if people not post directly after their own posts. If you have something to add, use the edit button.

I would argue that in the relatively fledgling discussion of video game theory (those discussions pertaining to the games themselves and not necessarily where games intersect with other disciplines) that now would be the time, if ever, to establish or amend the language of the discourse.

That is based on the assumption that no discourse exists for gaming already just because the academic discussion is young. That is - for obvious reasons - false, and to attempt to divorce academic definitions from popular usage of terms would just create the kind of artificial gap that pseudo-intellectuals love but that No True Academic should strive for.

 

[Bukozki]

RE: BN
Good example with the term "democracy" and its vague definition. Let me present another: republic. For those who don't know, it's from the Latin res publica, or "the public thing (or affair)." Talk about vague! I can just see the wealthy Roman families coming up with that term when they switched from a monarchy to a plutocracy.

Back to the OP's essay though.

I reread your article, and I wanted to offer one place where you may be too generous with the original Fallout titles. I highly recommend you play both, so you can form a better and more personal argument.

The first two installments of the series designed by Black Isle Studios were very writing centric, and the mechanics of design were largely built as a vessel around that writing.

I don't know if this is entirely true. Fallout 1 and 2 each have you exit a starting area in search of a MacGuffin in order to save that community. This, in each game, is poor motivation as you end up interacting with every other community in a more meaningful way. I find this fault in FO3 as well.

I'm by no means drawing a similarity between FO1-2 and FO3's actual text. By comparison, FO1-2 are far and above FO3, and that needs no further argument. But your essay is on writing as a veneer for quest design and I see the same sorts of go here-do this in each game.

The most important difference for me is that the NPCs are more memorable (and less retarded) in the first two iterations.

Agreed, I am talking outside of my own experience with the first two games and judging based on user impressions and the dialog trees that I've seen. My argument in that regard is that design challenges seemed to come from the writing, rather than writing arising from design challenges. Sprawling conversation files don't generally result from the mechanical necessity of a linear course of action, but rather non-linear (or an appearance of non-linear) action arises from necessities created by texts. At least, that was the impression I took away from what I do know of the original games.

I am not saying that a designer setting out with the goal of creating a non-linear environment wouldn't necessarily come to the same result, but I am partly basing my assessment on what I've read from interviews with Chris Avellone and limited first and second hand communications that indicate his predilection for putting storytelling elements first.

 

[TyloniusFunk]

as an academic myself I consider it below our stature to niggle about definitions

"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is." -Bill Clinton

For academic exposition on any topic, it is essential to clearly define the terms you will use. This is purely a Chapter 1 situation and if the discourse begins and ends with definitions you are absolutely right, it's meaningless. But it is also imperative to say what you mean, otherwise you will be misinterpreted.

 

[failout]

I see the problem: you lack the ability to objectively analyze something. Do use all a favor, from now on, only post statements that argue against your own personal opinion instead of making others do it for you. If you don't understand why you would do that, just STFU.

The de-obfuscated version of your post:

WHAT THE FUCK WHY WON'T THIS GUY AGREE WITH ME?!?!1++

 

[Oeolycus]

That the "story" of the game gets swept up in the larger world is partly what made Fallout so exceptional. If the main quest was the driving motivation the entire game, it would be more linear and less immersive. The writing in Fallout wasn't just a success in terms of telling a story, but also successful in terms of adopting narrative technique to a new, nonlinear medium.

I agree that the schema of the "main quest" is not the "main quest" is a great part of Fallout 1 & 2. My argument was that it was poor story-writing. Necessary to get the PC to interact with the world? Very likely, but that's what the OP's essay is on--writing from design challenges.

Now, I completely lose you when you equate linearity to immersion. Why is this true? Some of the most immersive games in my opinion have you on rails the whole way. This is because immersion comes from good story telling IMO--not whether or not I get to make choices that bring about multiple endings.

Also, how is FO1 or 2 for that matter non-linear? I think you are mistaking the term non-linear for something we can define as "multi-linear." I mean by this that there are several different lines that you can follow that lead to several different conclusions, but you are still on a path from A to B by game's end.

Agreed, I am talking outside of my own experience with the first two games and judging based on user impressions and the dialog trees that I've seen. My argument in that regard is that design challenges seemed to come from the writing, rather than writing arising from design challenges. Sprawling conversation files don't generally result from the mechanical necessity of a linear course of action, but rather non-linear (or an appearance of non-linear) action arises from necessities created by texts. At least, that was the impression I took away from what I do know of the original games.

What you're saying, I think, can be summed up more succinctly as: if one writes first and designs later, one might need to cut some of the writing to fit design limits. If one designs first and writes later, one might need to use writing to patch up design limits.

I am split with whether I agree with this is the case in general and/or with Fallout3. More later... EDIT: nevermind, BN said it better right below.

 

[Brother None]

failout, TyloniusFunk, take it to PM's. More of these childish posts will result in a strike and vattage.

For academic exposition on any topic, it is essential to clearly define the terms you will use. This is purely a Chapter 1 situation and if the discourse begins and ends with definitions you are absolutely right, it's meaningless. But it is also imperative to say what you mean, otherwise you will be misinterpreted.

That's why any decent paper opens up with "definitions" for any nebulous term you'll use. But I'm saying it might be inevitable that academic game writers have to sit down and accept that they are in no position to define or re-define existing game terms like RPG, and would be better of treating it as such a nebulous term.

My argument in that regard is that design challenges seemed to come from the writing, rather than writing arising from design challenges.

I can tell you fairly certainly that is incorrect. Dead wrong, in fact.

Let's not talk MCA here, because MCA - while a popular Fallout designer - has dick-all to do with Fallout's heritage. As a rule, there are 6 people to consider Fallout's founders - Tim Cain, Leonard Boyarsky, Jason D. Anderson, Chris Taylor, Jason Taylor and Jason Campbell. There are others who should definitely be asked on certain topics (Jesse Heinig about SPECIAL, T-Ray Isaacs and Gary Platner for artistic direction, etc.), but usually if you've got an opinion of - say - Tim Cain on design or Leonard Boyarsky on art, you'll know more firmly where a certain idea stems from.

And here's why I think your writing-over-design interpretation is dead wrong (this and private communications, but I'm not quoting from those):

“In a good RPG, you should be able to make a good variety of starting characters and then develop them in very different ways. Your choices should affect the game in meaningful ways, both in the ongoing game and in the ending you get. Of course, the game should be fun to play and easy to interact with, but that’s true for every genre of game.”

Go back on this quote and think about where Fallout comes from: Fallout was originally designed as GURPS, an attempt to make a game "as close as you can get to playing GURPS, short of playing GURPS."

Now I don't know if you play a lot of pen and paper RPGs, but for those of us who do, it is easy to spot how and where Tim Cain attempted to bring this philosophy to play. Core points of pen and paper RPGs (specifically GURPS) are that your stats have direct influence on all your actions (hence why your character can't talk normally if his intelligence is not high enough: the player's abilities don't come in to play over his characters') and that the player is offered real choices with real consequences.

This is why you can never consider BioWare's RPGs to be in the same genre as BIS/Troika p&p-emulating RPGs: BioWare is fine with having one dialogue file that looks the same for everyone, where the player is offered 3 options, 2 of which usually lead directly to the same answer while the third will get you to the same result eventually. Options? Hell no.

When it comes to dialogue choices, you can easily recognize the basic GURPS emulating philosophy: Fallout's dialogue is directly stat-dependent, and dialogue offers you real choices with real consequences. The writing is only meant to support that structure.

 

[TyloniusFunk]

Now, I completely lose you when you equate linearity to immersion. Why is this true? Some of the most immersive games in my opinion have you on rails the whole way. This is because immersion comes from good story telling IMO--not whether or not I get to make choices that bring about multiple endings.

I equate non-linearity to immersion; but more technically I equated linearity to breaking immersion.

When you play a game on rails, you bump into the narrative frame the moment you misinterpret what the game wants you to do. This breaks immersion. When you try to bump into such a frame in Fallout, say, travel west after leaving the vault the first time, there is nothing that stops you, and, in fact, you discover things. Due to this discovery factor, the game world is more immersive, it seems to exist regardless of the player rather than because of the player.