Interesting discussion at developer's request

[Brother None]

So a discussion started on the BGSF here based on a request from AI programmer RadHamster:

A lot of threads about specific gameplay elements have tended to gravitate toward contention about these two issues:

1) "What are the differences in gameplay between the original Fallout and Fallout 3?"
2) "Do the gameplay differences mean that Fallout 3 should not be considered a sequel?"

I think these questions deserve their own thread.

Moreover, the first question shouldn't be ignored; if you believe the differences are too great, it would be more interesting to know what you think the differences are, than just to have lots of sound and fury that doesn't address the specifics.

And I think these questions might get a better treatment here, since we tend to be more constructive in criticism.

I won't answer it to start, but what about you guys. Your answers?

Though I will say that since Bethesda spent 6 million just to be able to call their game "Fallout 3", it'd be a bit inconsiderate of us to say "no, you can't". Better replies might include "sure you can, but it'd be a lie" or "sure you can, but it'd be a crappy sequel". No need to be mean to people silly enough to pay 6 million just to name their game something. (the preceding paragraph meant mostly as a joke)

An interesting extra post from RadHamster:

Typically when posters mention PnP gaming, it's in the context of a claim that we've abandoned pencil-and-paper gameplay. It seems like even many "Bethesda supporters" have come to accept that idea as a given.

With, as ever, the caveat that I'm speaking for myself, not for the whole company: I don't take that as a given at all. And I would encourage everyone, fans and detractors alike, to be more skeptical about that claim.

There are a lot of very familiar arguments surrounding the subject of PnP; inevitably, they will emerge here. If no one else wants to take them on as they present themselves, I think I could give it a go. Time permitting, naturally.

I find this one very hilarious. No doubt he's going to claim that elements that happen to fit sandbox RPGs (player freedom) make the game a pen and paper-like. He doesn't seem to realise that when we say "pen and paper emulation", we mean its intended goal was to emulate the feel of playing a pen and paper game as closely as possible. This is a well-documented fact. Sharing occasional elements with pen and paper gaming by coincide does not an emulation make.

EDIT: also, I think this topic has been fairly well-covered here, but I wonder if people can put their thoughts into words well enough, and if there are any original arguments out there

 

[Moving Target]

I'm in the camp of "not a true sequel." The fact is, yes, translating PnP gaming to computer gaming was the base concern of Tim Cain et al, and yes, TB and iso view were design decisions that could've been ignored in favor of the ruling paradigm of RT 1st person.

As far as I'm concerned, THIS is what Fallout's all about. Yes, the setting is incredibly important- and so far Beth's screwed that up, badly. So, two strikes against them.... though I give more weight to the fact that Beth's disregarded the original design decisions than whether or not their versions of the supermutants, BoS, ghouls and so on are correct.

 

[patriot_41]

.... though I give more weight to the fact that Beth's disregarded the original design decisions than whether or not their versions of the supermutants, BoS, ghouls and so on are correct.

I totally agree. The whole fallout theme was 'the future as seen in the 50s' and not 'the future, as seen through the eyes of the Blood Elves'. Every time I see a concept by Bethesda I do not think of lamp radios and The Cold War, I think of Lothlorien's Sucky Attempt to Emulate Human Tech."

"not a true sequel". Killing off the whole art direction, just because you have a bunch of top-notch FANTASY artists on your side? Whenever I see a robe in BEth's concept I ask myself which level of Warlock is this guy . . .

 

[Sander]

They can call it a sequel all they want, but as long as they ignore the hallmarks of the series it's only a sequel in name.

A few major points why it isn't a true sequel in my book:
- The combat system is entirely different in both execution and spirit. Instead of a turn-based system where tactics matter, we have a real-time system where you can pause to deliver extra gory death. Nope, sorry, isn't even close. This also has some serious repercussions for the balance of the stat system, although it's hard to say at this point how Bethesda will deal with that.

- The setting seems different so far. The Brotherhood has been transported to the east coast seemingly solely to have a beacon of good shining around, which is incidentally completely different from the Brotherhood's goals in the original game. Apart from that, the small things such as toilet drinking and the lack of respect for nuclear power clash with the original setting.

- Art direction is lacking and (aside from the Pipboy, which has changed dramatically from the original as well) seems to have very little '50s feel and more of a modern-day feel. This is very obvious with the mutants, Behemoth and the new power armour.
The only halway decent screenshot (hero and dog) had a very shitty background where the ruins of houses looked as if they were taken from Gothic or World of Warcraft.

 

[Ravager69]

I just don't understand why Beth's staff and fans hate isometric and TB so much. Plus, why do they decided to make a sequel to a game *based* on these two things? I don't think they understand the fact that this type of mechanics was not dictated by lack of skills, technology or money, but was put there on *purpose*.

It never fails to amuse me when angry "journalists from proffesional gaming magazines" or other loosers try to mock Fallout fans saying that they'd want exactly the same game from 1997, but with better graphics. Where's harm in that? Because it would differ from games we get today? Or simply because they can't think for themselves and repeat the same accusations they heard from other loosers flaming NMA and other "fanbois"? Seriously, I think that Fallout 3 with the same engine and as good story and quests would sold in many copies and since it'd be cheap to make it, I bet the company that'd do it would make a good profit.

But enough off-topic (more or less) - I'd choose the last two ones, but since I can't, I think I'll go for the "because of mechanics change". I'm a big fan of iso + TB and it pains me to see it gone. As for the setting....too early to say I guess. I'll give them a chance.

 

[TheLostOne]

It's about public image. They will say whatever it takes to make their product sound good. The question is whether they're rationalizing to themselves as well. I think they are, because who wants to accept the fact that their "artistic" project's sole purpose is to make the most money possible.

That's why they bought the Fallout licence instead of making their own IP.

That's why they went with a shooters combat system and edited in a pause (queue action) function to appear as if it's not straight shooter combat.

That's why they change black humor into blood and skullfucking granny.

That's also why their answers sound like they're coming from completely different game studios depending on the context. They probably don't want to believe that they've sold everything for the dollar, but that's what they did. If they accept that and admit it they will be vilified by everyone that thinks video games have a place in the art world. So they say whatever is appropriate at the time.

This shouldn't be news to anyone, but I don't understand the shock at their actions. I understand the contempt, but not the surprise. They're sellouts. You can't expect them to value the same things that you do with respect to the creation of their game.

 

[Brother None]

Good Frith at Woodward's continued argument

Some people claim that "true PnP" requires "character skill" to be completely free from the influence of "player skill."

The point is that this claim is not true -- not even remotely true -- for character intelligence.

Every time you make any kind of decision for your character, your character's intelligence is not only influenced by player intelligence, but in fact dominated by it.

He actually doesn't know the difference between the concept of "character skill vs player skill" and the way it relates to "the player takes the decision, the character's skills determine success". Good Frith, that's the very basic foundation of pen and paper gameplay.

Boy, do they not get it.

And, hilariously, his argument might be relevant for intelligence-stat hybridization, but it doesn't influence letting player skill influence to-hit chances *at all*

 

[patriot_41]

I hate 1st person shooters in my guts. The ones with 'RPG' elements were even worse, because they pretended to be something they're not. I may not be the vast majority, but how can I possibly like Fallout 3, when everything I like about the series was taken out on purpose, leaving all I hate? I believe I am not the only one.

 

[Josan12]

I hate 1st person shooters in my guts. The ones with 'RPG' elements were even worse, because they pretended to be something they're not

Well said.

 

[TheLostOne]

@BN: No kidding. I thought about responding to that thread, but I never get much out of arguments on the Beth forums besides an incredible urge to smash my head on the keyboard (or maybe that's just from playing forumwarz.) The guy doesn't know what roleplaying is about and his argument about player intelligence affecting character decisions is retarded. He's obviously trying to point out that some degree of player skill is involved in any game. Well, no shit! That doesn't somehow nullify the fact that a roleplaying game is about utilizing you characters skills.

It's a question of degree. I could make a stat based baseball video game where you can level up your guy (ex. pitcher) give him different stats and pitches and make it run from a menu. I could also make a game where you get a baseball bat for a controller and you have to time and aim your swing right to hit the ball and the strength of the hit is based on stats. Both games are affected somewhat by player ability, but the second forces you to rely on your own batting ability, not just your ability to make sound tactical choices.

It's plain as fucking day, but their eyes are closed so it doesn't matter.

 

[Parannegha]

1) "What are the differences in gameplay between the original Fallout and Fallout 3?"
2) "Do the gameplay differences mean that Fallout 3 should not be considered a sequel?"

Scrapping point-and-click interface and turn-based combat mixed with going to first-person perspective, in my book means F3 no longer a role-playing game, let alone a sequel. I may be awfully old-fashioned but even so, both Fallouts were meant to hold the PnP spark (which they did very well) and it's part of what makes those games what they are. Besides, changes this big heavily affect the system and with that, anything else. And (since the question was about gameplay) we're not even counting all the insane design violations.
Fallout 3 a sequel? No.

Bethesda's "we make the game how we think is right" is an innocent way to call their expropriating somebody else's legacy and selling it out.

 

[requiem_for_a_starfury]

There should really be a poll option 'No, primarily because of mechanics change, but if you are going to change the setting why bother in the first place?'.

Star Wars Battlefront II, Star Wars Empire at War and Lego Star Wars II The Original trilogy, all have the same setting. All feature common characters, vehicles and locations, but are they all sequels to Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back? Only if you use the most nebulous definition of sequel.

We don't know much about Fallout 3, but from the first confirmation that it was going to be primarily first person with RT&P we knew that is was going to be a very different type of game from the originals. That, without even getting to the other differences, is bad enough. It's funny that despite labels like 'Action-RPG' that the industry just doesn't seem to get that all 'types' of rpg can not be lumped together. That the attitude 'as long as a game still has stats and skills etc the gameplay mechanics are disposable' is just plain wrong.

Back to Star Wars, I loved the trench run section and most of the space vehicle combat sections of Lego Star Wars, I would readily buy a vehicle combat game that used that engine (though without the lego models and stud collection). But try selling such a game to rogue squadron or Tie Fighter fans as a continuation of either series. 'What do you mean it's not a true sequel, it's still Star Wars with space combat and X-Wings and Tie Fighters, don't you know cockpit simulation combat was a restriction of 20th Century technology'.

I don't know about anyone else but I buy games to play, yes I want a story which is why I don't play much sports or racing games but setting is a preference I'd take secondary to game mechanics. If choosing between a sci-fi rpg and a fantasy rpg (both games using the same mechanics), I'd take the sci-fi. But if choosing between a fantasy rpg and a sci-fi RTS I'd take the rpg.

Some people claim that "true PnP" requires "character skill" to be completely free from the influence of "player skill."

The point is that this claim is not true -- not even remotely true -- for character intelligence.

Since when has intelligence been a skill? It's a stat. As BN says "the player takes the decision, the character's skills determine success" all intelligence based skills are based on the character not the player. If the player happens to be a member of MENSA it won't make any difference to the outcome of the dice roll and intelligence affected skill formula.

 

[Black]

Fallout 1 and 2- hey, let's make pnp emulating game.

Fallout 3- hey, let's shoot.
I don't see the same core. How is 1st person fps even similiar to pnp emulation?
I feel really sorry for this Redhamster guy. First he says that VATS is not RTWP and it seems like he truly believes that they're making something new, innovative and creative. And now he doesn't get the differences between player's skill and character's skill.

So, 3 votes for 'yes' but, uh, I don't see why.
C'mon, talk to us!

Btw, BN why aren't you talking on TES forums anymore, did playcircus convince you that Pong is turn-based?

 

[Hotel California]

I voted yes.

This was before the mechanics changes option.

I said yes because its the closest thing we're going to get to a sequel. It may not be the same Fallout as we know and love but I hope no matter how poor it is it might still feel even slightly Fallouty.

Yes its probably not a true sequel because of the mechanics changes but there are a select few similarities.

In retrospect I might be persuaded to change my vote to a no only because of the mechanics change.

When I think of sequels and series I love I have to admit that they're basically very similar games mechanicswise. The Call of Duty series, the Homeworld series, the Battlefield Series, Tomb Raider, Doom, even Rollercoaster Tycoon and Creatures are all basically the same mechanics. They're natural sequels and even though they mostly don't share the same setting they're still a sequel.

However one could also argue that mechanics isn't everything. Perhaps this is too weak an argument but did anyone feel like C&C Renegade was a sequel to C&C. Sure the setting was mostly the same but the gameplay couldn't have been more different. I still enjoyed it and thought it was a good addition to the C&C series.

Still - maybe I'd change my vote to a no but ... maybe!

 

[Brother None]

So, 3 votes for 'yes' but, uh, I don't see why.
C'mon, talk to us!

Aye. I'm happy to see we haven't bullied all dissenting voices from here because voices of dissent are good. But more comments, would be good.

Btw, BN why aren't you talking on TES forums anymore, did playcircus convince you that Pong is turn-based?

No, I'm banned.

I wish they'd be more up-front about banning people, because it keeps coming up here but according to NMA's rules I'm not supposed to discuss it much here either.

 

[whirlingdervish]

Due to major changes in the mechanics that make it into an FPS/adventure game with player stats and an inventory, I voted NO.

It's a spinoff and in my book it's on par with Xcom:Enforcer for the worst way to kill a beloved franchise short of stealing and burning every copy of the originals in a giant bonfire, like nazis wiping out libraries.

 

[Mutoes]

I voted yes. Im aware of the change in mechanics and im sad to see the reason why i got intrested in the series in the first place to chamge(pnp)
But im giving much weight for the setting. good dialogue and choises/consequenses too. (though those are yet to be seen if theyre any good)
Just yes propably isntt the right choise, something like -it still gots a fair chance to be - would be right for me.(yeah the same old wait and see)

I think you were propably asking more educated reason why would i call something a sequel that changes the mechaniics so much but my honest answer is if the new mechanics work good and the game has same kind of athmosphere, choices humour....and so on its good enough for me to be called sequel.

 

[Brother None]

I think you were propably asking more educated reason why would i call something a sequel that changes the mechaniics so much but my honest answer is if the new mechanics work good and the game has same kind of athmosphere, choices humour....and so on its good enough for me to be called sequel.

Well, this is an argument that comes up a lot, and it has to do with "what defines a sequel".

I think the problem here stems from the fact that people still using thinking inherited from films and books for games. If a film is in the same setting, it can be called a sequel - even if the film type is pretty different (see Mad Max to Road Warrior).

But we should all be able to agree that this changes for games, because games have a level of interactivity missing from films and books.

The problem is people seem to be very inconsistent in how they judge this.

As a rule of thumb, you could say "a sequel has the same setting and same gameplay philosophy" and "a spinoff has the same setting".

A good example of this is Sonic. Sonic changed from a side-scrolling platformer to a 3D 3rd person platformer, but the gameplay always remained running around and bonking people on the head. The setting was always set in the same happy-go-lucky non-identified world.

Now Sonic: the Dark Chronicles from BioWare is a textbook spin-off. It's not about running about bonking people on the head, it's an RPG. But it's still set in Sonic's world, using Sonic's character. Nobody would dream to call it a sequel, but it's a fine spinoff.

Like with any rule there are exceptions, like Final Fantasy which changes a lot of gameplay but seems to be built on that premise to begin with. Oft-cited are Metroid and GTA.

What people don't seem to realize is that GTA made a smaller change - from a chapter-based helicopter-view run-and-steal game into a chapter-based 3rd person view run-and-steal game - than Fallout 3 is doing. People think that despite RPG being an umbrella term anything called an RPG can be deemed having the same gameplay.

That's nonsense. There's more different inside the RPG genre than there is between a TPS like Max Payne and a sanbox game like GTA.

It's not just a gameplay change for Fallout 3, it's not like they're switching the camera angle but still playing as a p&p emulation (a la Realms of Arkania). That's the big difference between Van Buren and this project. Van Buren just evolved the concept of p&p emulation, fleshing it out further. Bethesda dropped the entire base philosophy to exchange with their own.

I think the lack of public outcry at this stems from the fact that this gameplay concept has more mass appeal. Pure and simple. Changing a game series into an unpopular mechanic is wrong, changing it to popularize it is fine. That's called hypocrisy, right there. Putting your own tastes ahead of the game's core philosophy is simply opportunism. Or defeatism, in your case.

Besides, the media have been spouting these lines that "immersion" and "next-gen" represent some kind of "natural evolution" in RPGs, that need to "shed their p&p roots", for ages now. Oh, what a glorious world we live in, where all RPGs have to be designed with the same philosophy, and innovative alternative like advanced p&p emulation are considered backwards simply because they're different.

But push comes to shove, it's an open argument. There's no single standard that says "this is a sequel and this isn't" in gaming. And Fallout, as a franchise, has to suffer under that lack of definition.

A shame.

 

[Brother None]

I agree with Baibars in as far as view-point can be overrated. Nobody is complaining about the transition from 2D to 3D, though. 2D has its advantages, but 3D is where it's at, and the differences aren't significant for what you want to reach in Fallout.

I wouldn't mind Fallout 3 being a product in which you explore in real-time first-person view and fight in turn-based isometric, a la Realms of Arkania, because that's an extension of the p&p philosophy.

But turning it into first-person for a hype-term like "immersion" is being disloyal.

 

[Mutoes]

@BN
Well developed opinion indeed. Though i wouldnt call my opinion based on defeatism. Its just im actually hopefull about F3 beeing shaped worthy beeing sequel and i havent seen anything yet that has ruined this game for me even there are couple of things that im not so fond of.

But points taken anyway. I havent thought really that deeply about what defines videogame sequel and im undoubtetly basing my opinion same way that with movies and books, propably because i often tend to play games that have much of story, dialogue, great looks (this doesnt just mean graphix) and/or solid setting. (I have lately started liking text adventure games more)

Interactivity/mechanics is though a big thing too and the way its implemented affects everything else and can make it so much enjoyable or painfull. So im not saying that i didnt appreciate good mechanics behind fallout.