Fallout 3 LGC: InsideGamer NL

[Brother None]

Dude, do you ever get happy about anything?

I thought this was a big thing, being able to fuck up quests by killing the wrong person. you never ever see that in games these days, and it's something I've missed from Fallout. and here you have it, but still you find some way turn it into something negative.

How exactly did I make it look like something negative?

I pointed out it is the bare minimum of choice and consequence. Because that's what it is, the very bare minimum. It's not exactly the epitome of it.

I don't get excited when games offer me the bare minimum of what I can expect of them, no.

 

[TheGM]

Dude, do you ever get happy about anything?

I thought this was a big thing, being able to fuck up quests by killing the wrong person. you never ever see that in games these days, and it's something I've missed from Fallout. and here you have it, but still you find some way turn it into something negative.

How exactly did I make it look like something negative?

I pointed out it is the bare minimum of choice and consequence. Because that's what it is, the very bare minimum. It's not exactly the epitome of it.

I don't get excited when games offer me the bare minimum of what I can expect of them, no.

What would make it more complicated killing his neighbor and not getting the quest? I don't quite follow you on this one.

 

[Brother None]

What would make it more complicated killing his neighbor and not getting the quest? I don't quite follow you on this one.

Choice and consequence is when you make a decision in the game that effects the way the game plays out in a relevant manner. Chose to supports the drug lords and the gangs push out some of the more civil-minded people, including some people who could give you quests. Or, I dunno, at some point you get into a fight with some punk, he tells you he's the son of a bigwig but you call his bluff and kick his ass, the boss sends his men after you and they either humiliate you (think armwrestling supermutant in Broken Hills) or you kill them so efficiently the boss is impressed and hires you. Nodes, flowcharts, branches.

What I'm pointing out here is not that this situation doesn't make sense - he killed some people and in doing so disturbed a quest. I'm saying that the previewer's addition of "Actions in Fallout have real consequences and I love it" is asinine after that example. Dead people not giving quests is not a good example of actions having real consequences.

 

[aenemic]

He has a legitimate beef. If you thought this is a big thing, then I feel sorry for you, because you've clearly been brainwashed by generations of games calling themselves RPGs, offering even less.

brainwashed? and what the hell do you know about that? in case you missed it, I do expect a lot out of Fallout 3 (and other games for that matter).

I *know* this has been discussed before, because there were no killable quest npc's in Oblivion and that's one thing a lot of people wanted for Fallout 3. here we get it confirmed, and yet you manage to put it down and make it seem like the most trivial thing. sure, it's not a huge part of what makes a good rpg, but it shows that they're at least THINKING this time around.

I am sure Fallout 3 likely has real examples of choice and consequence, but this isn't one of them, and that journalist is an idiot.

and here you sum it up very well yourself, and exactly why I jumped his comment.

it's like saying "oh, look - now we know there are guns in the game. fucking idiots, including guns but no ammo." well, sort of... at least you get my point, hopefully. immediately ruling everything positive out and just expecting the worst in every single scenario.

How exactly did I make it look like something negative?

I pointed out it is the bare minimum of choice and consequence. Because that's what it is, the very bare minimum. It's not exactly the epitome of it.

I don't get excited when games offer me the bare minimum of what I can expect of them, no.

no you didn't, you made it sound like you think it's stupid and you expect nothing more from the game.

next time, how about saying something like "ok, great that we can kill off important npc's, but it's hardly a huge step in the choices & consequences direction - let's hope for more".

as for your examples of choices & consequences: you clearly expect more from this game than the old Fallouts or any other game that calls itself an rpg. you don't see that in ANY games nowadays, unless it's a huge scripted event that is part of the story and a one time thing. I'm not saying this is good and that you shouldn't expect more from rpg's (I certainly do), but realize when someone tries to take an rpg in the right direction. and realize what I mean when I say you're holding this game to a much higher standard than even the games you want it to measure up to. no wonder this game will never make you happy.

 

[DexterMorgan]

I *know* this has been discussed before, because there were no killable quest npc's in Oblivion and that's one thing a lot of people wanted for Fallout 3. here we get it confirmed, and yet you manage to put it down and make it seem like the most trivial thing.

Because it IS trivial. I suspect you got called brainwashed because of your frame of mind in which a statement of "wow, it's not as stupid as oblivion!" rivals "it's as smart as original fallout" in significance.

It doesn't. We're not impressed with "not stupid". We're impressed with "smart".

So far we've been decidedly unimpressed.

 

[aenemic]

I *know* this has been discussed before, because there were no killable quest npc's in Oblivion and that's one thing a lot of people wanted for Fallout 3. here we get it confirmed, and yet you manage to put it down and make it seem like the most trivial thing.

Because it IS trivial. I suspect you got called brainwashed because of your frame of mind in which a statement of "wow, it's not as stupid as oblivion!" rivals "it's as smart as original fallout" in significance.

It doesn't. We're not impressed with "not stupid". We're impressed with "smart".

So far we've been decidedly unimpressed.

I like how you talk as a collective mind. who's the brainwashed one really?

I never ever said that just because it's not as good as Fallout just because it's better than Oblivion. I just said that it's ONE positive thing they've carried over at least.

and like I said, the whole subject about killable quest npcs's has been debated a lot before and I was pretty sure this was something that would make a lot of people happy to know. but no, the game still isn't a real life simulation that's 100% Fallout but still doesn't rip off Fallout, so I guess it won't do.

 

[DexterMorgan]

I like how you talk as a collective mind. who's the brainwashed one really?

I never ever said that just because it's not as good as Fallout just because it's better than Oblivion. I just said that it's ONE positive thing they've carried over at least.

and like I said, the whole subject about killable quest npcs's has been debated a lot before and I was pretty sure this was something that would make a lot of people happy to know. but no, the game still isn't a real life simulation that's 100% Fallout but still doesn't rip off Fallout, so I guess it won't do.

Ya, I took the liberty of using a collective pronoun. I must be turning Borg.

Tempting as it may be, I won't engage strawmen you've peppered the rest of your post with. If you can't see how someone can be unimpressed with something which is decidedly unimpressive, positive or not, then...

Besides, I believe it's already been established that there will be unkillable NPCs in the game so this particular instance carries even less significance overall.

Feel free to break out the confetti.

 

[Viliny]

what i gathered the man means is killable npcs is a token thing and should without question be in the game.

And that alone doesn't offer the versatility or depth that the beforementioned Fallout fans have come to expect.

The obvious is in and now for the main part... right?

 

[BlackIsleMourner]

I think I'll play devils advocate on this one...

I agree with Brother None and people of like mind that it's hardly of earth shattering relevance to big-up a reinstated feature that should never have been taken out of games in the first place...

...but, I'd like to hope that perhaps the Dutch Journo didn't have the time/freedom to explore the situation fully and there was more to it. Perhaps, I don't know, if you accept a morally questionable job from the guy in the villa at some stage the whores are revealed to be working for a rival crime boss and are planning to kill him in the throes of passion, and you can go up in the guys estimation by foiling their attempt - at which point maybe other events regarding the rival's revenge are triggered. Or the locals catch wind that you saved his life and treat you differently....

...All i'm saying is that there may be layers of choice and consequence above and beyond the pretty limited 'dead so no quests' result of the Journo moronically storming in and just killing them all with no reason [the reason I wouldn't have done the same in that situation is that I love to keep to my role, and would never just off someone before I'd learnt more about them....but then maybe he was just playing an evil bastard only interested in upgrading his weapon].

 

[MrBumble]

Mmmh...Nuking Megaton is more relevant as an exemple of Choice and Consequence than just killing somebody part of your quest...If you're not convinced, then take a look at my signature. Still not convinced ? Well, then you can eat a nut.

 

[syllogz]

I have the feeling that many people that see killable NPCs as trivial also have a PnP background.

In fantasy settings, a killed NPCs will only get up if s/he is a wealthy person to pay for resurrection, have trinket of resurrection, or in favour of a life/death deity.
And then s/he will get back to pwn your ass.

Now, those are real consequences.

The rest should just stay dead, and you forget about any quests they might have offered.

This is indeed trivial.


How can you implement that in a PA or sci-fi settings?
That's a bit more tricky, but can be done, and it mostly depends on the world design.

 

[Brother None]

I *know* this has been discussed before, because there were no killable quest npc's in Oblivion and that's one thing a lot of people wanted for Fallout 3. here we get it confirmed, and yet you manage to put it down and make it seem like the most trivial thing. sure, it's not a huge part of what makes a good rpg, but it shows that they're at least THINKING this time around.

A limited amount of killable NPCs (only main quest NPCs are unkillable) was confirmed years ago.

It's not trivial, it's just the bare-bones least to be expected. What's so difficult about that?

it's like saying "oh, look - now we know there are guns in the game. fucking idiots, including guns but no ammo."

Who said "fucking idiots"? Who even remotely indicated this was a bad thing?

Where are you getting this shit from?

no you didn't, you made it sound like you think it's stupid and you expect nothing more from the game.

Uh, what?

Here's what I said:
Yeah, 'coz shooting someone meaning you can no longer interact with them is the pinnacle of choice & consequence.

How does that indicate I think it's stupid? How does that indicate I expect nothing more from the game?

You're putting words in my mouth. Stop it.

as for your examples of choices & consequences: you clearly expect more from this game than the old Fallouts or any other game that calls itself an rpg.

I expect new RPGs to advance on the key philosophy of choice and consequence, yes, I expect Fallout 3 to be an evolution of choice & consequence already present in Fallout 1 and 2 (the Ghost Farm quests, Gecko reactor, Necropolis' Set asking you to kill the supermutants, those are examples of c'n'c of the same type I put forth).

You think it's weird I expect Fallout 3 to evolve and improve what Fallout 1/2 started?

and realize what I mean when I say you're holding this game to a much higher standard than even the games you want it to measure up to.

Fallout 2 offered more and better choice 'n consequences than Fallout 1. Why should I not expect Fallout 3 to do the same to Fallout 2?

...All i'm saying is that there may be layers of choice and consequence above and beyond the pretty limited 'dead so no quests' result of the Journo moronically storming in and just killing them all with no reason [the reason I wouldn't have done the same in that situation is that I love to keep to my role, and would never just off someone before I'd learnt more about them....but then maybe he was just playing an evil bastard only interested in upgrading his weapon].

No one said there weren't more layers of c'n'c than the journo pointed out.

I pointed out in the original newspost that the Journo hailing dead-people-can't-talk as excellent c'n'c is him being stupid. That's it, period, doesn't reflect on Fallout 3 at all.

 

[Texas Renegade]

Sadly most RPGs have devolved in the past 10 years into one of 2 thingswell it has actually been going longer then 10 years but I digress)

The final fantasy adventure type game where you play a part but really have very little say in what happens

Or the games where hey we can do everything.

If this game has a C N C similar to FO2 it will be a huge leap forward for the RPG Genre.

 

[HoKa]

Sadly it would actually be a leap backwards.

These Bethesda guys aren't doing anything but catering the market of future WoW addicts.