Fallout 3 LGC: MTV Multiplayer

[Brother None]

The most important issue to note here, is that it is entirely your opinion and a few others on this board that buying a home might "hurt" the setting. Now it could be a valid complaint.

What, you're not even going to argue whether or not it makes sense in the setting, instead falling back on some kind of "majority rules" argument? Sorry, that's not going to cut it, you can't just dodge an argument like that, if you want to claim that it doesn't hurt the setting, argue that it doesn't.

Now the house on the other hand, is clearly not going to be to the very very far left but closer to the center than a pony, and there is a good chance people that a large portion of people will like it, but possibly also a good chance of people who might hate it, but the numbers will probably be much closer than say a "pony". In other words it is not an equally "wacky" idea. In fact Bethesda might stand to gain more people to like it than hate it. Bethesda might project that the house will come to the far right. In other words more people will like it than hate it, and as such it would be worth the risk.

Wait, so now your argument is "people will like it"? So? Explain to me how people liking or not liking having houses in Fallout 3 in any way affects my argument.

How is my argument about personal preference or Bethesda's sales figures? If my argument is not, how does any remark on personal preference or sales figures impact it? Not at all is the correct answer.

You see, the problem with your argument is that you use quantitative concepts in an arbitrary "faux" qualitative argument.

Heh. Don't try to look clever, nobody's buying it.

is nothing but pure speculation.

Yes it is. It's also a generalist catch-all argument, meaning to include all things people would like us to ignore out of "being optional", such as the Fatman.

I wasn't making a point purely about houses, I was talking about the whole "optional means it's all right"-thing. Now the houses might be faux-optional or they might not be, at this point I don't know, but I do know the way games often force you into certain choices via the meta-gaming consideration of "either take bonus or don't take bonus", and that this makes the "it's only optional" thing fairly academic.

Look, I know you're trying to look clever in taking down the big bad NMAer and all, and I appreciate the effort you're laying out, but you're not really addressing the core issue: since when is "just ignore it" an answer to any issue? Is the setting suddenly consistent if I close my eyes to everything that makes it inconsistent?

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

It would make more sense if there was something wrong with the house.

I'll try to think of a few scenarios...

Spot on, I'd find those much more fitting thematically then the inclusion of Sims style interioir decorating gameplay. I think we saw this kind of result at the end of Fallout 1, Mad Max 2, the sperm donor scene from A Boy and His Dog. I'd find that more fitting than a being rewarded a home in a PA setting.

Think about it now.
I own a house, I have a mortgage, I pay taxes, I have a deed.
What good is a deed in a PA world?
The way it works is the strongest person gets whatever they want. Home ownership is an obselete concept in a PA world, you have to be capable of enforcing your supposed ownership, and if that's the case you really don't need anyone to give you a house at all. Not to mentionthis is in a game where exploration and plot advancement through discovery are majot gameplay components.

Saying that some people will like something, or more people will like it than not, is just an ad populum and does not make that inclusion a right choice - especially since the issue at hand is consistency with a pretty well-defined setting which is not really open to voting.

You hit the nail on the head there.

 

[doomestic]

The most important issue to note here, is that it is entirely your opinion and a few others on this board that buying a home might "hurt" the setting. Now it could be a valid complaint.

What, you're not even going to argue whether or not it makes sense in the setting, instead falling back on some kind of "majority rules" argument? Sorry, that's not going to cut it, you can't just dodge an argument like that, if you want to claim that it doesn't hurt the setting, argue that it doesn't..

Because you missed the point entirely. I was trying to address the comparison of a house in fallout 3 to a pony in fallout 3. I have yet to read your reasoning on why a house would be such an unfitting choice to the game. But regarding mine, I do not carry the same knee jerk reaction to dismissing the house idea entirely. A vault dweller who left the vault is not doomed to keep walking around the wasteland aimlessly for his entire life.

I have read some of the "reasons" as to why it might not fit the setting. I have read none of yours though.

One reason given was that your were on a quest to find your father, and you supposedly don't have the "time" to go and get a house. Well you do realize that in an RPG, a PC can choose not to look for his father, and instead side track to becoming a land lord, a drug dealer or any other thing he wants.

Another reason was because the concept of a "house" won't work in a PA world because of the whole "survival of the fittest" and the fact that deeds are meaningless. That is also again most likely not true. I think I can easily compare a PA world to ancient human history or to the jungle. Cave men had no problem with marking their turf and keeping certain areas and regions to themselves. Similarly lions don't have a problem of marking their turf in a jungle.

In my opinion, buying a house in Fallout 3 would be something similar, to marking your turf to an area, and declaring that if someone trespasses it, they would face fatal consequences on your part. So there is nothing incompatible about having a house in Fallout 3 with the Fallout 3 setting.

The question is, if all those NPCs in Fallout 1 / 2 and eventually 3 managed to secure a home of their own, why can't you?

Now I don't know which of those reasons are yours Brother. But if they are neither, I would like to hear yours.

Now the house on the other hand, is clearly not going to be to the very very far left but closer to the center than a pony, and there is a good chance people that a large portion of people will like it, but possibly also a good chance of people who might hate it, but the numbers will probably be much closer than say a "pony". In other words it is not an equally "wacky" idea. In fact Bethesda might stand to gain more people to like it than hate it. Bethesda might project that the house will come to the far right. In other words more people will like it than hate it, and as such it would be worth the risk.

Wait, so now your argument is "people will like it"? So? Explain to me how people liking or not liking having houses in Fallout 3 in any way affects my argument.

How is my argument about personal preference or Bethesda's sales figures? If my argument is not, how does any remark on personal preference or sales figures impact it? Not at all is the correct answer.

Again you make the same mistake of missing the point. I was trying to point out to the fact that comparing adding a pony to Fallout 3 is more likely to be perceived to be against the setting of Fallout 3 than adding a house. I already showed that there can easily be some reasoning behind having a house, while there is probably zero reasoning behind adding a pink pony.

You see, the problem with your argument is that you use quantitative concepts in an arbitrary "faux" qualitative argument.

Heh. Don't try to look clever, nobody's buying it.

Well that is mighty of you to declare yourself the speaker on behalf of "everybody", but considering that one person a few posts above considered my point "interesting", I would say the claim that nobody is "buying" it is false. Besides I never thought of discussing a subjective issue such as a house in a game to be an IQ test of cleverness, but if it is to you then that is fine by me.

is nothing but pure speculation.

Yes it is. It's also a generalist catch-all argument, meaning to include all things people would like us to ignore out of "being optional", such as the Fatman.

I wasn't making a point purely about houses, I was talking about the whole "optional means it's all right"-thing. Now the houses might be faux-optional or they might not be, at this point I don't know, but I do know the way games often force you into certain choices via the meta-gaming consideration of "either take bonus or don't take bonus", and that this makes the "it's only optional" thing fairly academic.

What, you're not even going to argue whether or not having a house has any effect on the balance? Please, don't try to avoid the issue here by claiming you are making a "generalist" argument. I clearly cited a reason as to why ignoring a house is most likely going to be of no consequence on balance whatsoever.

Now about your generalist approach to "optional" material. It is true that some games might give the illusion of options, when failing to follow that option might impair your gaming experience significantly. However, this is an extremely wide claim that lacks any relevance to whether or not a house is a sensible addition to the game. For example, I would not consider the option of having a house in Oblivion to be as much of an option, as say, the option of completing Cysis with a melee only. In other words, you have to pinpoint what you are saying more specifically.

Look, I know you're trying to look clever in taking down the big bad NMAer and all, and I appreciate the effort you're laying out, but you're not really addressing the core issue: since when is "just ignore it" an answer to any issue? Is the setting suddenly consistent if I close my eyes to everything that makes it inconsistent?

Look, I don't care how you percieve my post. If it sounds "clever" to you or to others, I could not care either way. But I don't find you neither "big", nor "bad".

Now "ignoring it" was actually the answer to almost every entertainment experience I had. There are plenty of games , movies, albums. Almost every single game I ever played had one issue or more that I had to ignore because they were not to my liking, whether a graphic glitches in a game, poor side quests, bad mini games etc. Now the issue will become entirely subjective, when you have to make the decision of whether or not you can enjoy the game despite its flaws, or whether the flaws were far too numerous for you to enjoy the game.

In fact, you can easily go to any gaming review site, and in almost every review, they will give you a rundown of what they think the flaws of that particular game were, and whether or not working past those flaws, or even ignoring them, will keep you from enjoying that game.

So yes, in the specific case of having a house in Fallout 3, ignoring it most likely would have no baring on the game, no effect, if you consider it to be "against" the setting. [/quote]

Think about it now.
I own a house, I have a mortgage, I pay taxes, I have a deed.
What good is a deed in a PA world?
The way it works is the strongest person gets whatever they want. Home ownership is an obselete concept in a PA world, you have to be capable of enforcing your supposed ownership, and if that's the case you really don't need anyone to give you a house at all. Not to mention this is in a game where exploration and plot advancement through discovery are majot gameplay components.
.

Actually, if you want to get a house in town, you might be unable of "enforcing" your self on to getting a house, but you might be able to convince the person who has claimed that turf / house his, to relinquish it by other means. True, you might meet people that are far too strong for you to overpower, and you might find people that are just your level of power, and capacity, who might be willing to trade a house for something else.

 

[FeelTheRads]

Well you do realize that in an RPG, a PC can choose not to look for his father, and instead side track to becoming a land lord, a drug dealer or any other thing he wants.

You do realize that so far has been pointed out that finding your father is the ultimate goal? Walking around in your home while screaming "I don't care about my father" is not role-playing, especially if you don't have any other way to complete the game except finding said father.

 

[Per]

I was trying to address the comparison of a house in fallout 3 to a pony in fallout 3.

A noble quest.

 

[sai | GLYPH]

Doomestic, can't we ignore it in play, while bringing light to it in discussion?

The argument as it's evolved seems to be more like a response to the idea that the house-thing ruins the game completely. However, the impression that I'm getting from Big Bad Brother None is that this is one more item on a long list of things that strike as being off.

Taking the cd analogy... it's not that the one track makes me think the author sucks. It's that the one track reduces my interest in the author. In Bethesda's case, there might be more than one problematic track, which paints the others in a less positive light where speculation is concerned.

In any case. You (and I) can ignore it. But that doesn't make it right. And it doesn't preclude the relevant discussion.

 

[Brother None]

I was trying to address the comparison of a house in fallout 3 to a pony in fallout 3.

By pointing out the popular opinion of houses in Fallout 3? Look, the pony-to-house thing is obviously a thing of scale, but there's no linear demarcation between the two, there's no reason logic that applies to one wouldn't to the other based on the premise that they both do not fit. If you disagree with that premise that is fine, but saying "it is entirely your opinion" isn't addressing the argument.

I have read some of the "reasons" as to why it might not fit the setting. I have read none of yours though.

Oh, basic :agree:, hence not post-worthy, but sure:

1. My house is my castle. Housing goes against the grain of the lost-in-the-wasteland feel that Fallout 1 excelled at. How well do you think the ending of Fallout 1 would have worked had the player just been able to think "oh, that's alright then, I'll just bugger off back home to the missus".

2. No rush, no hurry. Why do I have a house if I'm bum-rushing somewhere? Where is the immediacy of anything when I'm getting my hair cut? Not necessarily a problem, but compare it to the way Oblivion tried to sell you immediacy in story without backing it up with gameplay.

3. Vault? Fuggedaboutit. The presence of a house lowers the impact of being kicked out of your lifelong home.

4. And, of course, GTA. I don't like lazy comparisons but I think the point that Bethesda is reaching for the kind of gender blending that only a few development houses have achieved is spot-on. Just because Rockstar N gets away with it doesn't mean they can, mix a bit of everything and you tend to get a lot of nothing.

I was trying to point out to the fact that comparing adding a pony to Fallout 3 is more likely to be perceived to be against the setting of Fallout 3 than adding a house.

Oh, that's funny, because it's not like I said that myself, right?

There's a difference in scale obviously if you're talking getting a house or getting a pink pony, but both do not fit, and no amount of optionality changes that.

And look, even when initially stating the argument I noted it is a reduction ad absurdam.

But it's not about perception. Yes it's about scale, so look at it this way: it being a house instead of a pony means it's less unfitting, but it doesn't mean it's absolutely fitting just because of the difference in scale.

Equally, being optional does in fact mean that something can become less pertinent. But there's not demarcation between optional and non-optional that means optional is suddenly excusable no matter what no more than such a demarcation exists between the house and the pone. It's a matter of scale and for personal preference it can be a matter of choosing where you shrug and go "eh, I don't care", but that's a damned sight removed from saying it doesn't matter period.

What, you're not even going to argue whether or not having a house has any effect on the balance?

The fuck would I know? I haven't played the game have I?

Please, don't try to avoid the issue here by claiming you are making a "generalist" argument.

Oh, I can't decide what my own arguments are anymore, you decide that for me now?

Thanks for filling me in there, chief.

I clearly cited a reason as to why ignoring a house is most likely going to be of no consequence on balance whatsoever.

Yes, and I noted you might be right. Or you might not be. I don't know, neither do you.

However, this is an extremely wide claim that lacks any relevance to whether or not a house is a sensible addition to the game.

Not necessarily. It is a pretty wide claim, sure, but it's relevant insofar as I was explaining why "it's optional so it doesn't matter" is generally not well-received here as a line of thinking. If the argument is generally perceived as flawed, it won't be valid here either.

Almost every single game I ever played had one issue or more that I had to ignore because they were not to my liking, whether a graphic glitches in a game, poor side quests, bad mini games etc.

Seriously, you ignore them? I'm aware of them but if the positive outweighs the negative then I still like the game. I'm not going to ignore - say - Fallout's lack of skill balance by tagging outdoorsman, medicine and gambling at the beginning of the game, tho'.

In fact, you can easily go to any gaming review site, and in almost every review, they will give you a rundown of what they think the flaws of that particular game were, and whether or not working past those flaws, or even ignoring them, will keep you from enjoying that game.

Thanks for that. 's pretty much what I do when reviewing games for the gaming site I work for. Heck, I think a pertinent example would be my Hard to be a God review, in which I conclude "Hard to be a God is worth it if the flaws don't bother you, but there's not enough meat to this game to play it if the flaws are annoying to you". Meat, cut, ledger, son.

So yes, in the specific case of having a house in Fallout 3, ignoring it most likely would have no baring on the game, no effect, if you consider it to be "against" the setting.

Whoa, straight out of the left field there. I'm not seeing how you set up this conclusion with your prior argument, exactly. You're talking about considering and balancing flaws on and off for games and then suddenly you conclude "so yes" a house is not a problem for Fallout 3 because you can ignore it? Why? Is it suddenly not there anymore, grinding its way against the setting, showing off the gender-blending philosophy of Bethesda that is such an anathema of Fallout's design philosophy?

 

[Ausir]

You do realize that so far has been pointed out that finding your father is the ultimate goal?

Probably not more than finding the Water Chip in FO1 and GECK in FO2.

 

[Xenophile]

When Bethesda made a choice of including a "house" option in fallout, it took a risk. A pony in the world of fallout is going to be like putting a dot to the very very left of the bell curve. The population of people that will like the idea will be represented by the area under the curve to the left of the point on the X axis, and the people to the right of it will hate it. In this case the people that will like it will be a very negligible number. They stand to have almost the entire population of the game players hating the concept.

Now the house on the other hand, is clearly not going to be to the very very far left but closer to the center than a pony, and there is a good chance people that a large portion of people will like it, but possibly also a good chance of people who might hate it, but the numbers will probably be much closer than say a "pony". In other words it is not an equally "wacky" idea. In fact Bethesda might stand to gain more people to like it than hate it. Bethesda might project that the house will come to the far right. In other words more people will like it than hate it, and as such it would be worth the risk.

I am so glad you used a bell curve.. that was exactly what I was thinking. I think the optionality of the experience should be the inverse of the size of the population that is likely to enjoy it. So something like on the outliers of appeal better be VERY optional and non-intrusive.

Glad someone else agrees with me.

 

[AskWazzup]

Don't see what's the fuss about. The house thing clearly doesn't bring anything useful to the setting and has only minor gameplay value. Besides, if i recall correctly, there will be more than one "house" for the pc to obtain.

I think this is one of those cases where beth doesn't think if the feature actually fits the setting and are adding it for "other" porpuses.

 

[Brother None]

I am so glad you used a bell curve.. that was exactly what I was thinking. I think the optionality of the experience should be the inverse of the size of the population that is likely to enjoy it. So something like on the outliers of appeal better be VERY optional and non-intrusive.

Glad someone else agrees with me.

Hey man, look, I don't disagree with that argument at all, it's simply peripheral to what we're talking about. One issue is Fallout 3 doing what it can to appeal to a broader audience, including building a house, the other is Fallout 3 sticking as closely to Fallout 1 as possible, excluding building a house. This isn't a zero-sum game in which you can just pitch an idea as benefiting the former to maximum potential while hitting the latter with minimum force, because the argument here is that Fallout 3 sticking to Fallout 1's design philosophy should have primacy over all other design decisions.

Does that mean the house is a huge problem? Not to me it ain't, and I've said so multiple times now, but it doesn't mean the house can be disregarded as "not an issue" simply due to bell curves and optionality, mang.

 

[Xenophile]

Ok.. last post and I got real stuff I need to work on...

In my opinion.. I don't see the house as a problem... it does come down to the optionality of the experience.. let's look at the following fake dialog options.

Mayor of Town:
"We owe you something fierce for taking down Mr. X, he's been a thorn in the side of this community for far too long. I always knew it would have to come down to this, it's just none of us here had the balls to do it. You know we really could use a guy like you around, there's never a day where we couldn't use the extra muscle what with the raiders and all.

Tell you what.. you know that old house next to the morgue. It used to be old slims place, rest his soul. He was a tinkerer if I done ever seen one. Even had a robot in there, if'n that thing still be working.. last I heard some outta towner tried to pull it out of there and ended up all crispy like. You're welcome to stay there anytime, seeing after that out of towner got fried the folks been less inclined to poke their head in that place."

Your options:
1) Think, I'll take you up on that offer.. guess I better go check it out, always wanted my own robot.

2) Mister... I got more important things to do than babysit some two-bit town.. I WILL however take that gun you got in your hands, now.

So there we have an optional experience.. totally non-intrusive with an option to play the character like YOU feel.. maybe my character isn't particularly interested in the vault and his father.. it's kinda nice out here.. no oversee'er to boss you around, etc. And I think it fits in the PA setting.. it's a self-serving action on the part of the mayor.. he wants muscle that he can count on.. and it opens the ability to have side quests related to the house.. say raiders attack and the mayor tries to call in the favor from you implying that you owe him since he let you have the house etc. Again I don't see why people get so worked up about this kind of stuff.

 

[Per]

Again I don't see why people get so worked up about this kind of stuff.

We get an increasing amount of visitors who get worked up about people getting worked up, so karmatically maybe it balances out in the end.

 

[ookami]

totally non-intrusive with an option to play the character like YOU feel...

Unless you don't want the silly house, want a different reward but also don't want to be an asshole about it.

This is what I'm most concerned about for the Megaton quest:
1. Seems like a pretty significant quest, thus ignoring it will result in missing out on something significant. I pay good money for games, and I'm not paying to 'ignore' shit.

2. There is no indication that there will be an alternative reward instead of the house and robot. So, it's either do it and take the stupid thing I don't want, or get no tangible reward for it, or don't do it at all which goes right back to my first concern.

 

[Xenophile]

Well I didn't feel like writing more than 2 options.. but obviously there could be more....

 

[UncannyGarlic]

Well I didn't feel like writing more than 2 options.. but obviously there could be more....

Indeed, there was at least one quest in Fallout with multiple rewards but what other reward would be equal to a house and robot? The purpose of the reward (from what I can tell) is to create a homebase in the waste which you can customize and use to customize your character. It's a reward which offers nothing of real gain to the character other than a storage facility but that offers more graphical masterbation options (decorating the house and haircuts). disregarding the whole setting argument you still have the gameplay question. What does this add to the gameplay? From all that we've heard the answer is "cosmetics" and possibly "a cosmetic mini-game" (decorating the house). If it doesn't have any gameplay purpose then it should contribute to the setting and feel of the game which it instead detracts from.

 

[Xenophile]

Well I didn't feel like writing more than 2 options.. but obviously there could be more....

Indeed, there was at least one quest in Fallout with multiple rewards but what other reward would be equal to a house and robot? The purpose of the reward (from what I can tell) is to create a homebase in the waste which you can customize and use to customize your character. It's a reward which offers nothing of real gain to the character other than a storage facility but that offers more graphical masterbation options (decorating the house and haircuts). disregarding the whole setting argument you still have the gameplay question. What does this add to the gameplay? From all that we've heard the answer is "cosmetics" and possibly "a cosmetic mini-game" (decorating the house). If it doesn't have any gameplay purpose then it should contribute to the setting and feel of the game which it instead detracts from.

Well by your own definition of value.. than ANYTHING would be a better reward for YOU. Myself.. I would take the house and the robot. I'll probably even decorate.. Oh dear the blasphemy!

 

[Kikseo]

First off... I'm new here, don't go on me too hard. I played FO2 a little bit, but had a spear and died and never played again (it was my cousins.)

So I realize I can't really compare it to those games.

But the only thing I see is that you are given the house, or you can destroy the city. If you like the "wandering mercenary" type feel, blow the damn city sky high. The game is a RPG -- you decide how your character acts, its not a matter of "feel" as far as I'm concerned. You can make the game "feel" like you're a homicidal freak by going city to city and stabbing people repeatedly in the groin in their sleep if you so felt. The game's feel is based around what you make it to be, and the only games that we as gamers need to worry about "feel" in are the linear ones (e.g. Manhunt, you can't be a happy-go-lucky dogooder who likes getting sprayed from his chainsaw victims.) -- and FO3 is NOT linear.

If it is, I'm taking it back to GameStop and saying its defective.

 

[Drakehash]

First off... I'm new here, don't go on me too hard. I played FO2 a little bit, but had a spear and died and never played again (it was my cousins.)

So I realize I can't really compare it to those games.

But the only thing I see is that you are given the house, or you can destroy the city. If you like the "wandering mercenary" type feel, blow the damn city sky high. The game is a RPG -- you decide how your character acts, its not a matter of "feel" as far as I'm concerned. You can make the game "feel" like you're a homicidal freak by going city to city and stabbing people repeatedly in the groin in their sleep if you so felt. The game's feel is based around what you make it to be, and the only games that we as gamers need to worry about "feel" in are the linear ones (e.g. Manhunt, you can't be a happy-go-lucky dogooder who likes getting sprayed from his chainsaw victims.) -- and FO3 is NOT linear.

If it is, I'm taking it back to GameStop and saying its defective.

We are talking here about fallout 3, not GTA IV...

PS: i like how you say "FO3 is NOT linear", the game is not even out and you can tell this...

 

[Kikseo]

We are talking here about fallout 3, not GTA IV...

PS: i like how you say "FO3 is NOT linear", the game is not even out and you can tell this...

Uh... I didn't mention GTA 4 at all dude. And if you're referring to the groin-stabber part, that was more Manhunt-directed. I was trying to get to that topic.

I also like the postscriptum there... You say it as if its not completely obvious that FO3 won't be linear.