Fallout 3:Locations from FO2

[Sander]

*ding, ding* We have a winner!

Obviously, if someone else stops the mutants even if I fail, then my actions have no impact upon the game world. Surely that isn't so difficult to grasp.

Yet again, I understand that. I don't see, however, how not being told explicitly that you stopped them is a problem.
Imagine the following:
Your character hears about the origins of some super mutant he encountered. The whole plan of the Master is explained, and when you ask what happened then, you get told that they were eventually stopped, but the person you're talking to can't really tell you how, except for some vague wordings amounting to 'some wanderer, I think'. Now, where in this scenario does this contradict your character from previous games stopping the Master? That's right, nowhere. At the same time, however, it also doesn't discount the possibility of joining the Super Mutants either, without offending either version. The fact that no-one can tell you explicitly that your previous character saved the world doesn't mean anything, and if you really, really crave that explicit statement of 'The Vault Dweller saved the world!!!111' then you really have no imagination of your own.

Because, like I said, turning a game into a crappy shooter and picking one canonic ending from several equally valid ones are two entirely different categories.

Yes, the FPS example is an exaggeration of your argument. The basis and form of the arguments are the same, however: 'You don't like it, then don't play it.'
Which is a bullshit argument, because disliking one aspect of the game doesn't suddenly make me dislike the game as a whole. It just makes me dislike that one aspect, and hence I want it to be different. And since that one aspect fits with canon, setting and the games, I don't really see any reason for you to say 'You don't like it, go away', because it makes for a perfectly debatable option, as you can see.

 

[Ratty Sr.]

At the same time, however, it also doesn't discount the possibility of joining the Super Mutants either, without offending either version.

But it *does* discount that possibility, because the Vault Dweller was the only one who could have stopped the mutants. I *don't* need to be explicitely told that he did, because he is the protagonist of the damn game and the last hope of mankind, hence if someone stopped the Master, it *had* to have been him (or her). But neither do I want to be explicitely told that *someone else* could have stopped the mutants, because a mere *hint* at that would greatly dilute my feeling of accomplishment.

 

[Sander]

But it *does* discount that possibility, because the Vault Dweller was the only one who could have stopped the mutants. I *don't* need to be explicitely told that he did, because he is the protagonist of the damn game and the last hope of mankind, hence if someone stopped the Master, it *had* to have been him (or her). But neither do I want to be explicitely told that *someone else* could have stopped the mutants, because a mere *hint* at that would greatly dilute my feeling of accomplishment.

I'd say that you're the minority here, Ratty. Now really, what is your problem with the example I mentioned, that you get told someone stopped the mutants. This puts your mind at ease since you can say 'Ah well, that was the Vault Dweller' and it puts my mind at ease by not immediately discounting any other version.

 

[Ratty Sr.]

I'd say that you're the minority here, Ratty. Now really, what is your problem with the example I mentioned, that you get told someone stopped the mutants. This puts your mind at ease since you can say 'Ah well, that was the Vault Dweller' and it puts my mind at ease by not immediately discounting any other version.

Never! I shall wage a brutal jihad upon everyone involved in that treachery!

 

[IsenMike]

I'd say that you're the minority here, Ratty.

So I'm new here, and I guess by the laws of InternetLand that means my opinion is probably worth diddly squat, but I have to say I agree with Ratty. The epic nature of the games are a key element in what makes them great. Yes, they are open-ended, but only to a degree. I cannot settle down and raise a family in Klamath, or open a general goods store in The Hub. What I can do is save the wastes, or damn them, as I see fit.

Seeing repercusions of the actions of previous protagonists adds a level of dramatic resonance to a new game for fans of the old. The "lack of imagination," I think, is most apparent in the idea that new canon has to nullify your own personal "canon." So yeah, I may have made different decisions, but since I was there and I made those decisions, whether or not my story coincided with the backstory of the sequel, it's going to resonate with me and connect the games together.

This is more than a "hey wouldn't it be cool," and I think it more than outweighs the desire to have an open-ended game necessarily coincide with an open-ended canon, which leads to necessarily having a sequel take place in a setting so far removed from the original that the games no longer affect one another. To me, this would seem to produce a Fallout game that would be no different, qualitatively, than any of the many "Fallout-inspired" RPG projects out there. Fully making use of the Fallout license means making a real sequel, not just slapping the Fallout name onto a PA CRPG with fifties flair.

 

[Silencer]

So I'm new here, and I guess by the laws of InternetLand that means my opinion is probably worth diddly squat,

By the laws of NomutantsallowedLand, your opinion is as meaningful s any of ours, as long as it's not boulderdash

 

[Sander]

So I'm new here, and I guess by the laws of InternetLand that means my opinion is probably worth diddly squat, but I have to say I agree with Ratty. The epic nature of the games are a key element in what makes them great. Yes, they are open-ended, but only to a degree. I cannot settle down and raise a family in Klamath, or open a general goods store in The Hub. What I can do is save the wastes, or damn them, as I see fit.

The epic nature of the game is just one aspect, though. There is also the principle of choice and consequence, arguably the most important in any CRPG. If the choices I make during the game aren't reflected in a sequel but rather discarded, then there were no real consequences to the choices.

Seeing repercusions of the actions of previous protagonists adds a level of dramatic resonance to a new game for fans of the old. The "lack of imagination," I think, is most apparent in the idea that new canon has to nullify your own personal "canon." So yeah, I may have made different decisions, but since I was there and I made those decisions, whether or not my story coincided with the backstory of the sequel, it's going to resonate with me and connect the games together.

This is more than a "hey wouldn't it be cool," and I think it more than outweighs the desire to have an open-ended game necessarily coincide with an open-ended canon, which leads to necessarily having a sequel take place in a setting so far removed from the original that the games no longer affect one another. To me, this would seem to produce a Fallout game that would be no different, qualitatively, than any of the many "Fallout-inspired" RPG projects out there. Fully making use of the Fallout license means making a real sequel, not just slapping the Fallout name onto a PA CRPG with fifties flair.

There are many things that make a Fallout game a Fallout game, but connectivity with previous games certainly isn't one of them. At some point such a storyline has to end, regardless of the reasons, you can't continue indefinitely with the same storyline, especially not in a world that's being rebuilt.
See, Fallout was made as a PnP RPG on the PC, with a fifties sci-fi setting and the setting and story laced with dark irony. Those are the essential setting elements (besides the obvious backstory) one needs to keep for a game to be a proper episode in the Fallout series. That's not to say that connectivity can't make the game a bit stronger, but it certainly isn't a necessary element, which is what you're saying.
Oh, and if such a game were qualitatively the same as all the Fallout-inspired RPGs out there, I want the names and websites of those games now, 'cause I need to go play them then.

 

[IsenMike]

That's not to say that connectivity can't make the game a bit stronger, but it certainly isn't a necessary element, which is what you're saying.

I don't think that anyone is saying connectivity is a necessary element. The point being made is that the necessity of keeping "canon" open-ended simply because gameplay is open-ended is also not a necessary element. But the two elements are mutually exclusive, so they must be weighed against each other. My point was that connectivity is more than the "hey isn't it cool" feature you have played it off as throughout this thread, and in my mind outweighs the need for open-ended "canon," though honestly either way it's played isn't going to be a deal-breaker IMO.

 

[RPGenius]

My point was that connectivity is more than the "hey isn't it cool" feature you have played it off as throughout this thread, and in my mind outweighs the need for open-ended "canon," though honestly either way it's played isn't going to be a deal-breaker IMO.

Recurring locations should only be used if it's done in a way that doesn't presume too much, fits with the game setting, has some inportance or reason for it's existence and is done well.
If there's any uncertainty about any of this, the locale should not recur. I'm fine with recurring locations that fit those criteria, but, if they bring in Military Base, I'll hit them with a few dozen pointy things.

 

[Richoid]

I think the idea would be bad of main reason for this clause would be the unspoken fact that it should not be set on the west coast no matter what.

 

[Sander]

I think the idea would be bad of main reason for this clause would be the unspoken fact that it should not be set on the west coast no matter what.

What? Sheesh, try writing in understandable English.
I'm not even sure whether you mean that it's a bad idea not to set it on the west coast, or that it's a good idea not to set it on the west coast.

In any case, could you come up with anything resembling arguments?

 

[Richoid]

Yes my point was wherever it is placed the location should not be on the west coast, namely due to the point that the story lines per location have run on for two games already on the west coast and would drag on too far if it were to not cease.

 

[Sander]

Yes my point was wherever it is placed the location should not be on the west coast, namely due to the point that the story lines per location have run on for two games already on the west coast and would drag on too far if it were to not cease.

The west coast storyline isn't complete, though, the Vault Experiments still need to be explained, for instance.

 

[Richoid]

Yes but we no nothing about other places where as we know a lot about the instances correlated to the west coast, although the picture may not be absolute it draws much nearer to completion than other relevant localities situated across the magnitude of the post nuclear world.

 

[Sander]

Yes but we no nothing about other places where as we know a lot about the instances correlated to the west coast, although the picture may not be absolute it draws much nearer to completion than other relevant localities situated across the magnitude of the post nuclear world.

So your reason for being completely opposed to keeping it on the west coast is that....we've already done the west coast.
That's a pretty damned poor reason. Besides it having rather little to do with the subject at hand in this topic.

See, the fact that you think its part is played out doesn't mean it actually needs to be.
As Kharn has said in this topic, the story isn't complete on the west coast, and there's plenty of room for more storyline.

 

[Richoid]

But why not simply reallocate off the west coast into the Pacific? It would dominate a change in scene specific to the wants of does. You could still apply the same story line linearly as you could easily visit the coast to accomplish unconsumed phenomena like the vault project you mentioned.

 

[Sander]

But why not simply reallocate off the west coast into the Pacific? It would dominate a change in scene specific to the wants of does. You could still apply the same story line linearly as you could easily visit the coast to accomplish unconsumed phenomena like the vault project you mentioned.

The wants of does?
Anyway, you want to change the setting because you think the west coast is done, fine, but give a good reason to move, argument why the place you want to move to is better than the place you're moving from.
Oh, and don't do that in this topic, but in the correct topic because this is getting awfully off-topic.

 

[RPGenius]

Yes but we no nothing about other places where as we know a lot about the instances correlated to the west coast, although the picture may not be absolute it draws much nearer to completion than other relevant localities situated across the magnitude of the post nuclear world.

Everyone located within the webforum commonly reffered to as No Mutants Allowed alternatively known as NMA NMA being the initials of No Mutants Allowed the previously mentioned title is fully capable of a poorly punctuated post with too many gargantuan unessecary words will do please dessist from this course of action as it will lead to great annoyance and doesn't make anyone think you are especially smart only pretentious.

Please, it really won't impress anyone, and it's unpleasent to read.

 

[RPGenius]

Yes but we no nothing about other places where as we know a lot about the instances correlated to the west coast, although the picture may not be absolute it draws much nearer to completion than other relevant localities situated across the magnitude of the post nuclear world.

Everyone located within the webforum commonly reffered to as No Mutants Allowed alternatively known as NMA NMA being the initials of No Mutants Allowed the previously mentioned title is fully capable of a poorly punctuated post with too many gargantuan unessecary words will do please dessist from this course of action as it will lead to great annoyance and doesn't make anyone think you are especially smart only pretentious.

Please, it really won't impress anyone, and it's unpleasent to read.

 

[Richoid]

What? I was not trying to be pretentious .
Oh and you double posted and went completely off topic by the way.
Where did my other reply go? I seem to recall there being one?