Fallout 3: Gathering Good Karma

[Brother None]

You know, I don't really like using heavy weapons in Fallout. I prefer light weapons and aimed shots. But, I understand that other people like heavy weapons, so I don't get mad that they're in the game.

That's pretty much why they have different weapon types in the first place.

They don't have different karma types, one the "realist" and one the "munchkin". That means karma is balanced and off-set based on the assumption that the player will utilize all the game offers (this is a basic truism), meaning the game might not be balanced for you to reach paragon status without engaging in repetitive karma-filler quests.

Besides, something that treats the setting with little respect - whether it be a giant statue of the Power Rangers in Megaton town square or stupid karma mechanics - hurts the setting no matter how much you ignore it.

 

[mandrake776]

That's pretty much why they have different weapon types in the first place.

They don't have different karma types, one the "realist" and one the "munchkin". That means karma is balanced and off-set based on the assumption that the player will utilize all the game offers (this is a basic truism), meaning the game might not be balanced for you to reach paragon status without engaging in repetitive karma-filler quests.

That's a legitimate concern, the ability to change karma otherwise however, isn't. The karma system in the other games was mostly for flavor, and it's the same way here. I'll not make use of the grinding mechanisms, because I have a pretty clear goal in mind of how I want a character to be played. I just don't begrudge others playing how they want to.

 

[Brother None]

Ok. Would you be fine with an optional purple pegasus mount that you can buy at Megaton because you don't begrudge others playing how they want to?

 

[mandrake776]

Ok. Would you be fine with an optional purple pegasus mount that you can buy at Megaton because you don't begrudge others playing how they want to?

No, but I would understand a strawman in the town square.

 

[Brother None]

Ok. Would you be fine with an optional purple pegasus mount that you can buy at Megaton because you don't begrudge others playing how they want to?

No, but I would understand a strawman in the town square.

Heh. Funny.

But to keep the train of thought rolling here, the way Bethesda is treating Fallout's karma system is essentially messing with Fallout's feel, its approach to morality. Where Fallout 2 scaled back karma in favour of reputations, Fallout 3 removes reputations, scales up karma and adds stupid mechanics to pump it up so that becomes meaningless grind-stat rather than a measurement of your actions.

That you can ignore it doesn't matter. It's still there. The purple pegasus mount would still be there, and while this is not nearly as insulting to the original's feel, it's still bad treatment, and it's there.

 

[aenemic]

this is the first thing in Fallout 3 I really dislike so far.

it really feels like they're aiming at letting players have some fun blowing people up, stealing and lying... but ultimately shift back to the good path no matter what. how does this add to replayability?

I'm going to miss the reputation system too. with a well fleshed out reputation system they could've made it so much more interesting. karma should only be there in the background as a "fun" stat summarising what you've done so far.

 

[mandrake776]

But to keep the train of thought rolling here, the way Bethesda is treating Fallout's karma system is essentially messing with Fallout's feel, its approach to morality. Where Fallout 2 scaled back karma in favour of reputations, Fallout 3 removes reputations, scales up karma and adds stupid mechanics to pump it up so that becomes meaningless grind-stat rather than a measurement of your actions.

Have they actually said they're removing reputation? Regardless, I don't doubt that the reputation/karma system will be likely scaled back from Fallout 2's partially because Bethesda hasn't implemented one as good as Fallout 2's before, so they need to start somewhere. I imagine that Fallout 4 (should there be one) would likely have a better, more advanced system.

 

[PaladinHeart]

Hmm.. well I've posted my opinion before on how the house quest could be fixed. Essentially implementing a problem with it that the player has to deal with first before the house is actually of any use.

Also, I doubt Tenpenny would actually give you a suite at Tenpenny tower for your work. He doesn't seem the type. I believe he would simply pay you and, after a LOT of work, he might be more apt to let you stay there. I'm not sure it would be permanent though...

A little off topic but.. BN, is that baby in your avi the little weird guy from Total Recall?

 

[Deleted member 53669]

Ohh god its Quarto.



Open your mind!!!! Open your mind!!!!

 

[Anarchosyn]

Yay the just ignore it solution pops in

Guys guys let's ignore it and it'll no longer be a problem. Hurrrraaaay!

No offense, but isn't that what your justice system does with cannabis and prostitution? Sometimes letting go of one's insistence that X or Y is problematic becomes the best solution for a tolerant and moderate mind.

 

[Brother None]

No offense, but isn't that what your justice system does with cannabis and prostitution?

Prostitution and cannabis both fail to meet the requirement of being a problem.

Besides, neither one is actually ignored. And prostitution is a job like any other here.

Seriously, that's it, that's what you come up with. We point out something simply does not fit and the grand solutions is to "have a tolerant and open mind"? You have got to be joking me, that's even worse than the "just ignore it" line.

 

[PaladinHeart]

It's hard to ignore flaws in a game, optional or not.

For example you're watching a good medieval movie and you're enjoying it and then you notice a small detail like a car in the background. It's there, you can ignore, but it's still a mar on the whole experience because you WILL notice it every time you watch the movie.

 

[Deleted member 53669]

No offense, but isn't that what your justice system does with cannabis and prostitution?

Prostitution and cannabis both fail to meet the requirement of being a problem.

Besides, neither one is actually ignored. And prostitution is a job like any other here.

Seriously, that's it, that's what you come up with. We point out something simply does not fit and the grand solutions is to "have a tolerant and open mind"? You have got to be joking me, that's even worse than the "just ignore it" line.

Those tolerances might actually help me "Ignore" the problems with Fallout 3.

No they won't, I live in Texas. I've only heard of "Logic" and "Tolerance" from Liberal communists and Video Games.

Start Hypothesis:

The complex Karma systems redub from Bethesda. seems to be attributed to the mass-marketing plan for Fallout 3. Some logic-twisted think-tank's worries pre-development. Morphine was already bad enough for Australia, I'm sure intelligent and ambiguous moral systems might be the nail in the coffin for Fallout 3's distribution. Taking Fallout's signature staple of perception on morality into the mainstream might cause an uproar with a game already vulgar far beyond the first 2 titles. Cause and effect.



Who knows what twisted logic might stem from the branches of the censorship tree.

 

[Anarchosyn]

No offense, but isn't that what your justice system does with cannabis and prostitution?

Prostitution and cannabis both fail to meet the requirement of being a problem.

As does your concerns about this issue from the perspective of the guys advising you to ignore it.

Besides, neither one is actually ignored. And prostitution is a job like any other here.

I said ignored by the justice system specifically to prevent you from using this loophole in logic.

It is ignored by the justice system by virtue of not being a criminal offense.

Seriously, that's it, that's what you come up with. We point out something simply does not fit and the grand solutions is to "have a tolerant and open mind"? You have got to be joking me, that's even worse than the "just ignore it" line.

Seriously, that's it? That's what you come up with? We point out that something isn't an issue and your grand solution is to whine that "it doesn't fit" in an arbitrary manner?

Ahh, aren't relative perspectives grand!

Ok, in all seriousness, why doesn't it fit? Seems to fit well enough to me, perhaps you need to make your case better. Again, why doesn't it fit? Because it's slightly different from what we saw in a game made 10+ years ago? Are you that stuck on the notion of nostalgically imbued perfection that no alterations can be tried before condemnations get hurled from the sky?

Keep in mind that we're arguing over whether or not having a means to quickly change karma should have been included (well, "quick" might be a misnomer, but you get the point). I liken this to Oblivion's horrible teleportation system. Did I feel like it cheapened the game? Sure. Did I whine? Yep. Did I use it? Nope. Did it effect me in the long run? Nope.

Sure, my faith in Bethesda went into the toilet and that lack of faith is being projected to Fallout 3's potential to live up to even what Van Buren would have given us. However, I really don't see the inclusion of quests that people can repeatedly pump for karmic reward as a legitimate cause for concern. If you dislike those sinks and pumps then kill the characters offering them (or, better yet, ignore them).

'Course, I made peace with the fact that FO3 isn't Van Buren and won't ever be. It's a FO themed game, but not FO3 to me. That's just a marketing term. Fallout 1 and 2 are already in my collection. This is just a cute, and derivative, excursion into something that I enjoyed years ago. I'm far more interested in planning my holiday in Thailand or visiting Utrecht than pining over nostalgic promises from idiotic american game design companies.

* eDit: To be fair, I see where you are coming from. You're looking at this as being emblematic of a far deeper and more insidious approach to the overall game design. You know, the old "if they cocked this bit up with such bad logic I wonder what else is waiting under the hood." However, that's speculative at best (though potentially true). Honestly, I'd rather take each issue on a case by case basis instead of running around screaming that the sky is falling.

This isn't RPG Codex, after all.

 

[Brother None]

It is ignored by the justice system by virtue of not being a criminal offense.

Are you even trying to make sense?

Ok, in all seriousness, why doesn't it fit?

Karma was implemented as a representation of the consequences of choices you could make only once - this a cog in choice and consequence. If you do a series of bad things, your karma will take a hit, and you will have to find other things to make up for it if you want to compensate this karma.

Grinding karma defeats that purpose. If I can just go out, do evil things, and then go back and grind positive karma, the karma hit or bonus becomes irrelevant as a gameplay consequence, since I can balance it at whatever point I like.

IDid I whine? Yep. Did I use it? Nope. Did it effect me in the long run? Nope.

So you have low standards, good for you. Don't expect us to adopt them, tho'

IIf you dislike those sinks and pumps then kill the characters offering them (or, better yet, ignore them).

Why are you blandly repeating an argument that was addressed only a few posts up?

I'Course, I made peace with the fact that FO3 isn't Van Buren and won't ever be.

Good for you. Why should we care?

 

[UncannyGarlic]

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.

Yes i believe that limitations are a good thing, and i think that being only neutral and good or evil and neutral at the same time is more realistic then being able to be evil and good at anytime, of course with ability to change his alignment.
Robin Hood was a good guy who helped people by giving them money which he stole from evil people and in the same time he tried help to put rightful ruler on the throne. I see his actions as neutral good and giving a player who tries to roleplay him only good and neutral dialog choices not a bad thing. As for Mad max he is neutral by definition and would have access to all of dialog. As i said iam trying to make up a system that removes something i hate an a ability to be Jesus and Devil at the same time. Also in realism there are very few actually good people, Dostoevsky said about his story Idiot that to make a truly good person realistic he would need to make him a idiot.

Well remember that alignment is supposed to relfect how you play your character, not determine it. By making alignment restrict dialogue options you are doing the opisite, you are determining how people can play their character by what alignment they choose. Then there is the question of proper implimentation. How do you prevent a good player from going on a killing spree and becoming evil? If you don't then how do you present an opertunity for an evil character to redeem?

 

[marko2te]

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.

Yes i believe that limitations are a good thing, and i think that being only neutral and good or evil and neutral at the same time is more realistic then being able to be evil and good at anytime, of course with ability to change his alignment.
Robin Hood was a good guy who helped people by giving them money which he stole from evil people and in the same time he tried help to put rightful ruler on the throne. I see his actions as neutral good and giving a player who tries to roleplay him only good and neutral dialog choices not a bad thing. As for Mad max he is neutral by definition and would have access to all of dialog. As i said iam trying to make up a system that removes something i hate an a ability to be Jesus and Devil at the same time. Also in realism there are very few actually good people, Dostoevsky said about his story Idiot that to make a truly good person realistic he would need to make him a idiot.

Well remember that alignment is supposed to relfect how you play your character, not determine it. By making alignment restrict dialogue options you are doing the opisite, you are determining how people can play their character by what alignment they choose. Then there is the question of proper implimentation. How do you prevent a good player from going on a killing spree and becoming evil? If you don't then how do you present an opertunity for an evil character to redeem?

Precisely i want to limit characters to dialog options of the alignment they choose. But as i already said, for example evil character has evil and neutral options and if he takes lot of neutral choices he will become neutral and then he would be able to choose all the paths, As you said the problem is implementation. A good character could suddenly draw his weapon and start shooting on everyone, even if his dialog are limited his actions are not. That is a problem that i dont have answer except for making character not to attack any person except if it was triggered from dialog and thats not really a good idea.

 

[God is Dog backwards]

The arguments have been thrashed out pretty well here, so I won't repeat them. Suffice to say I think this karma grind, the mechanics that scream 'you're in a game!!' to accommodate it (eg. the 72 hour reset) are, to me, the single worst feature(s) in the game. Fatman and so on are quirks; this appears to be the very core of the game, the thing on which the devs have based their C&C, shades of grey, etc, and going on the info I've read so far, Bethsoft have simply got it wrong.

Suffice to say, I hope that this is a case of misinformation.

 

[Ausir]

Fallout 2's description of Karma:

{1100}{}{This is a ranged stat that represents your general reputation. The higher the number, the better known and respected you are. If your rep is negative, you are hated by some for your evil actions.}

While its in-game implementation wasn't perfect, the general definition of Karma in FO3 is completely different. In FO3, it determines whether you are good or evil regardless of whether anyone knows about it.

 

[mandrake776]

Precisely i want to limit characters to dialog options of the alignment they choose.

This is the wrong idea. Alignment as a restriction should only be for paladins in D&D. For everyone else it should be an indication of how the character is being played, not how it can be played.

While its in-game implementation wasn't perfect, the general definition of Karma in FO3 is completely different. In FO3, it determines whether you are good or evil regardless of whether anyone knows about it.

It was determined by your good or evil actions though, regardless of whether they were witnessed by anyone who survived. It was a gauge of how the character was played. As it should be, and seems to be in FO3.