Fallout 3 at PAX: GayGamer and That VideoGame Blog

[eff-out]

Don't double post, eff-out.

Sorry.

Becky is busy/distracted/not watching the door, which is exactly why it is guarded. She also hates you for it, 'member?

Sounds like a blank the player fills in for themselves.

You mean videogames condition you to avoid failing?

I think any developer's goal is for you experience a game fully and have fun doing it. Videogames have advanced past megaman and contra, there are considerations of things other than difficulty and quarter consumption, especially in an RPG.

Fallout made a step in this direction. It is sad to see the progress it made is being negated by more consequence-free gameplay.

I think it's safe to assume that the Megaton quest has consequences for the rest of the game. As for the rest of the game, neither you or I know for sure.

 

[ArmorB]

But religious idiots have been present since the begining of time, why would a similar universe change that?

I'd have figured you'd have read more fiction BN. There are plenty of stories where people have been inclined to join cultlike environments just to survive or maintain human contact. And after a while it just becomes "The way it is" and people stop asking questions.

I've not seen screenshot or video as I don't want to spoil it any more tha has already happened, but it's amazing what 2 people can talk about and not be actively heard. As well there is plenty of "but what can I dio about it" type of emntality, or perhaps if I do say something how do I know that I won't be killed, or that bomb has been there for 200 years, there is no way they couldf blow it up.

But I'll have to chalk this up to another of those things that bother you all that I came up with plenty (for me) ways to explain it in a short time, and moved on...

 

[Brother None]

Sounds like a blank the player fills in for themselves.

Yes. But you have to look at the gameplay core first before you consider the explanation, because explanations fill in naturally if the core makes sense.

Core:
Still: guarded
Nuclear bomb in the middle of town: unguarded

Which one makes less sense?

I think it's safe to assume that the Megaton quest has consequences for the rest of the game. As for the rest of the game, neither you or I know for sure.

Actually, I know for sure Pete Hines has talked about not wanting to let the player fail, so they give you a second chance before facing you with the consequence.

Does that sound Fallout-like to you?

 

[Ausir]

I'd have figured you'd have read more fiction BN. There are plenty of stories where people have been inclined to join cultlike environments just to survive or maintain human contact. And after a while it just becomes "The way it is" and people stop asking questions.

Not all residents of Megaton are members of the Children of the Atom. Most see them as a silly local cult. What is keeping them there?

 

[taag]

Fallout always treated nuclear weaponry with a certain amount of respect

Thanks to Megaton and Mr. Fatman that's not the case anymore.

And after a while it just becomes "The way it is" and people stop asking questions.

Of course, why would anyone bite the hand that feeds them?

 

[ArmorB]

I'd have figured you'd have read more fiction BN. There are plenty of stories where people have been inclined to join cultlike environments just to survive or maintain human contact. And after a while it just becomes "The way it is" and people stop asking questions.

Not all residents of Megaton are members of the Children of the Atom. Most see them as a silly local cult. What is keeping them there?

Why do people stay in countries controlled by madmen, or ones that are wracked with starvation, why do people return to New Orleans? People are stupid and feel helpless to change their environment. Do I stay in a relatively safe environment with a bunch of nutjobs or do I take my chances on my own out in the wastes? Look at the Amish in America, many of them have the chance to live the non-Amish life for a bit before deciding to devote their lives to the Amish way. Most end up returning to the Amish because of home and family. Sure they know that they are missing a whole world out there but at least they feel grounded in the community rather than a ship lost at sea...

 

[Brother None]

But religious idiots have been present since the begining of time, why would a similar universe change that?

Oh man it's not like I just specifically said the cult is fine but the town is not credible, right?

I'd have figured you'd have read more fiction BN.

I couldn't even begin to count the fiction I've read, but the 50's fiction easily numbers in the dozens, just these past two years.

So, uh, no need to try and make stabs at my knowledge base, I guess.

There are plenty of stories where people have been inclined to join cultlike environments just to survive or maintain human contact.

I am impressed by your massive list of "plenty of stories where..."

Oh wait, I see no such list.

What are you talking about? Dr. Strangelove? The Gods Go Home? Friggin' Lord of the Flies? Gimme some perspective here.

But I'll have to chalk this up to another of those things that bother you all that I came up with plenty (for me) ways to explain it in a short time, and moved on...

You don't seem to be moving on to me.

 

[eff-out]

Core:
Still: guarded
Nuclear bomb in the middle of town: unguarded

Fair enough.

Actually, I know for sure Pete Hines has talked about not wanting to let the player fail, so they give you a second chance before facing you with the consequence.

Does that sound Fallout-like to you?

I don't know how this lack of failure is implemented, but I do know that the things I loved about fallout did NOT involve regretting something I had done 20 hours before. Especially considering that a lot of quests and "decisions" had a paradoxial non-logic or ambiguity to them (either because of bugs or just design) that I did not find inherently enjoyable.

So, to the extent that it is not frustrating, and yet still makes me feel like I'm participating in the events of a world I find interesting, I would like to fail as little as possible, or at least know damn well when and how I'm going to fail.

 

[Ausir]

Why do people stay in countries controlled by madmen, or ones that are wracked with starvation, why do people return to New Orleans?

Judging from the previews, it doesn't look like the cult is controlling Megaton.

 

[ArmorB]

Why do people stay in countries controlled by madmen, or ones that are wracked with starvation, why do people return to New Orleans?

Judging from the previews, it doesn't look like the cult is controlling Megaton.

What does that have to do with that? I thought the question I was answering is why do the non cultists stay in Megaton?

 

[Ausir]

I was referring to the "controlled by madmen" part.

 

[shihonage]

Actually, I know for sure Pete Hines has talked about not wanting to let the player fail, so they give you a second chance before facing you with the consequence.

Does that sound Fallout-like to you?

While I disagree with Hines' "solution" to this problem, the actual problem still exists.

Its easy for a game to not be clear enough about the consequences of what the player is about to do, which makes for frustrating guesswork and save/load routine which I'm not very fond of.

I don't like his "XBOX" solution, though. I think more work should be put into mechanics which give you a better idea of what might happen if you do something.

These mechanics can be either accomplished through solid foreshadowing/narrative, or actual ganeplay innovations.

 

[ArmorB]

I was referring to the "controlled by madmen" part.

Um, okay what about the rest of the post though? That was a psuedo random example of people in a situation that if they were willing to sacrifice some aspect of their lifestyle they could choose to change the bigger picture of their lives.

 

[Drusus]

ArmorB I think your on the wrong argument. Its not about closeness or family. I'd venture to guess that most of these people hardly knew the people they met at Megaton before they found their way to Megaton.

The only argument that makes any sense to me is they don't have any place else to go. The non-crazies in town wandered in from the wastes and don't have the means I.E. the bravery/weaponry/manpower to go back out into the wastes in search of a better place to live.

They then look at the place as not so bad a place to live because they don't have any other choice.

 

[ArmorB]

I guess I might be wrong but I though the bomb dropped 200 years ago, so if the town was built up over time then you'd have families, community etc...other wise people would have died off with out offspring and the population would have dwindled and died.

 

[ookami]

the things I loved about fallout did NOT involve regretting something I had done 20 hours before.

Well, that's choices and consequences and was a major part of the game design. I will admit that there were some things that would have done well to give you the ability to rectify your mistake, but if there aren't a great many with which you just have to live (and learn your lesson for the next time you play), it defeats the point. The whole 'primacy of fun' rears its ugly head again.

Especially considering that a lot of quests and "decisions" had a paradoxial non-logic or ambiguity to them (either because of bugs or just design) that I did not find inherently enjoyable.

Care to give any examples? I'm very willing to scrutinize the ones that aren't logical.

I really think ambiguity is just fine for some situations. I enjoyed the learning process of those actions for which the consequences weren't clear-cut. Why would I expect to always understand how something would effect everything else? My character is just a person in the world like everyone else. In addition to that, I don't see it as problem unless you don't play the game more than once.

All in all, it seems like you're supporting Bethesda's 'remove rather than improve' design philosophy on things like this.

 

[aXXo]

Its easy for a game to not be clear enough about the consequences of what the player is about to do,

There are some cases is, but in this case, if you blow up a town you have to know that that is not a good thing to do. You can't exactly think like, i blew up the town, people are happy with me and give me stuff and such. No, if you blow up the town, everyone is gonna go after you and beat you to death with a pipe and a stick, possibly with a rock too.

 

[EnglishMuffin]

The cult which is worshiping the bomb would probably not let some outsider that they have never seen before come near the bomb. You would think you would have to join the cult or become really really friendly with them.

What would happen if you walked into a church and started fucking with their altar or their giant jesus on a cross idol? I bet the priest wouldn't just stand there and say nothing.

 

[eff-out]

In addition to that, I don't see it as problem unless you don't play the game more than once.

Both times I played through Fallout 2 I chose a dialogue option in Modoc that effectively closed off the "ghost farm" quests to me. I can't remember what the line was exactly, but it was ambiguous enough to not seem like a "dick" comment and yet immediately made a main character in the town (the general store guy) clam up and dislike me. The second time, I had saved recently and had fore-knowledge of the quest so I reloaded and chose a different option, but it remains (in my opinion) a poor design choice. After making this mistake again, I chose to complete the game with a walk-through(which incidentally, is full of things you would never accomplish on common-sense alone) so I would catch the things I missed the first time.

I don't want them to dumb the game down, I just want to know I'm making informed choices and not blindly stumbling around.

I couldn't play through a 40+ hour RPG more than twice back then, and I don't think I could play more than once (one and a half) now. I think it's fair to say that kind of completism is an anomaly in the game-playing populous. I recognize the danger of sacrificing depth and longevity in favor of making everything available all at once, and I don't want that at all - I just think there are problems with taking more than one play-through for granted.

 

[Brother None]

I recognize the danger of sacrificing depth and longevity in favor of making everything available all at once, and I don't want that at all - I just think there are problems with taking more than one play-through for granted.

If there are, I'm not seeing them: what's the problem here exactly? You made choices, so you missed the Ghost Farm. I'll admit illogical consequences suck and should always be avoided, but neither should a pen and paper emulating game ever pander to the audience like that. It doesn't matter if you won't see everything. Heck, it's not the game's intention that you see everything. You make choices and they lock off parts of the game, and open up other parts. That's just the genre we're talking about here, and if that's not to your tastes then it's not to your tastes, but that hardly makes it wrong to be that harsh to players.

It certainly makes no sense to take "player must have (easy) access to all parts of the game (in a single playthrough)" a design intent for a game like Fallout. The whole point of such games is that they challenge you to be imaginative and find your own way and try to adapt as best as they can. They'll screw up every now and again and that sucks, but the intent is good, and it should be perfected in sequels, not abandoned.

You might as well start asking Hitman to stop taxing the player's imagination and instead offer simple, one-option-per-mission ways to finish things.