Fallout 3: A Reflection on the Writing

[Oeolycus]

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

How do you read books or see movies? Do those ever satisfy?

EDIT: Also, this is still linear. You just headed on a different line. I'm sure you can find an example where you can't do something you think you should. For instance, in FO2, you can't directly accuse the brothers of messing with the tribal's brahmin in Klamath even though you discover their costumes.

 

[UncannyGarlic]

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.

Again, quibbling over terms. Depending on what you define as significant enough to be considered a decision, every game can be defined as linear or non-linear. Fallout 1&2 are about as close as you can get to being a non-linear (with quests being the determining factor) RPG, yes they have a finite number of paths but so does every video game as it's the nature of such programs.

 

[TyloniusFunk]

How do you read books or see movies? Do those ever satisfy?

EDIT: Also, this is still linear. You just headed on a different line. I'm sure you can find an example where you can't do something you think you should. For instance, in FO2, you can't directly accuse the brothers of messing with the tribal's brahmin in Klamath even though you discover their costumes.

I figure out books and movies before they end, generally. So no, they aren't usually that satisfying.

Also, you are making an arbitrary distinction between multi-linear and non-linear. Multi-linearity would be a type of non-linearity; at least in the sense that I intended.

 

[UncannyGarlic]

Also, you are making an arbitrary distinction between multi-linear and non-linear. Multi-linearity would be a type of non-linearity; at least in the sense that I intended.

Multi-linear would be an appropriate term to describe Bioware-esc games, not Fallout.

 

[Oeolycus]

Multi-linear would be an appropriate term to describe Bioware-esc games, not Fallout.

Why?

If I made a flow chart of each games' areas and quests, I think we'd see multiple paths to many branched quests in each. Hands down, Fallout wins--but it's NOT because its multi-linear, non-linear, or anything else.

Listen, the reason I coined the term (if I did) was because non-linear is a stupid term. Non-linear means either no line, which a flow chart disproves, or a system where input doesn't equal output (doesn't even make sense here), or a narrative that is told out of order--which is something I've only seen in a handful of games.

Fallout wins over Bioware's garbage because of the writing and creativity. Fallout 1 & 2 are better than 3 because of the writing.

Saying non-linear = immersion isn't saying anything. I want to know why this version of multiple paths is better than another. I argue that it's the writing.

 

[Bukozki]

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.

Sorry for taking so long to reply...

I appreciate your clarification of the design of the first two games. I more or less have to yield to all points made in regard to those.

As for the relationship between Fallout/GURPS and writing/design: I'm inclined to point out that rules in RPGs are meant to facilitate the storytelling process, to give structure to the environment so that a story can unfold without conflicting narratives between multiple narrators (players) and a narrator/editor (GM/DM). If Fallout was emulating GURPS then it was emulating that rules structure to provide consistency and understanding in the environment, but that does not preclude it from having a narrative driven design. Essentially, the designer in this case is functioning as the GM/DM and arbitrating circumstances using the established rules of the environment.


As for the debate over linear/non-linear/multi-linear. I actually like multilinear to describe video games in which choice appear. Until we invent a computer program that can improvise a narrative and exceed the limits of the game that's as best we can do.

Non-linear does not necessarily equate to immersion. Honestly, the best writing in games these days probably belongs to more linear franchises because that's the story structure that is easiest to write and that is what is most familiar.

I would also like to point out that even "non-linear" plots become linear when you look back over them, a sequence of events still occur in an order that order is merely determined by the player participant.