Fallout 3: Gathering Good Karma

[Public]

No, this isn't a FPS.

You need to "believe" it isn't

 

[Mrxknown]

Fallout 3=Fable+KOTOR+Oblivion;and these people actually call themselves Fallout "fanatics";they changed everything from gameplay mechanics to perspective not to mention raping fallout factions and canon by creating BOS the Saintly Order of self-sacrificing holy warriors and rising Enclave from the dead.I would also like to send my greetings to NMA admins,members... for keeping this valuable source of information alive,from a true fan of the turn-based Fallout

I see the BoS on the East Coast as following the footsteps of the soldiers from Mariposa. They seceded from the US because of inhumane testing on humans.

I see the commander of BoS in D.C. is going back to their roots. Which is ironic since they are now based in the Pentagon, when the founders were following orders from people at the Pentagon.

However, I do think that Beth's version of Good, Neutral, and Evil are incomplete. As stated before, consequences have been largely taken out.

However, blowing up Megaton does "seem" to have consequences, in that, the missions there are gone and cannot be taken. That can change if Beth has people in Tenpenny Tower who have similar tasks, but different goals. Like the lady in Megaton that wants to catalog the surroundings, there may be someone in Tenpenny who wants you to go out and catalog animals for them to hunt or something like that. I hope that's not the case.

Either way, the only way to find out is after the game is released. I will not buy it release day.

 

[moyogo]

I don't know if anyone's brought this up yet, but I haven't seen it so... anyone else have a problem with exclusive previews/reviews?

 

[marko2te]

In RPG-s I prefer playing with a neutral character that takes side which are more to his own advantage and not what world deem good or evil.

Last time I did that in Planescape: Torment, my alignment quickly shifted to Chaotic Evil.

If an evil character is selfish, a good one is selfless, then what is a neutral one like? The only thing I could fit there is dedication to some abstract concept, not people. Something like 'nature' for druids or knowledge for scholars.

"Neutral" Characters usually have an apathetic approach. It is abstract, in a way...

A principle in thinking that things will unfold naturally, and good/evil are different sides of the same coin.

My only recollection of any games where there was a neutral "system" that actually worked are: Fallout, Planescape, and Kotor 2.

As said there are very few games that successfully implement this concept since majority of games only have extreme good or evil alignment. I see neutral characters as people who do things for their benefit and dont care if the world will sees them as good or evil. Whatever you do in the world youll always piss someone off, and doing stuff for your advantage doesnt necessary need to be evil.

In my opinion perfect alignment/dialog/reputation system would be something like this:

Reputation would be divided into local, regional and global regions. If you help someone to clean rats from his basement only people in that place will hear about it, but if you do loads of this small things your regional reputation would also increase. But if you do something great your get both local, regional and global rep. This was present in old Fallout games like when you destroy Enclave most of the world hears about it. Also reputation should be divided between common people, traders, government, underground and other factions.

In my opinion alignment and dialog should be tied together. When you start the game like in PT your character is neutral but that his actions change his personality. I always hated in games how a person can easily change from boyscout to antichrist, i would limit this change. As said at the beginning of the game you are neutral, at that point in dialog you can have both good, evil and neutral choices, if you choose lots of good choices youll become good and people will see you as a good person but youll lose the ability to choose evil choices. So you are a good guy that cant do evil things but can do neutral and good and if you do lots of neutral you again become neutral and again have access to all paths.

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

I don't know if anyone's brought this up yet, but I haven't seen it so... anyone else have a problem with exclusive previews/reviews?

What, the implicit quid pro quo arrangement where a supposed unbiased third party gives glowing praise for a product in exchange for the subsequent sales bump they'll get for the exclusive content?
It's whorishness, and yeah, there is a problem with it.

 

[Moester]

I don't know if anyone's brought this up yet, but I haven't seen it so... anyone else have a problem with exclusive previews/reviews?

What, the implicit quid pro quo arrangement where a supposed unbiased third party gives glowing praise for a product in exchange for the subsequent sales bump they'll get for the exclusive content?
It's whorishness, and yeah, there is a problem with it.

Since when has IGN ever claimed to be a neutral third party? They're a third party yes, but since they get the entirety of their revenue from the game publishers themselves they aren't third parties, and never claimed to be.

These sites are only as accountable as the players make them, but in the end they are a part of the industry. Heck most gaming mags and sites were started by a game company to advertise its own products.

Its like going out with a stripper and being insulted because she goes to work. She was a stripper before you were dating her, and just because you take her home and stopped paying her, it doesn't mean she's changed jobs.

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

So that they can't help that they whores makes it OK?

It's a disingenuous stroke-job.

What else is new?

 

[Moester]

So that they can't help that they whores makes it OK?

It's a disingenuous stroke-job.

What else is new?

No, but to give a whore qualites she doesn't possess and then calling her out on them makes no sense to me.

Besides you're only a whore if you sell out your integrity, these guys never claimed to be unbiased! Its like calling shows like Entertainment tonight and Extra whore. They're not whores, they are shows that are basically advertisement in of themselves. Its like Freakin' transformers, the only point of that show was to sell a toy line.

What is the point of gamespot, IGN, Gamepro? To bring the company line directly to the consumer. To let people know about the games that are coming out, and later to tell people what game they should buy. They're not there to cover stories about the games, or to uncover that a game is bad before release. They've never even claimed that they would do so.

I've never trusted the previews because I know its propaganda. I take some interest in it, to try and make up my own mind with admitedly biased reports. Knowing what goes on behind the scenes is half the battle in these cases.

The question could be should game sites have journalistic standards applied to them? I say maybe...but then getting any information whatsoever would be a lot more difficult. Sometimes its better to get the biased company line to make up your mind than nothing at all.

 

[Brother None]

when it comes to question of Karma and Reputation,Black isle was on good track with their local town/place reputation,in one place you could be idolized while in another hunted and hated,but Beth has completely rebuked this idea because it simply means more work,or maybe i am wrong and they implemented this?

There has been no mention of town reputation in any previews. Wasn't seen in any Pip-Boy screenshots either.

Wait, so they removed the good part of the Fallout reputation/karma system and kept the bad part?

Nice.

 

[mulaalia]

The best part in Fallout 2 was strolling through the wasteland killing merchants and slaves and then coming in to the civilization and playing a pro-social character,except for the Den of course,where i regularly abuse those item grabbing door urchins

 

[Alphadrop]

The best part in Fallout 2 was strolling through the wasteland killing merchants and slaves and then coming in to the civilization and playing a pro-social character,except for the Den of course,where i regularly abuse those item grabbing door urchins

And shoot the junkies because no one cares?

 

[Deleted member 53669]

So, from what has been shown of Fallout 3, no matter where you are and who your surrounded by, everyone will go apeshit if you happen to kill someone who is scorned by that community.

Imagine attacking Metzger at The Den and "Wasteland Police" shows up with plasma rifles, plus all the junkies and children go hostile and come out you in hordes.


But everyone is happy again once you pay a fine.

 

[mulaalia]

The best part in Fallout 2 was strolling through the wasteland killing merchants and slaves and then coming in to the civilization and playing a pro-social character,except for the Den of course,where i regularly abuse those item grabbing door urchins

And shoot the junkies because no one cares?

Yea junkies,sometimes they would attack you for no apparent reason,so that's self defense....

 

[UncannyGarlic]

As long as the suite is way different from the house, I'm cool. It seems they really want you to have a sort of base.

I kinda agree and disagree. If you blow up Megaton, then you should have to dig out a shelter or take one over from raiders...why automatically give you an apartment at Tenpenny towers? I think it would be more realistic for the guy to tell you that you have been paid and now to get out of his tower that he will contact you if he needs you again. After all a guy who just betrayed an entire town to you is still a traitor. Like Harkonnen says in Dune (I paraphrase) "Never trust a traitor, even one you create yourself."

Conversely, if the guy at Tenpenny towers offers you a mission that eventually offers you a house (by displacing a group of raiders or joining them) then that would be not so bad. I just don't like automatisms when it comes to quests. I think that the guy from IGN was making too many assumptions about alternate choice options. But I guess we'll see what it was all about later today.

Getting a suite in Tenpenny Tower makes much more sense than getting a deed to a house and seems to fit your character becoming a villain there. Tenpenny Tower itself doesn't fit but that's a different issue.

In RPG-s I prefer playing with a neutral character that takes side which are more to his own advantage and not what world deem good or evil.

Last time I did that in Planescape: Torment, my alignment quickly shifted to Chaotic Evil.

If an evil character is selfish, a good one is selfless, then what is a neutral one like? The only thing I could fit there is dedication to some abstract concept, not people. Something like 'nature' for druids or knowledge for scholars.

"Neutral" Characters usually have an apathetic approach. It is abstract, in a way...

A principle in thinking that things will unfold naturally, and good/evil are different sides of the same coin.

My only recollection of any games where there was a neutral "system" that actually worked are: Fallout, Planescape, and Kotor 2.

Neutral (in DnD) always encompassed both that and people who went out of their way to keep balance. In the case of Fallout that would mean if a raider group stumbled upon advanced weaponry then the neutral character would make the towns able to defend against it.

As said there are very few games that successfully implement this concept since majority of games only have extreme good or evil alignment. I see neutral characters as people who do things for their benefit and dont care if the world will sees them as good or evil. Whatever you do in the world youll always piss someone off, and doing stuff for your advantage doesnt necessary need to be evil.

That's pretty much the generic build for a neutral evil character.

In my opinion alignment and dialog should be tied together. When you start the game like in PT your character is neutral but that his actions change his personality. I always hated in games how a person can easily change from boyscout to antichrist, i would limit this change. As said at the beginning of the game you are neutral, at that point in dialog you can have both good, evil and neutral choices, if you choose lots of good choices youll become good and people will see you as a good person but youll lose the ability to choose evil choices. So you are a good guy that cant do evil things but can do neutral and good and if you do lots of neutral you again become neutral and again have access to all paths.

And that's exactly what is wrong with alignment systems. Alignment is restrictive enough as far as choices go but to take it a step further to where you are is absurd and horribly restrictive. Besides which, not all characters place any amount of weight on alignment and what your suggesting means that you would be creating a character who does no matter what.

Besides you're only a whore if you sell out your integrity, these guys never claimed to be unbiased! Its like calling shows like Entertainment tonight and Extra whore. They're not whores, they are shows that are basically advertisement in of themselves. Its like Freakin' transformers, the only point of that show was to sell a toy line.

They claim to be journalists and thus they claim to be neutral (comes with the title). Now whether or not such journalists are whores or liars is where this discussion seems to be heading but I'm not sure that this is the right place to have that discussion.

 

[marko2te]

As said there are very few games that successfully implement this concept since majority of games only have extreme good or evil alignment. I see neutral characters as people who do things for their benefit and dont care if the world will sees them as good or evil. Whatever you do in the world youll always piss someone off, and doing stuff for your advantage doesnt necessary need to be evil.

That's pretty much the generic build for a neutral evil character.

Damn, so my psychiatrist was right I AM evil.

In my opinion alignment and dialog should be tied together. When you start the game like in PT your character is neutral but that his actions change his personality. I always hated in games how a person can easily change from boyscout to antichrist, i would limit this change. As said at the beginning of the game you are neutral, at that point in dialog you can have both good, evil and neutral choices, if you choose lots of good choices youll become good and people will see you as a good person but youll lose the ability to choose evil choices. So you are a good guy that cant do evil things but can do neutral and good and if you do lots of neutral you again become neutral and again have access to all paths.

And that's exactly what is wrong with alignment systems. Alignment is restrictive enough as far as choices go but to take it a step further to where you are is absurd and horribly restrictive. Besides which, not all characters place any amount of weight on alignment and what your suggesting means that you would be creating a character who does no matter what.

I dont agree, there are very few games in which your alignment will prevent you from doing evil or good stuff. As i said most games have no restrictions and allow the player to be good one second and evil another. i dont think that that is realistic. Imagine a sheriff in a small town who does everything by the book and one day he decided to be the cop, judge and jury, extremely sadistic cop, judge and jury. Its much more believable if that transformation was made as a long process in the story where the character during several quests looses faith for the law and humanity and decides that he is the best law.

 

[Texas Renegade]

The best part in Fallout 2 was strolling through the wasteland killing merchants and slaves and then coming in to the civilization and playing a pro-social character,except for the Den of course,where i regularly abuse those item grabbing door urchins

so the best part of FO was playing a character who was bi polar????

 

[UncannyGarlic]

I dont agree, there are very few games in which your alignment will prevent you from doing evil or good stuff. As i said most games have no restrictions and allow the player to be good one second and evil another. i dont think that that is realistic. Imagine a sheriff in a small town who does everything by the book and one day he decided to be the cop, judge and jury, extremely sadistic cop, judge and jury. Its much more believable if that transformation was made as a long process in the story where the character during several quests looses faith for the law and humanity and decides that he is the best law.

Alignment systems are restrictive to roleplaying, not always dialogue options. That said, there are games where people will or will not even talk to you if your alignment isn't in the right zone which is the closest there is to what you suggest. Still, restricting dialogue options based on such an abstract concept is ridiculous. What about a Robin Hood of the wastes? What about Mad Max? What you're suggesting doing would shoehorn people into even more limited play styles and disallow characters from treating NPCs whom they like more or less differently.

All in all, reputation works far better than alignment because it's based on actions and is substantial rather than the abstract idea of alignment and serves all of the same practical needs.

 

[rcorporon]

So, let me get this straight.

If I'm good, I get a house.

If I'm bad, I get a house (suite).

If I'm good I get killers tracking me down.

If I'm bad, I get bounty hunters tracking me down.

If I'm good I get certain conversation trees.

If I'm bad, I get certain conversation trees.

However, if I'm good I can change to bad, then back to good, without much trouble.

What's the purpose of "choice" here?

 

[Ar.Pi]

So, let me get this straight.

If I'm good, I get a house.

If I'm bad, I get a house (suite).

If I'm good I get killers tracking me down.

If I'm bad, I get bounty hunters tracking me down.

If I'm good I get certain conversation trees.

If I'm bad, I get certain conversation trees.

However, if I'm good I can change to bad, then back to good, without much trouble.

What's the purpose of "choice" here?

The purpose is that you play the game in all possible ways and get all the achievements! CHA-CHING!

 

[rcorporon]

The purpose is that you play the game in all possible ways and get all the achievements! CHA-CHING!

So, if I play a good character, then become a mass murderer, as long as I collect some fingers I can be a good guy again?

Bleh... that's a shittier "moral" system than Bioshock had.