Fallout 3 at E3 - RPGamer Q&A

Brother None

Brother None

This ghoul has seen it all
Orderite
RPGamer conducted a Q&A with Emil Pagiarulo at E3:<blockquote>When asked about whether or not it'd be possible to kill any and all NPCs, Emil expressed their concern over letting their players get backed into a corner that they can't get themselves out of, or not experiencing content the designers want to be sure they see. So it's currently still being worked out whether or not they'll be able to design the game such that they can let you kill whoever, or if they'll have to make some people untouchable. He did express a strong desire to have as few unkillable NPCs as possible, as they know the negative aspects of putting walls like that in front of players.

The player's gender does affect the reactions of NPCs, opening up different conversations and quests and whatnot. However, at this time they could not confirm whether there would be any romantic affairs available.

Once again, a question about who the target audience is resulted in the response that the target audience is Bethesda. He reiterated that their design strategy is to make the game that they want to play.</blockquote>Link: Fallout 3 Q&A with Emil Pagliarulo at RPGamer.

Spotted on BethBlog.
 
Brother None said:
Once again, a question about who the target audience is resulted in the response that the target audience is Bethesda.
Click to expand...

Apparently every single person that works for Bethesda is a fourteen year old hormone fueled ADD kid.
 
Brother None said:
Once again, a question about who the target audience is resulted in the response that the target audience is Bethesda.
Click to expand...
Oh well, it can't be more official than that. So, they don't make the game for me...

But I DO make a mod for them. :twisted:
 
It´ll be like 5 seconds after F3´s release that there´ll be a mod that allows us to kill and mutilate every damn innocent child we desire.
 
When asked about whether or not it'd be possible to kill any and all NPCs, Emil expressed their concern over letting their players get backed into a corner that they can't get themselves out of, or not experiencing content the designers want to be sure they see
Click to expand...

Vampire Bloodlines took care of by disabling your weapons/powers when entering major quest givers domain. But then again it is fallout (lets skip it this time, okay.) and in the previous games if you wanted to kill a quest giver and miss out on gameplay you had that option. Another way this could be handled is by making everyone killable and if they hold a vital piece of information leave it in a shape of a note/disk Arcanum seemed to get away with that quite well.
 
What's the deal with the "desire" to kill and mutilate children? Is killing children more entertaining than shooting women in groin?
 
Nah.
But killing a kid by shoot in the eyes with desert eagle is more entertaining than killing some random guy ^^
 
on the topic about the gender - will I be able to make a big-tit char with top charisma and screw my way through the game ? Wow, with all this immershun talk I would expect to see a 3d sex simulator in a mini f-- ing game.
Right? I think I'm being in line with tne "innovation" :D
 
Well actually GTA:SA had the hot coffee patch I think that’s what its called which is a mini fucking game you can do when you are on a date. For some odd reason the boys at Rockstar decided to leave the files in the computer US version but you needed to d/l the patch to unlock this feature.
 
Sorrow said:
What's the deal with the "desire" to kill and mutilate children? Is killing children more entertaining than shooting women in groin?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say desire but if a kid just pickpocketed my main character in the Den, he can bet his ass I'm gonna blow a hole in his face.

I don't think it's a fun must-have option, but it does limit the role playing options when I can't kill someone because it might "ruin the quest."
 
To me kids are just an ordinary type of character, that is essential to a good portrayal of gaming world, just as unkillable characters are simply wrong.

SimpleMinded said:
Sorrow said:
What's the deal with the "desire" to kill and mutilate children? Is killing children more entertaining than shooting women in groin?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say desire but if a kid just pickpocketed my main character in the Den, he can bet his ass I'm gonna blow a hole in his face.
Click to expand...
I think that there should been an option to simply intimidate them into giving the character's belongings back.
Killing a kid to get the belongings back/stop it from stealing or not is a false moral dillema.
 
Brother None said:
The player's gender does affect the reactions of NPCs, opening up different conversations and quests and whatnot. However, at this time they could not confirm whether there would be any romantic affairs available.
Click to expand...

I'll go ahead and guess that this is a lie.
Full voice acting won't allow for more variation than just "girl/boy" "sir/ma'am" type switches. Just like Oblivion.
 
When asked about whether or not it'd be possible to kill any and all NPCs, Emil expressed their concern over letting their players get backed into a corner that they can't get themselves out of, or not experiencing content the designers want to be sure they see.
Click to expand...

Yet, somehow, Fallout 1 and 2 managed to avoid that problem, while still allowing the player to kill almost anyone they wanted to?
 
Dougly said:
When asked about whether or not it'd be possible to kill any and all NPCs, Emil expressed their concern over letting their players get backed into a corner that they can't get themselves out of, or not experiencing content the designers want to be sure they see.
Click to expand...

Yet, somehow, Fallout 1 and 2 managed to avoid that problem, while still allowing the player to kill almost anyone they wanted to?
Click to expand...

Yeah but they weren't next-gen, man!
Next-gen means there's no time for writing multiple quest paths and absolutely no assuming the player has more reasoning skills than a baboon.
 
When asked about whether or not it'd be possible to kill any and all NPCs, Emil expressed their concern over letting their players get backed into a corner that they can't get themselves out of, or not experiencing content the designers want to be sure they see.
Click to expand...
That's interesting, because my former best friend was talking about how the recreation of the LARPing experience on computer is better than Fallout because it allows to learn knowledge from books, etc. which allows to kill people and then get quest information from their books, journals, etc.
 
Wow, these comments simply show an astonishing lack of creativity and depth in the Beth design process.

Simply put, if you can't figure out a way to advance the story because an NPC dies then perhaps a job in the fast food or house-keeping industry is better suited to your skills...

Emil, I'll never accuse you of being a good designer, much less a worthy Fallout designer.... go ahead prove me wrong, I'd love to be proven worng on this one...
 
Consequences 101

Consequences 101



Those familiar with FO1+2 know there were consequences for random (via friendly fire) and intentional ''child killing''.
Perhaps the karma label and bounty hunter threat were not a liability to mid and late game bad asses, a ''good'' play-ah would have to reload a game save.

""Child killing''' had game world-wide consequences.

""Friendly fire"" meant judicious weapon selection for the PC and NPC's, meant maneuvering in the face of enemy fire, meant NOT starting fire fights in the streets of Den.
Meant making ADULT decisions that are not financially justifiable in Nex Gen computer game entertainment design.
""Friendly fire"" was a touch of reality in the game's combat system that is too complex and or financially unrealistic for the Nex Gen market demographic.

Nex Gen, it's not about games or fun or adventure any more, it's all about the money.
Drug like euphoria from induced autistic immersion in roving and killing in eye candy land.
Forget the process.
Forget 'the road less traveled'.
No God, just god mode.
No heroes.
Just accountants.

Welcome to the American Century. And Russ Pitts wants you to BE AWESOME, to BUY, teh big shiny, ...... teh X box.


The apologists for the Nex Gen hysteria can never admit that a game programmed during the 1990's was more socially sophisticated than any now or future action rpg.


""Child killing'' and ''friendly fire'' and "groin shots'' have been made single issue style political pawns, buzz phrases, and in this simplification,
this dumbing down,
the true essence of the game system that they were once A PART OF THE WHOLE is lost to those who do not know the FO's
and those who claim they have played the FO's.

The single issue bullet point menus of FO fail to encapsulate the dynamic sweep of the whole FO game world.
The FO RPG games became a sum greater than their individually targeted body parts.

When the humor fades away, the harping on "child killing" and "groin shots" can create a false image of the FO's, akin to not seeing the forest for the trees.

The harping on "child killing" and "groin shots" becomes part of the hype swirling around FO3. Easily spun to the financial imperative of the shallow FPS shooters that are and will forever be Nex Gen rpg's.

Shallow is what the Nex Gen is about. Nex Gen is about selling X Boxes. Teh Big Shiny.
The RPG expectations of the Nex Gen are so low that all one will see are the FPS shootings with video interludes
or Mass Effect conversations (it's not even demoed and it's NOW the pinnacle of tough talk - teh funni) ... Mass Effect parodies of communication etiquette.

The Nex Gen has yet to code a FO RPG game world.
The base financial philosophy limits it's creative-story telling and programing-scripting horizon.
Consequences 101?
May be appropriate that out side of the lies spun of Radiant AI schemes,
one can only anticipate a ''happy accident'' for the next dramatic dynamic FO style RPG game experience.

Consequences 101?

Reading teh hard.

Talking teh hard-r.

Programming mo hard-r.

Big shiny fo' teh win.





4too
 
Heh, yet another unique aspect of Fallout eroded. First INT-based speech, now the differences gender opened up, which included new content and different ways to do quests.

These previews are fast turning me into a cynic.
 
When I read about that they're upset with unkillable NPCs and want them as few as they can, one thing comes to my mind...
Boo-frikkin-hoo. I guess it's another advantage of next-gen technology, first not being able to implement complex dialogue because of voice acting and now they don't know to handle immortal NPCs...
Well, someone should stop making games and start playing them because as I recall, Arcanum handled killing key-NPCs pretty well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top