fallout 3 suggestion

welsh

welsh

Junkmaster
I think the main problems with Fallout 1 and 2 are:
(1) they are too short (although Fallout 2 is much better)
(2) they are scripted around a "savior" and basically tell a singular story (get the Chip and destroy the mutants= fallout 1, Find the Geck and rescue the tribe= fallout 2) but that the most fun comes in the side quests.
(3) Loose ends- too many bugs and loose ends in Fallout 2, especially.

I would suggest that the story continue to develop from Fallout 1 and 2 but that the game really take up the challenge of being an interactive and "player" generated novel. It should be based on one big campaign but then provide multiple modules or add-ons- either created by other players or by the interplay that could develop the Fallout world.

The game I would have in mind is pretty big, but the overarching plot would involve a rebuilding of the United States. The main character would be the child of a trader of the original village from Fallout 1. As such the character has an interest in developing trade, has interest in travel as far as possible and learning about the world outside the existing Fallout map and also could represent the tribe as an ambassador.

The story could begin with a mission to unite the Tribe/Vault 13 community with the city of San Francisco
Then the story could be uniting this new "country" with NCR.
Resolving a plot for a military take over of NCR or a civil war within NCR/Vault City. Perhaps develop friendly relations with a growing population of intelligent Deathclaws. Perhaps respond to a roving bandit from Mexico who is on a campaign of terror (like the bandits for Magnificent Seven).

Then the story could branch out based on the events.
(1) The character might be sent East to develop friendly relations with nations being developed there,
(2) North in to Alaska over control of minerals
(3) out into the Southwest to recover lost military technology or remove a military threat.
(4) even respond to threats by foreign powers (europeans or Asians who are more advanced and trying to colonize the former US).

Possible new societies-
(1)Cravans of truckers traveling across the middle west.
(2) Biker gangs throughout the country
(3) A group of Great Lake merchants and pirate fighting for control.
(4) A stronger more unified Canada (but perhaps divided between the French and the English speakers) maybe thinking of conquest.
(5) Competing Salvage gangs fighting over salvage of New York, Boston, Chicago.
(6) Southern slavers raising commodity crops for sale in Europe and Asia.
(7) A Horde (kind of like modern Mongols).

Also new monsters (mutants) as well as environmental effects- tornadoes, dust storms, etc.

The key would be to develop a story on the idea of how one character (not a "Chosen ONe" but just a normal character) could play an important role in developing a more federated NCR and then develop a new unified country. Because this would be a 'Big Game" Interplay could sell the basic game and then add-ons to develop the story. This would also give the players more individualized play and a game that could go on as long as new episodes are made.

What do you think?

W
 
[font size=1" color="#FF0000]LAST EDITED ON Apr-16-02 AT 07:49PM (GMT)[p]Sorry, double post.
 
>(1) they are too short (although
>Fallout 2 is much better)
>

I definetly agree, but length brings another problem. Fallout 2 may have been longer, but it had the same quality of no 1 spread over a larger amount of material. They probably put about the same effort into both games and thus because 2 was longer all the bugs, loose ends etc. showed up. Generally the longer the game the worse the game though this is not always the case. If Blackisle ever does make a Fallout 3, the chance of which is getting more remote by the day, then they would need to put a lot of effort into maintaing the quality of a longer game. Of course I have no dobut that they 'could' do it, just take a look at Planescape: Torment.


>(2) they are scripted around a
>"savior" and basically tell a
>singular story (get the Chip
>and destroy the mutants= fallout
>1, Find the Geck and
>rescue the tribe= fallout 2)
>but that the most fun
>comes in the side quests.
>

I though the plot was too similar in both games. I agree, the side quests were most enjoyable, particularly in 2. What I saw in 1 was the plot building around the main story instead of being seperate from it. 2 didn't quite flow, it was flowing smoothly and then suddenly the game jumped too far with all the extra technology. I felt it needed to be more smooth, there was definetly style in what they came up with but in 3 I would like to see something else explored.

>(3) Loose ends- too many bugs
>and loose ends in Fallout
>2, especially.
>

Because of length no dobut (see above)

>I would suggest that the story
>continue to develop from Fallout
>1 and 2 but that
>the game really take up
>the challenge of being an
>interactive and "player" generated novel.

I would like to see this too, I'm more in for superior story. I think there is a lot that could be expanded on in both games so far.

> It should be based
>on one big campaign but
>then provide multiple modules or
>add-ons- either created by other
>players or by the interplay
>that could develop the Fallout
>world.
>

Amen to this! You couldn't have put it more right.

>The game I would have in
>mind is pretty big, but
>the overarching plot would involve
>a rebuilding of the United
>States. The main character
>would be the child of
>a trader of the original
>village from Fallout 1.
>As such the character has
>an interest in developing trade,
>has interest in travel as
>far as possible and learning
>about the world outside the
>existing Fallout map and also
>could represent the tribe as
>an ambassador.
>

I disagree here, the charm of both games so far was post-apocalyptic feel. If you think about it, what town was really the best? Klamath and Den, because they gave that survival feel, before I learnt you could just kill Tubby for lots of guns. I would like to see No, 3 set before FO1 or at about the same time to expand on the plot from there. Technology is fine and I enjoy that point in the game, but if you begin the game like that, it would spoil at least half of it.

>The story could begin with a
>mission to unite the Tribe/Vault
>13 community with the city
>of San Francisco
>Then the story could be uniting
>this new "country" with NCR.
>

I don't particularly like the idea of rebuilding the world. PeaceKeeping is fine as long as you keep it to the side quests.

>The key would be to develop
>a story on the idea
>of how one character (not
>a "Chosen ONe" but just
>a normal character) could play
>an important role in developing
>a more federated NCR and
>then develop a new unified
>country. Because this would
>be a 'Big Game"
>Interplay could sell the basic
>game and then add-ons to
>develop the story. This
>would also give the players
>more individualized play and a
>game that could go on
>as long as new episodes
>are made.
>

I enjoyed the idea of Vault Dweller and Chosen One, particularly the idea of the main character coming from unusual circumstances and having to adapt to the world on the outside to save her home from some evil fate. About the add-ons, you'd need to give more information.
 
Dear Fang-

Thanks for the response. I really think the beauty of this game is that it could make it as both role playing entertainment and as the setting for the players own story. I liked the fact that you could play either "evil" or "good" character, and that traits did make a difference in how you proceeded. And yet, despite the strands, the stories are, in some way linear. True you could abandon either the Water Chip or the Geck quest along the way (Currently I am in FO 2, level 30 and am purposely avoiding Vault 13). But at the end of the day, you are going to do those quests because that's how the game is scripted.

Part of that has to do with being a "Savior" character. But there is no reason to think that any "tribal" or "vault dweller" could have done those same adventures. What should make the game unique is the player, not the character.

What I suggest is make the character a humble joe schmo, who, through the course of the adventures progresses to something "great" instead of the "chosen for greatness course." THe game should account for both options. Because you need to travel, a trader works, but you could also be a mercenary, a scholar, a priest, or a missionary and still travel about. If I were to chose a character, it would be a trader because, basically most players do a lot of that anyway. But characters also play an "ambassador" role as well. Early in FO2 you have the Modoc-Ghost Farm quests.

I disagree with you with the "peacekeeping" for "nation making" course. To be honest both earlier games are about this. In Fallout 1 you are, if a good character, building a better world in Southern California. What will the Junkyard be like, do you save Necropolis, do you help the Brotherhood of Steal or the Boneyard become better places. In Fallout 2 you are caught in the "nation making" business depending on whose side you lean towards (NCR vs New Reno vs. VC) or what you do in San Francisco.

IF the fallout 3 universe is going to be bigger, why stop in California? It should accept that there is a bigger world and should allow those options. Imagine a new New Orlean's French Quarter, or what a Post Apocalyptic NASA might be like? What about pirates using submarines out of Bermuda? Imagine : riverboat wars on the Mississippi, mutant monsters in the subways of Manhattan, an insane robot that has captured a missile base in Nebraska. It would allow more, but I think that's what every Fallout player wants. (You can only replay the game so many times).

I agree, that the problem with technology comes too fast. But I also think that the problems of levels comes to fast. Fallout can be slower and more developed. The fighting is fun, but its the story that makes it. Some of the best quests involved very little fighting at all. Then again, carnage is sometimes a good thing.

Character development, could involve NPCs. Resolving personal quests could be fun. Solving Cassidy's heart problems or finding Sulik's daughter, developing the ideas of Unity patrols, or even optimizing the Gecko plant and still providing a happy ending, should have been an option. Events are interesting, but good stories are usually about the people. Let NPC's come but also let them go. Allow your character to develop new relationships. Because Fallout 2 moves so fast, why get rid of Sulik or Cassidy when they have gained so many levels for Goris or Marcus who are cool, but would screw up the good thing you've got.

But I think we both come down to the same idea, slow it down and make it bigger. But that would also make commercial sense. If Black Isle where to come out with a game, say the size of Fallout 2, or even Fallout 1, sold it for $20.00 and came out with add-ons, say every year- it would make a hell of a series and could be a money maker for a long time.
 
You don't have to complete the water chip quest in F1 nor do you have to complete the geck quest (from vault 13) in F2 to finish those games. Most players do however but you don't have to.

JR

Nunc ut nunquam
 
In the hope of renewing interest in this stream, I post this note!

Three thoughts from the original stream (plus one new)-

(1)Regular, plot developing modules- The game need not, necessarily be large, as long as it remainds open ended. The key here is that Fallout has a large group of fans who want to keep playing long after the game is really over. So the best way to deal with this is a sequences of modules produced by interplay and published on a fairly regular basis. Since the game could run on older Fallout engines, the R&D necessary would be reduced. Ideally if Fallout fans had games the size of, say, Fallout 1 or perhaps a bit longer, but these were released on a yearly basis, I think that interplay would not only satisfy current fans, but would reawake interest in upcoming generations of players.
I picked up both games and FOS tactics only this year, and loved them both. Since a lot of players are using older computers this would avoid the need to upgrade as needed for a lot of new games

(2) Character development- the joy of the NPC game is the character development. Keeping it consistent with the original Fallout game would be a big boon, but the game should slow down the development of the characters. Less experience for encounters and longer times to move up in levels would be a plus. The game could compensate by increasing perk rates, but I am not sure about this.

In addition to this- I think that the game should move away from a central (Christ-like) chosen one or Vault Dweller. Players should have the chance to develop the character they want from whatever humble origins they wish. Allowing your character to be, at least initially, a sage like monk, an ambassador, a trader, a thief, a healer, as well as a warrior would move allow more independence for players

(3) An overarching story line. Like it or not, the characters are involved with the recreation or redevelopment of society. Each game is fundamentally driven by plot line which involves the future of the world between increased chaos, ruthless despotism, self destructive nihilism or the creation of a more just, equitable society. The Junkyard, Hub, BOS, boneyard, New San Fran, NCR, New Reno- all were in someway part of that design which is reflected in the endings of both games.

This is why I think that the plot of Fallout 3 should begin where Fallout 2 leaves and capture the plots of all prior Fallouts. A descendent of the village of Arroyo you are off to make your fame and fortune in the world, and get caught up in the relationship between Arroyo and its neighbors as California recovers (ok for the core Fallout 3) and then the game expands to involve futher interactions with societies and places elsewhere, Canada to Mexico to New York. What the hell go International and interstellar (especially as the game designers like aliens.

+ 1 (Ok- two additional points)- This from Fallout BOS- I have to admit that I like the fact that you can decide what your NPCs do and I like the fact that you can move away from Turn based to Continuous Turn Based. This allows the game to be two different beasts. I would also suggest retaining the weapons of Fallout 2 and Fallout Tactics. This would allow consistency with earlier games. However, as Fallout 3 would take place in the future than we should expect an increase in more primative or home-made weapons. If we expect greater trade with more advanced societies than we might also expect new, more advanced weapons as well.
 
This is a load of brahmin crap!
Agree with me people, PLEASE!!

I would have mourned the loss of my life if I had not already been dead.
 
Brahman Crap! Your MOmma was a Two headed Brahma, and you smell like the Junk she crapped out!

Oh, like, you think that a 3-D first person shooter set in a fallout world with multiple players (kind of a Half-life goes into the Wasteland) would be better?

Dude, this game works because of the players and the possibilities that exist in the story line. That the player has the option to do what he or she wants, that there are lots of sub-plots, that you decide your own fate and that the character you make is the character you want to play is what makes this game work.

I agree with your earlier email. More primitive weapons, and I even agree that the best thing that the game could do would be to move, timewise, into a post Fallout 2 world. People may bicker about Turn- based vs CTB but the thing is that which game style you choose shapes the kind of game you play, and the player should have that option to choose.

THe key to this game for interplay would be to realize what they have, a good franchise built around a quality story with an enjoyable interface and a very loyal fan base. Good business sense would be to figure a way to make a buck from this and keep their customers happy. Customer satisfaction is key.

So they need to get rid of these freaking bugs. That's the biggest pain in the ass about Fallout Tactics.

If the game goes 3-d first person shooter to follow the trend then they are basically screwing their customer good will. It seems no one wants that.

They have the R & D around the engine, the style, the look and the history. What they need to do is turnout these games more frequently so that the players who might play the game once, twice the most, will come back to it. They need to do it with quality.

I love the fact that these games, which are pretty dated now, are still excellent to play.
 
Aggressive Canada striving for world domination? Let me guess... You are Canadian, aren't you? Shit, everybody thinks his country will be the one to survive the global apocalypse and will lead the world into better tomorrow. Yay, thank goodness U.S. is dead! You know, I actually know people who got into Fallout because they lo-oved to see U.S. in ruins...

Ahem, rambling mode /off. IMHO, advanced politics don't belong in Fallout. A power game between two factions in a city is okay, but NCR, Vault City, and other political organisations don't look very well in post-nuclear wasteland that was supposed to be struggling through anarchy and downfall of civilization.

New societies: 1,2,5,7 look very promising. 3 could also be used, after some heavy tweaking. Frankly, the rest of it is crap, IMHO.

I really don't think what good will environmental effects (as well as seasonal weather changes) do. I doubt it'll be a major gameplay element, although occassional acid rain over the ruins of some ancient metropolis sound like a nice idea.



http://www.aptyp.hut.ru/images/rr_pp.gif[font face=arial size=1]
[font color=#cc00cc]- Why, hello there, Ranger!..
[font color=#00bb00]- *Sigh* Go away.

​
 
>I think the main problems with
>Fallout 1 and 2 are:
>
>(1) they are too short (although
>Fallout 2 is much better)

Oh lordy, lordy! I'll take SHORT as opposed to SHIT anyday, my friend. Let's face it, Fallout 2 was longer, but it wasn't nearly as good as Fallout was. There's a reason I still play Fallout to this day, and there's a reason why I don't play Fallout 2.

>The game I would have in
>mind is pretty big, but
>the overarching plot would involve
>a rebuilding of the United
>States.

There's a lofty goal.

>The main character
>would be the child of
>a trader of the original
>village from Fallout 1.
>As such the character has
>an interest in developing trade,
>has interest in travel as
>far as possible and learning
>about the world outside the
>existing Fallout map and also
>could represent the tribe as
>an ambassador.

Here's a fun thought, let's leave what the character has an interest in up to the player, shall we? Let's not have this, "You're tribal boy, and your interests are blah blah blah blah! Now go play!"

>The story could begin with a
>mission to unite the Tribe/Vault
>13 community with the city
>of San Francisco
>Then the story could be uniting
>this new "country" with NCR.

Ugh.. Get off the weed, hippy. NCR is their own thing, I can't see them wanting to give up power just because you waltz in an say you're making the world a happy place. Besides, NCR is supposed to rule for centuries per the ending in Fallout.

>Resolving a plot for a military
>take over of NCR or
>a civil war within NCR/Vault
>City.

And an evil character would do what in this case? That's one of the things you're missing here, evil characters.

>Perhaps develop friendly relations
>with a growing population of
>intelligent Deathclaws.

They could use Ouijji Board to make peace with them beyond the grave!

Intelligent Deathclaws are dead, Jim.

>Perhaps respond
>to a roving bandit from
>Mexico who is on a
>campaign of terror (like the
>bandits for Magnificent Seven).

Good movie, but let's not start a premiss with movie references, shall we?

>Then the story could branch out
>based on the events.
>(1) The character might be sent
>East to develop friendly relations
>with nations being developed there,

Assuming there are any. Assuming the East isn't one big scum pit, which frankly, I'd rather see than civilization in my POST APOCALYPTIC game.

>(2) North in to Alaska over
>control of minerals
>(3) out into the Southwest to
>recover lost military technology or
>remove a military threat.

Sounds like Jagged Alliance. Things like this would be fantastic for a strategy game, but not that wonderful for an RPG.

>(4) even respond to threats by
>foreign powers (europeans or Asians
>who are more advanced and
>trying to colonize the former
>US).

Mmmm.. Sailboats.

>Possible new societies-
>(1)Cravans of truckers traveling across the
>middle west.

What would be the point of "truckers" if there aren't trucks?

>(2) Biker gangs throughout the country

See above, replace the word "truck" with "bike". That is, unless you mean bicycles.

Just curious, ever played Roadwar 2000?

>(3) A group of Great Lake
>merchants and pirate fighting for
>control.

Okay.

>(4) A stronger more unified Canada
>(but perhaps divided between the
>French and the English speakers)
>maybe thinking of conquest.

With what? Spears? I can't see Canadians being armed better than the United States raiders/townspeople, especially after the movie at starts Fallout.

>(5) Competing Salvage gangs fighting over
>salvage of New York, Boston,
>Chicago.

This is a decent idea.

>(6) Southern slavers raising commodity crops
>for sale in Europe and
>Asia.

Ugh.. Too Civil War-ish, and really, crossing the ocean even two centuries after the Great War would be a huge undertaking, especially considering you'd have to actually build ships to do this.

>Also new monsters (mutants) as well
>as environmental effects- tornadoes, dust
>storms, etc.

How exactly would you do a realistic tornado in an RPG? The screen turns dusty then you die?

>The key would be to develop
>a story on the idea
>of how one character (not
>a "Chosen ONe" but just
>a normal character) could play
>an important role in developing
>a more federated NCR and
>then develop a new unified
>country.

Ummm.. Didn't you say that you were a child of a trader from New Arroyo?

>Because this would
>be a 'Big Game"
>Interplay could sell the basic
>game and then add-ons to
>develop the story. This
>would also give the players
>more individualized play and a
>game that could go on
>as long as new episodes
>are made.

Rather than modules to develop the story later on, I think a good idea would be to develop it in the first place. Modules are a nifty idea, but it also gives some developers the idea they can just finish the game later. Look at BG2, you basically get half the game up front, then you get to buy an expansion pack to finish the game.

Given interplay's financial data right now, I can't see this being a "good" thing.
 
RE: He didn't say anything about 3D FPS (N/T)

I know, I'm just bustin his chops.

Actually he didn't say anything at all.

It does seem that the game is moving into the 3D FPS mode, despite what the fans would want. But part of that reason might be that the fans are not being very clear with what they want, or at least are not presenting good enough ideas.

Personally I think the 3D FPS type would be a disaster. Not to say that some 3d FPS don't work. Half-life was a great game when it came out. But wasn't the Gunman (Sci-fi/western built on Half-Life model) a bust?

Fallout is something that its fans think is unique and should stay that way.

There are a lot of good thoughts on this page, but if you look at the streams, often the comments are "oh that's bullshit" without much constructive thought, and that's not really a good debate. We might have our own issues about the game, but I think, the people who are fans, who read these types of boards, share the same interest in maintaining a good game series and not just watching it go down the toilet.
 
Yo Moosehead beats any beer sold in the US! Canada Rules in BEer and Hockey! No, I'm American (and believe our micro brews are some of the best in the world). Actually though the Canadians could probably come out of nuclear strike better than parts of the US. A more spread out population and fewer targets, greater natural resources, more experience dealing with long winters.

You make a good point, this game is really popular in Russia and other places. I know they even play it in Brazil.

Ok, enough ramble. The thing is that in these games, especially Fallout 2, you are involved in the political relationships of these civilizations. While much of the world may be anarchic, there are societies with rules being falled. All the cities (even the Den) had some set of organization or political set up. All that stuff between VC, New Reno and NCR that your character got involved with was about organizing the political future of these societies. Your character might have been after his own interests, but the story was a poltical one. Not the politics of today's US, but the politics of an anarchic society with some vestiges of organization.

Well at least you liked some of the new societies. What would you like to see?

As for environmental effects- what about the Shi in New SF. Or the creation of Junk from Brahma shit, nuclear power in Gecko. Even the occassional dose of radiation. Environmental effects- a dust storm - you have to complete a mission in a certain amount of time or the site will be buried in dust and as the dust increases you have combat modifiers. Acid Rain damage to vehicles and individuals during a game might force characters to find shelter in abandoned buildings, but might also increase the need to fight over these buildings. Environmental effects could lead to some really cool monsters as well.

ANyway, thanks for the thoughs!
 
Saint_Proverbius-

I agree with you that Fallout 1 might have been shorter but, overall, was a better game. I liked the talking heads better in Fallout 1 then 2, and the novelty didn't wear off. I was actually looking forward to finishing Fallout 2 when I felt that Fallout 1 could gone much longer.

Big game = lofty goals. If you are going to dream, might as well show ambition.

Not sure what your point is regarding character, but I think most people like the idea that your character is what you want him or her to be. My beef is that the game is premised on you being "special" when actually being a regular guy might be a lot of fun. Since we all have to come from somewhere, we can build from there, or become something different. To be honest, I think this might be too complex and I wouldn't want to see character classes restrict game play. This would only be relevant at the intitial part of the game.

Regarding NCR and new Arroyo- based on fallout 2, NCR is growing and incorporating other communities. The relationship between VC and NCR during the game, or the desire between NCR and Vault 15 are in that story thread. Unless the survivors of V13 and Arroyo are setting up a new civilization far away (unlikely) than sooner or later they will be rubbing up against a growing NCR. Since NCR didn't strike me as necessarily all that nice a place, this could be an interesting story.

Evil characters- yes, you are right. I forgot that one. This would be difficult if you wanted to carry the character over extended games since those games might be premised on the completion of certain objectives. But it seems that, while you can be evil, Fallout really anticipates that you will play a "good" character.

Bummer about the dead intelligent DeathClaws. But if they were constructed by evil scientists, than there is nothing to say that a new breed of smarter Deathclaws couldn't also be made. Like nuclear weapons and biological weapons, figuring out how to make them is the hard part, but if you know how than possibly you could replicate (given you have the materials).

As for Bikes, trucks, and ships- It seems that there are cars in Fallout, so why not motorbikes or trucks. If you can keep a car running, then you should be able to keep a truck. Bands of trucker gypsies, moving from place to place to sell goods, using defended truck stops in the mid west over old highways, which when they still function, would be like river commerce.

And since there was a tanker in San Fran at the end of FO 2 then ships could reemerge. Didn't they originally plan for a submarine in FO2?
But if not high tech, then low tech. Commerce over seas can be traced back to the birth of Western Civilization. Even during the Dark Ages, viking roamed by sea as far as the New World, Central Asia and Italy. Assuming technology exists to build ships, plus wood, the ability to make a sale, and plenty of spare nails, you could make ships better in a post apocalypse world then you could 150 years ago. Also, commercial traffic still occurred in Europe during the Black Plague and 30 years war, and the Barbary pirates still operated into the late 19th century- so the fact that there has been a big war matters only as to the total level of destruction of society which would probably have to be global.
Based on the story line here, indigenous commerce could exist in less affected parts (West Coast of Africa, the Med, Southeast Asia, South Asia, South America) and then expand elsewhere (say to harvast salvage of destroyed cities in the US, Europe and China).

Slavery in the New South, might be a bit too much Civil War, but if historical patterns reoccur, than why not? YOu have slavery at VC already even if the slaves seem to be more like domestic servants than labor, but what about Myron's experiments, or the slavers at the Den, and the anti-slave rangers of NCR? Slavery is alive and well in the Fallout World. If a society was making a cash commodity then it would use cheap labor, and that would probably mean slaves which would probably raise some serious ethical issues.

Sorry, never played Jagged Alliance or Roadwar 2000.

Thanks for the thoughts

Cheers!
 
>I agree with you that Fallout
>1 might have been shorter
>but, overall, was a better
>game. I liked the talking
>heads better in Fallout 1
>then 2, and the novelty
>didn't wear off. I
>was actually looking forward to
>finishing Fallout 2 when I
>felt that Fallout 1 could
>gone much longer.

I'm not talking about little things like a talking head here or there, I'm talking about THE BIG PICTURE(tm). I'm talking about a consistent atmosphere with consistent locations. I'm talking about a game that knows it's Post Apocalyptic and it shows, versus one that has tribal villages a few days walk from civilation and a week or two's walk away from SUPER TECHY VILLE.

>Big game = lofty goals.
>If you are going to
>dream, might as well show
>ambition.

There's a reason that dreams aren't reality. You're not showing ambition here, either, you're showing raw delusion.

>Not sure what your point is
>regarding character, but I think
>most people like the idea
>that your character is what
>you want him or her
>to be.

That's not what you said though. You said you wanted the character's interests to be in re-uniting the world or somesuch. You're making the HUGE FUCK UP of locking in how the game is supposed to be played from the start by giving the character ambition prior to the player inheriting it. You might as well have said, "You're playing Cloud, who likes using a gunblade!"

>My beef
>is that the game is
>premised on you being "special"
>when actually being a regular
>guy might be a lot
>of fun.

The only thing "special" about the Chosen One is that he was decended from the Vault Dweller. You're doing the same thing with "Your character is the son of a trader, and as such, wants to make peace with the world."

As for the Vault Dweller, he was just the one who got the job done. He wasn't even the first one the Overseer sent out.

>Since we
>all have to come from
>somewhere, we can build from
>there, or become something different.
>To be honest, I think
>this might be too complex
>and I wouldn't want to
>see character classes restrict game
>play. This would only be
>relevant at the intitial part
>of the game.

Well, that's the thing, isn't. You're still making assumptions about what the character wants regardless. It's hard to say it's an RPG when even initially, you're just walking through the motions of someone else's idea on how you should play your character.

>Regarding NCR and new Arroyo- based
>on fallout 2, NCR is
>growing and incorporating other communities.
> The relationship between VC
>and NCR during the game,
>or the desire between NCR
>and Vault 15 are in
>that story thread. Unless the
>survivors of V13 and Arroyo
>are setting up a new
>civilization far away (unlikely) than
>sooner or later they will
>be rubbing up against a
>growing NCR. Since NCR
>didn't strike me as necessarily
>all that nice a place,
>this could be an interesting
>story.

It's also a story which has the problem of being LOCKED IN STONE as a changable event. By adding NCR, VC, and all those other happy places from Fallout 2, you're ASSUMING there's a correct way of playing the game. It'd be much, much better to just move the setting away from those locations and only mention generalities about them. "The Enclave was defeat" for example, as opposed to "The Hubologists were defeated, LoPan's dead, and San Francisco is a HAPPY PLACE!"

>Evil characters- yes, you are right.
>I forgot that one. This
>would be difficult if you
>wanted to carry the character
>over extended games since those
>games might be premised on
>the completion of certain objectives.
> But it seems that,
>while you can be evil,
>Fallout really anticipates that you
>will play a "good" character.

No, it doesn't. It only assumes that you're the kind of person that gets the job DONE, one way or another.

>Bummer about the dead intelligent DeathClaws.
>But if they were constructed
>by evil scientists, than there
>is nothing to say that
>a new breed of smarter
>Deathclaws couldn't also be made.
>Like nuclear weapons and biological
>weapons, figuring out how to
>make them is the hard
>part, but if you know
>how than possibly you could
>replicate (given you have the
>materials).

Reminder: Fallout is POST APOCALYPTIC

Just because an Enclave Scientist can make deathclaws smarter with an altered form of FEV doesn't mean anyone can. In fact, given that most people are merely trying to survive the harshness of the wasteland, not too many people are getting their PhDs in DeathClawology.

>As for Bikes, trucks, and ships-
>It seems that there are
>cars in Fallout, so why
>not motorbikes or trucks. If
>you can keep a car
>running, then you should be
>able to keep a truck.
> Bands of trucker gypsies,
>moving from place to place
>to sell goods, using defended
>truck stops in the mid
>west over old highways, which
>when they still function, would
>be like river commerce.


Just because there's a car doesn't mean there's hordes of truck and biker gang's roaming the wasteland. In fact, you've covered all of California, parts of Nevada, and parts of Oregon in Fallout and Fallout 2.. How many trucker gangs did you see?

>And since there was a tanker
>in San Fran at the
>end of FO 2 then
>ships could reemerge.

That Tanker was the Enclave's, they had it at their oil rig where they had the means of keeping it up.

>Didn't they
>originally plan for a submarine
>in FO2?

Which was the Shi sub, and they removed it.

>But if not high tech, then
>low tech. Commerce over seas
>can be traced back to
>the birth of Western Civilization.
>Even during the Dark Ages,
>viking roamed by sea as
>far as the New World,
>Central Asia and Italy. Assuming
>technology exists to build ships,
>plus wood, the ability to
>make a sale, and plenty
>of spare nails, you could
>make ships better in a
>post apocalypse world then you
>could 150 years ago.

No, you can't. In a post apocalyptic environment, especially one like Fallout's, you don't have large nation states complete with civilization, laws, and law enforcement. You don't have active lumber mills and ports of call and ship yards because there's better things to do, like NOT DIE when a Deathclaw wanders in to town limits.

As for the trees, they were just starting to come back in Fallout 2. Hardly the kind of forest growth required to make a galleon.

Even if you had the hull, you'd need to educate people on navigation at sea. Oh, and there's the problem of rigging up and making a sail.

>Also,
>commercial traffic still occurred in
>Europe during the Black Plague
>and 30 years war, and

They didn't have to deal with deathclaws, giant insects, supermutants, and various other things which are pretty damned hard on trade.

>the Barbary pirates still operated
>into the late 19th century-

That's only because Europe didn't give a shit about them. It wasn't until Thomas Jefferson became President that the life of the Barbars got tough.

>so the fact that there
>has been a big war
>matters only as to the
>total level of destruction of
>society which would probably have
>to be global.

Someone needs to watch the introduction to Fallout again.

>Slavery in the New South, might
>be a bit too much
>Civil War, but if historical
>patterns reoccur, than why not?

Because it's a cliche?

> YOu have slavery at
>VC already even if the
>slaves seem to be more
>like domestic servants than labor,

Then again, you have the NCR where it's not allowed.

>but what about Myron's experiments,

I'd hardly call human test subjects, "slaves".
 
I agree, that the idea of having tribals close to a high tech village didn't make sense. However, the random encounters Near Navarro would probably have deterred most tribals (aliens and Enclavers). Also it would make sense for Navarro to be set up where it was, since its close to shore and close to tribals. The other communities near the the tribals were all pretty "frontier". Since a lot of these communities are more interested in themselves and less about travelling out, itsw possible that you might have developmental pockets. As you point out in your response, travelling the wasteland would be difficult and would prevent a lot of transportation. Even today, however, you can find relatively high tech societies living near fairly primitive in many parts of the world.

As for the scope of the game, and my "delusions" I think we proper design these could be done. It would be huge, but youcould break up the pieces so its manageable. Again, this would mean modules.

With regard to the character, I think its important that you want the character to be what you want. That the game is about your character's life, but that you have a profound effect on events that shape the world is important too. But in both fallout games those events involved the rebuilding of society. If Fallout 1 and 2 take place in California, and FOT in the midwest, why not just do the entire country?

In both Fallout 1 and 2 you have a basic mission to "get done." I suggest that your quest not necessarily be about the survival of your home, but about living your life as you want it set in period when the world is changing and you are part of those changes. This game should be like a novel but in which you direct the main character. Everyone starts somewhere and is shaped by the context in which they live and how they were initially raised.

Whether Fallout 3 should follow on Fallout 1 & 2's locations seems to be something of mixed opinions. That your character should begin from the lineage of past Fallout characters seems to be what most people would want. As for setting places and people in stone. Well to some extent the game does that already. Fallout 1 allows for Tandi to be killed and Shady Sands to be destroyed. Fallout 2 allows it to be raised from the dead. SOme things your character can effect, others it can't. Those are the things the game designers will have to figure out for themselves.

That science still survives seems built into the game, including that some people are studying sciences. Most people are not, but that makes those that do exceptional. That science has completely died, that people are not still studying, is just preposterous and doesn't reflect an accurate history of the world. People have been studying science throughout history, even during some of the darkest ages. You presuppose the existence of a stable society which would make study of science easier, but isn't a necessary condition.

That there were no cars in Fallout 1 didn't preclude them in Fallout 2. In fact there is reason to believe that quite a few cars exist (thus justifying garages, parking lots, mechanics). That vertibirds also exist means that its possible to maintain trucks and bikes, especially since spare parts for both should be found in abundance. Futhermore, diesel would probably be easier to obtain and it might even be possible to develop a cheap or synthetic fuel or fuel derived from alcohol (as was done in Brazil). This is not the LA freeway, but small groups of bikers or truckers could exist.

The tanker could get its fuel from other places than the Enclave (San Fran) and the sub seems to have been removed because the Shi used the parts to build their community or the game designers had to cut it out to finish the game and claim that it ran aground. But a submarine could operate for a long time due to its nuclear power.

Sounds like you've got your own pre-existing notions of how the Fallout world needs to be but they don't seem to hold up to much scrutiny. You're willingness to deny possibilities that are not foreclosed by the game itself indicates that you want the world locked in to your perception of how it should be. Lighten up. It's just a game. One of the reasons people like it is because it allows for imaginative play.

Take for instance your notes on commerce. Wooden ships have existed before nation-states, before the creation of modern textiles to make the sails you find on modern yachts, and have been built in places with pretty small forests. Sails could be made even if from salvaged cloth. As for navigation, there is no reason to think people have stopped learning how to navigate by starlight, or that use of basic navigational tools is beyond them. That commerce over water has existed since virtually the dawn of human civilization, would indicate that this technology would be possible. That people might want to relocate to islands offshore, considering the dangers on land, would also make sense and would probably allow these places to develop faster than on land (thus England reaches the industrial revolution before the rest of Europe).

Go back and look at the dialogue on the experiment at the stables. These are slaves, not subjects.

Human beings have shown remarkable resilence at overcoming hardship, of making the best of their situation and making things better. Adversity may be the midwife to innovation and creativity. Give it a chance.
 
[font size=1" color="#FF0000]LAST EDITED ON Jul-24-02 AT 10:46PM (GMT)[p]Okay, time for you to die.

>I agree, that the idea of
>having tribals close to a
>high tech village didn't make
>sense. However, the random
>encounters Near Navarro would probably
>have deterred most tribals (aliens
>and Enclavers).

I'm talking about Klamath and Vault City. Klamath was two spaces away, and Vault City wasn't very far away either. What's even worse is that Arroyo is only a few days away from Slaver Central, the Den.

>Since a lot of these
>communities are more interested in
>themselves and less about travelling
>out, itsw possible that you
>might have developmental pockets.
>As you point out in
>your response, travelling the wasteland
>would be difficult and would
>prevent a lot of transportation.

Tribals would probably travel much better than say, your average Vault City person or a Modoc farmer. Tribals are more used to the hard life and open elements of the wasteland. However, given how close Klamath and Arroyo are, there's no reason one would be so much better off in terms of civilization than the other.

>Even today, however, you
>can find relatively high tech
>societies living near fairly primitive
>in many parts of the
>world.

Not right next door to one another. This is especially the case when you factor in the biggest human threat to tribals, aka Slavers, having their main area base so close to the tribals.

>As for the scope of the
>game, and my "delusions" I
>think we proper design these
>could be done. It would
>be huge, but youcould break
>up the pieces so its
>manageable. Again, this would mean
>modules.

And unlimited man power, funding, time, and other resources, maybe. However, along comes the real world with development time frames, milestones, limited number of artists/designers/programmers, and most importantly, MONEY.

That's why it's delusional.

>But
>in both fallout games those
>events involved the rebuilding of
>society.

Only if you were a good guy. What if you took the water chip from Necropolis and just said, "Fuck the pump!"?

>If Fallout 1
>and 2 take place in
>California, and FOT in the
>midwest, why not just do
>the entire country?

NEWS FLASH: FOT sucked.

NEWS FLASH: The entire country is a HUGE place too. We're back to the whole DELUSIONAL thing.

>In both Fallout 1 and 2
>you have a basic mission
>to "get done." I
>suggest that your quest not
>necessarily be about the survival
>of your home, but about
>living your life as you
>want it set in period
>when the world is changing
>and you are part of
>those changes.

No, what you said is you wanted the character to re-establish the United States government.

>This game
>should be like a novel
>but in which you direct
>the main character.

I.E. LINEAR LIKE NOVEL.

>Fallout 1 allows
>for Tandi to be killed
>and Shady Sands to be
>destroyed. Fallout 2 allows
>it to be raised from
>the dead. SOme things
>your character can effect, others
>it can't. Those are the
>things the game designers will
>have to figure out for
>themselves.

Which would have been a good reason for Interplay to have allowed you to load the Fallout ending save game so that it could shape Fallout 2's "NCR" and the like from that instead of assuming what happened in a few locations.

However, you're talking about covering all of what happened in both Fallout and Fallout 2, assuming a correct way for everything to have occured in both games OR have 30 or so dynamic areas based upon the save games for Fallout and Fallout 2, which is reasonably impossible to do.

>That science still survives seems built
>into the game, including that
>some people are studying sciences.

In FO2, sure, but that's because it was a haphazardly tossed together game with no thought put in to how said changes work with the setting. Talking spore plants? HOORAH!

>Most people are not,
>but that makes those that
>do exceptional. That science
>has completely died, that people
>are not still studying, is
>just preposterous and doesn't reflect
>an accurate history of the
>world.

Like hell it doesn't. There wasn't much in the way of scientific development done after the fall of Rome until the middle of the second millenia. You're talking about a dozen centuries of stagnation and back sliding. Hell, the Greeks knew the world was round, for example.

>People have been
>studying science throughout history, even
>during some of the darkest
>ages. You presuppose the
>existence of a stable society
>which would make study of
>science easier, but isn't a
>necessary condition.

It sure as hell does. Without a stable situation like civilization, you simply don't have the time to have people studying science. Every person needs to fill a role that augments basic needs. Newton studied in isolation because he could afford to do so with the sales of his books. He couldn't have done that if there wasn't an infrastructure present to allow him to do that.

>That there were no cars in
>Fallout 1 didn't preclude them
>in Fallout 2. In fact
>there is reason to believe
>that quite a few cars
>exist (thus justifying garages, parking
>lots, mechanics).

Okay, now you've gone to Happy Loopy Land. If there's no cars working on Fallout 1, do you think they'd be easier to fix 80 years later?

As for garages, ever wonder where they chop down caravan carts? Or fix them? The same goes for mechanics and even parking lots.

Also, most of those "parking lots" were there from before the Great War.

>That vertibirds
>also exist means that its
>possible to maintain trucks and
>bikes, especially since spare parts
>for both should be found
>in abundance.

Find a good timing chain for one after it's sat for 160 years.

Also, vertibirds were made by the Enclave right before Fallout 2 because they were cut off from the ravages of war. Saying that cars must exist because the Enclave has vertibirds is simply stupid.

>Futhermore, diesel would
>probably be easier to obtain
>and it might even be
>possible to develop a cheap
>or synthetic fuel or fuel
>derived from alcohol (as was
>done in Brazil). This is
>not the LA freeway, but
>small groups of bikers or
>truckers could exist.

Apparently you missed the whole thing about the Great War being about the total lack of petroleum anywhere in the world with the exception of the Enclave's rig. There is no diesel left, dumbass.

Also, if they couldn't make synthetic fuel during the pre-Great War era, when everything was peachy for the most part, what makes you think they can come up with alternative fuels in the post apocalyptic world?

>The tanker could get its fuel
>from other places than the
>Enclave (San Fran)

Once more, you missed the BIG CONCEPT of there not being any petrol left in the world.

>But a submarine could operate
>for a long time due
>to its nuclear power.

Without a nice dock to maintain it?

>Sounds like you've got your own
>pre-existing notions of how the
>Fallout world needs to be
>but they don't seem to
>hold up to much scrutiny.

Especially when the person scrutinizing doesn't even know the basics, like the LACK OF PETROLEUM thing.

>You're willingness to deny
>possibilities that are not foreclosed
>by the game itself indicates
>that you want the world
>locked in to your perception
>of how it should be.
> Lighten up. It's just
>a game. One of
>the reasons people like it
>is because it allows for
>imaginative play.

No, one of the reasons people like it is because it's a unique POST APOCALYPTIC setting. That's something you seem both unwilling to comprehend and want to move away from at the same time.

>Take for instance your notes on
>commerce. Wooden ships have existed
>before nation-states, before the creation
>of modern textiles to make
>the sails you find on
>modern yachts, and have been
>built in places with pretty
>small forests. Sails could
>be made even if from
>salvaged cloth.

Salvaged cloth? 160+ year old cloth? You want to make a sail out of something that would most likely be rotting and still expect it to have enough tensile strength to not rip wide open the second wind hits it? That's my point, chowderpus.

And don't give me this whole sail boats have existed prior to cloth thing, that's just plain silly.

Furthermore, WOOD isn't something that's in great abundance in case you haven't noticed. Fallout is very scorched earth when it comes to the environment. Even if there were VAST forests, making a wooden ship takes an infrastructure as well. Yes, even the viking people had an infrastructure.

>As for navigation,
>there is no reason to
>think people have stopped learning
>how to navigate by starlight,
>or that use of basic
>navigational tools is beyond them.

Sure there is, because in WW2, there weren't very many people even in the navy that could navigate by stars. They had better equipment THEN than you'd have in Fallout simply because those ships would sink on their own within a few decades of sitting at port with no one to maintain them.

>That commerce over water has
>existed since virtually the dawn
>of human civilization, would indicate
>that this technology would be
>possible.

We're talking about crossing an ocean here, Captain Crunch, not following a shore line or sailing up a river. No one sailed across the ocean until around 1000AD, and that guy was lost.

You seem to have the foolish idea that just because we have done things in the past as a species means we can do them today or even after a nuclear war. Try emailing NASA and asking them why they can't put a man on the moon right now.

>That people might
>want to relocate to islands
>offshore, considering the dangers on
>land, would also make sense
>and would probably allow these
>places to develop faster than
>on land (thus England reaches
>the industrial revolution before the
>rest of Europe).

Who's to say the life on those islands didn't mutate as well? Radioactive fallout is air-borne, baby. Islands don't have protective air domes.

>Go back and look at the
>dialogue on the experiment at
>the stables. These are slaves,
>not subjects.

They were test subjects. Go back and look at the USE of them.

>Human beings have shown remarkable resilence
>at overcoming hardship, of making
>the best of their situation
>and making things better.

Only when they're not struggling to eat, drink fresh water, and so on.
 
Saint_Proverbius,

Man, you are a tight ass. You really need to loosen up or it's going to kill you one day. It's just a game. You don't have to be rude. And if you can't figure that out, than you need to get a life.

As for your comments. Don't forget That Vault City was in the Northeast, and getting there wasn't really easy. There were mountains to cross, raiders and encounters to avoid and there was Modoc between the Den and VC. As for Klamath- it's a frontier town where most of the people seem interested in either making moonshine or trapping. Frontier town means its got to be on the frontier. Distrust between Arroyo and local traders as well as discrimination between traders and locals would mean that, even if they did occassionally trade, such transactions were armslength at best. Thus, the communities could be close, yet technologically at different levels, especially if Arroyo is isolationist. As for the Den and slave central, it makes sense for them to be close to the tribals as that's the commodity they trade. Where else would they be, among the aliens? There is also no indication as to how long the slavers have been at the Den. They could have shown up fairly recently and, because of their superior firepower, dominate.

As for technological and geographic space. One does find fairly rudimentary technology even within modern civilization. In many places in the world, especially outside the developed nations, you find beasts of burden used for commerce alongside trucks, primative fishing next to more advanced. Even in parts of Europe you find some pretty primative practices. Communities that have a strong sense of "self" vs. "other" could be resistant to new technology even if it surrounds them.

As for difficulty in traveling even small spaces, remember that Vault City is having trouble finding a way to NCR.

Are the communities "too" close? Yea, maybe. Sure the programmers could have spread them out more and made the game longer and more difficult at the early levels. This might have been better over all. But that tribals, because they are "hardy" would travel better than more technologically advanced folks, is possible. Farmers are probably more attached to their land (why they are farmers) then tribals who use slash and burn. However, as more technologically advanced folks might have better weapons, better transportation, better methods for repairing damaged goods. Furthermore, dependency on advanced goods might create more incentive to trade with others and more experience and knowledge of the outside world.

As for production. My thoughts on this are to make a limited game that is expandable. The idea is that the game designers would be able to profit from these expansions. Players would not have to wait for years for the next edition of Fallout, but would possibly get more, if smaller games, that build on what they have already done. It would take advantage of the loyal following that Fallout already has and perhaps expand that base, build in existing technology, and be done in small sized installments that satisfy consumer demand. Again, this would be modules, or expansion editions.

It seemed a lot of people like Fallout Tactics.

As for science stagnating. In Europe you had a system that was dominated by a religion that forced an ideology on top of science. Inquisitions were preventing scientific discourse, but this didn't stop education or the study of the nature of natural world. In other areas of the world science continued to develop. As you note, this comes in part from people satisfying material needs. But as long as people have needs, then individuals who study the sciences will continue. The direction of that science will usually reflect the needs of the time. This does not require extensive infrastructure, especially if the individuals are rediscovering the world. Here we have science books, repair manuels, medical texts, and even in Fallout 1 we had people willing to sustain this information (the librarian at the Hub, the BOS, the scientists and craftsman at the Boneyard).

Even in Petroleum doesn't exist, alternative fuel sources did exist. Read the message board about finding fuel for the car. If there is fuel for the car, why not other forms of transportation. The cars don't exist because the designers didn't include them. They exist in Fallout 2 because they did, and they continued to exist in Fallout Tactics because the designers wanted them. Could they exist? Even after all the years of wear and tear. There are a lot of derelict vechicles out there and if they have working parts, why not salvage.

Save the insults,they make you sound like prick.

I didn't say that sails existed before cloth, just before modern textiles. As for vessel building, yes, some infrastructure. But assuming that communities at a stage similar to NCR or the Shi in SF couldn't do it, forecloses a lot of possibilities. Most people who do sail know how to navigate. Even tank drivers in the desert during World War 2 could navigate by stars. The knowledge exists so it wouldn't be that hard to do it again.

Yes, Fallout is post apocalytic, but its not the stone age either.
 
Hey Saint_Proverbius!

This guy has a couple of good points.

And you do sound like both a tight ass and a prick. What's the matter with you? Never had a decent conversation? Keep this up and you'll never get a date.


Hugs!

Connie
 
[font size=1" color="#FF0000]LAST EDITED ON Jul-26-02 AT 06:16PM (GMT)[p]>Hey Saint_Proverbius!

Hey fat girl!

>This guy has a couple of good points.

Yeah, I noticed you were able to name some! Oh, wait, you didn't! How amazing!

>And you do sound like both a tight
>ass and a prick.

Oh no! The horror! Guess there goes my MAN OF THE YEAR AWARD from the National Organization of Fat Chicks!

>What's the matter with you?

You're standing on my foot, fatass!

>Never had a decent conversation?

Ever been to a buffet where they didn't have to close early?

>Keep this up and you'll never get a date.

I'm married, fatass! Date? Been there, done that!

>Hugs!

Oh, just a hug, thought you were going to eat me!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top