Going all Charles Manson..

Odin

Carbon Dated and Proud
Admin
Well in a discussion about playing Fallout 3 evil, Damien 'Puuk' Foletto answered some questions (I've put together the answers):<blockquote>Will we be able to play the game evil?

Even more so than the previous titles.

We're trying to make the evil options more sophistcated than mere murder, stealing and lying. I believe true evil is subtle, not in your face, and a lot of the evil quests being designed in Van Buren have subtle evil options. But or course there's the in-your-face ones, too - those also can be fun.

No one said you couldn't end the game evil. I think the evil ending will be very satisfying; very, very satisfying.</blockquote>So there you have it guys and gals, we can go truly postal in Fallout 3.
Link: Thread@IPLY Forums
 
It is frightening how conservative Fallout players can be....

In a sense they ARE only improving the parts of the game, that didn't work in the two existing titles. I'm rather new to Fallout and allthough I love the game I found many things in terms of game mechanics that could be improved, even before I ever hit the Fallout boards.

I think the team, especially J.E. Saywer, is doing a promising job on Fallout 3 by now. He has the love for the game and a refreshening cool perspective upon the the shortcommings of the game. Did anybody ever occur that there might be an inner connection ?!

Fallout (1 & 2) are one of the best RPGs in existence, but they are not perfect (no game is). So there is always room for improvements and even some additions to keep the gameplay new and not repititive.
 
Puuk said:
We're trying to make the evil options more sophistcated than mere murder, stealing and lying. I believe true evil is subtle, not in your face, and a lot of the evil quests being designed in Van Buren have subtle evil options. But or course there's the in-your-face ones, too - those also can be fun.

This is good news, hope it turns out well.

I've been trying to resist, but.....
Blaine said:
It is frightening how conservative Fallout players can be....
In a sense they ARE only improving the parts of the game, that didn't work in the two existing titles. I'm rather new to Fallout and allthough I love the game I found many things in terms of game mechanics that could be improved, even before I ever hit the Fallout boards.

It's very easy to turn something great into something awful, as we've all seen with other games, movies, books, etc - and especially in the downward spirial of Fallout-> Fallout2-> Fallout Tactics -> Fallout: BoS. It's "conservative" when you don't want to see yet another developer decide that the game needs even more changes, despite the evidence that every attempt to change the game has resulted in a lower and lower quality game? When the developer in question is not just "tweaking" or "improving" the game but completely revamping it? When many of the things that are said to "not work" actual did work for a lot of people who played the game? That's just ridiculous. The only thing that's frightening is the amount people that are willing to label anyone who show the least bit of skepticism about the dev's ideas "conservative", "rabid", or "psychos who would throw monkey feces at anyone who disagrees with them".
 
I never took Tactics and BoS into account, they were never aimed for the RPG market, never claimed to be a successor, so I never understood why people are comparing them to the Fallout RPGs all the time. Fallout is just a theme, copied from Mad Max, it is not destinied to be a RPG, but you can do many (more or less) fun games with a postapocalyptic world.

Take the Gifted discussion at the Interplay boards. Sawyer made a totally valid post, by pointing out that a good (!) RPG should allow every player to finish the game satisfactory and equal way, and that every trait should balance pros and contras, yet people (not all) refuse to even accept that it would serve the gameplay. Some even stated that the imbalance is a part of Fallout. Pardon me ???

I didn't want to attack every Fallout fan. I'm one myself. But the fear of the community of a 'downgrading' of the game makes them blind to the possibilty, that the game might be also improved and be (shocking!) better than the original Fallout.

Antagonist
 
Perhaps, Blaine, you're not seeing the full picture. Obviously, people are afraid of too many changes, and they have every right to be, even though Tactics and BOS never were claimed to be a successor, they were still bad enough to frighten the Fallout Fan as to what might happen to their favorite series.

What you fail to say here, is that even though Sawyer has made some great points, so have the fans. I don't think you should be able to complete the game with every character(How could you ever see a gamble saving the world? Options must be open, but there must be limits.), and I don't think every triat should have equal pros and cons. They should have pros in one area, and cons in a totally different area, to make gameplay DIFFERENT. Not to make characters balanced, but to make them different. Great examples are fast shot, night person and one-hander.

What a good game-designer must do, is take everything into accoun, and listen to every single proposal, even though it may sound completely idiotic. Sawyer has done that, but for as far s I could see, he has listened, but not taken into account those proposals, what I saw, was Sawyer dismissing them. However, I must add that I didn't see what was going on before he started posting his ideas all over the 'net., so he may have made a LOT of concessions, and maybe not.

I believe that Sawyer will do a good job in the end, as long as he takes the open-endedness, the open way of playing, and the atmosphere of Fallout.
 
I think we have to agree to disagree.

I still am convinved that by balancing SPECIAL the game will become less frustrating for the more exotic characters and increase the replayibility value. And, yes, even a gambler should be able to complete the game. It depends on implamantation and if the solutions are believable, but it would make Fallout far more complex, and the choices a lot more interesting which you take. It must be a hell to design, but hey, I think we all agree that the designers should concentrate on the best thing possible even if they must work 24-7 for two years. :wink:

Antagonist
 
Back
Top