Is Todd A Dick

[Crni Vuk]

Really? I am not such a strong poster, so I can't relate.

>_>
<_<

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Good game is a tricky concept, because a good game (by many account) can become crap on principle when it trods on the wrong territory.

IIII DDDOOOOO NNNOOOTTTT LLLIIIIIKKKEEE FALLOUT 76

Without any offense, hell forget it I mean this offensively, but this is the reason why I call such people Fallout Tourists and not fans.

You could as well ask someone who's in love with bicycles why he's using them instead of a car, since both come with wheels, so why bother, it's just the same, right?

If this is all that you get from it, then the issue is of a very different meta level. And this, I mean witihout any offense. - Way to often, we enjoy content without actually knowing why we enjoy it in the first place.

I would argue the majority of people out there, do not enjoy Fallout, what kind of game it is or the story. They actually enjoy he setting. But this is where it becomes a bit strange. Fallout, was never about the setting. The setting itself, even the story line are disposable. Which is illustrated by the simple fact, that the story and setting havn't been even the first thing Avalone came up with, when he got the idea for the game, they got the gameplay first. Wikipedia can give us some insight on it by the way:

In early 1994, Interplay Entertainment announced that they had acquired the license to create video games using the GURPS role-playing game system.[7] Fallout was then created by Interplay as a spiritual successor to their 1988 post-apocalyptic role-playing game Wasteland. Although it was initially developed as an official sequel, Interplay did not have the rights to Wasteland at that point.[8][9] The budget for the game was approximately US$3 million.[10] In the early stages of planning, other settings based on the GURPS role-playing game handbooks were considered, including a time-travel theme with aliens and dinosaurs.[11] According to producer Tim Cain, "[They] actually worked with the game designer who [wrote] the 'GURPS Time Travel' manual and worked out a complete time-travel adventure, but it was just too much artwork for [them] to get done in a reasonable amount of time."[7] The game's working titles included GURPS: Wasteland and Vault 13: A GURPS Post-Nuclear Adventure. The final title Fallout was suggested by the Interplay boss Brian Fargo.[12]

That isn’t all I get from it, and I do find it offensive to call me a Fallout tourist after the fair percentage of my life I’ve spent playing, writing, talking, and admiring it for its philosophies on the human condition and its political satire. But for all that to work, it creates a feeling of abandonment and desperation that comes from survival.

Fallout for me was never about gameplay. If it was, I wouldn’t have even tried Fallout 2. its about commentary, philosophy, and ethics. Thats why I play fallout.

 

[Crni Vuk]

And some people like white cake only for the icing, but you can not make a white cake made only out of icing, because.

I am sorry if you feel offended, but I actaully feel reinforced by what you just said, I quote "Fallout for me was never about gameplay. If it was, I wouldn’t have even tried Fallout 2". When it comes to Fallout the gameplay comes first, the content and story later. This, we know from the developers, their concepts and why they made the game.

You know, getting in to Fallout and why it was made, means to get in to the golden age of PnP RPGs. And why they have been succesfull during their time. Fallout, is a niche game. It was always meant to be one. Now, it has become a product for the masses, and lost what made it a niche game. It's gameplay. Look, I am not saying that you can't like it for it's setting, it's story or what ever you decide to love from it. I am just telling you, that this isn't what made Fallout in to Fallout. The developers wanted to make a game with THIS KIND OF GAMEPLAY. This is an undisputable fact. And I am saying this as someone, who actually isn't even that fond of the gameplay, but I realize its importance to the overall experience - and I came to value it as such, because I am pretty certain that Fallout 3 would have improved on it. Take out the gameplay and what you end up with, is taking a core element of what Fallout was out. You remove the cake from white cake.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

And some people like white cake only for the icing, but you can not make a white cake made only out of icing, because.

I am sorry if you feel offended, but I actaully feel reinforced by what you just said, I quote "Fallout for me was never about gameplay. If it was, I wouldn’t have even tried Fallout 2". When it comes to Fallout the gameplay comes first, the content and story later. This, we know from the developers, their concepts and why they made the game.

You know, getting in to Fallout and why it was made, means to get in to the golden age of PnP RPGs. And why they have been succesfull during their time. Fallout, is a niche game. It was always meant to be one. Now, it has become a product for the masses, and lost what made it a niche game. It's gameplay. Look, I am not saying that you can't like it for it's setting, it's story or what ever you decide to love from it. I am just telling you, that this isn't what made Fallout in to Fallout. The developers wanted to make a game with THIS KIND OF GAMEPLAY. This is an undisputable fact. And I am saying this as someone, who actually isn't even that fond of the gameplay, but I realize its importance to the overall experience - and I came to value it as such, because I am pretty certain that Fallout 3 would have improved on it. Take out the gameplay and what you end up with, is taking a core element of what Fallout was out. You remove the cake from white cake.

Its not a niche game... its intention was to suit the playstyles and personalities of all of its players. I don’t care if gameplay comes first because I don’t give a shit about gameplay. Clearly we all get different things out of fallout, so instead of bitching about “fallout is this” and “no, you moron, fallout is this” (Norzan), like every other thread on this website, we could return to the original topic of the post. Todd Howard. Is he a dick?

And perhaps we can all be united by the fact that “I’m sorry if you were offended” is not a fucking apology.

 

[SquidWard]

The gameplay is essential to Fallout. I don't know if I feel as strongly about it as Crni does but I loved NV and I'd still prefer it have been more like Fallout 1 and 2 in terms of gameplay. I think the settings, themes, etc. are important as well but the gameplay is not something that should be considered irrelevant. Hell, a big problem with the Bethesda Fallouts is that they are increasingly more action based and less RPG like.

I'd take an RPG over an action RPG nine out of ten times easily. Action RPGs can be fun though.

we could return to the original topic of the post. Todd Howard. Is he a dick?

We could just ignore the thread at that point because it's a shallow and empty topic for a thread.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Its not a niche game... its intention was to suit the playstyles and personalities of all of its players.

Roleplaying games of the like of Fallout have always been a niche genre. It wasn't really before Diablo came along, that it became more of a thing for the masses and even back then, Diablo was not considered a 'true' RPG by many people. I am pretty confident, that Fallout 1 wasn't created back then, to become a large brand for a company like Bethesda to later buy it for millions and sell it to the masses. It was made for a very specific type of gamer. The quality of the content, the writting and unique setting simply made it also interesting for a larger number of gamers. But who could know that? If they chose a more generic approach, Fallout 1 might have been simply another RPG among many others which have been released in the 1990s.

Fallout 1 was really not the only game of its genre but it surely became one of the most popular titles, due to the quality of the content it offered - for its time of course. But when it comes to the genre it represents, it is actually a niche. What we call today 'CRPGs', which tried to create an experience on the PC that was inspired of the PnP RPG people enjoyed in real RPG sessions, at least during the time when Fallout 1 was in development. That's why Icewind Dale is considered a 'true' RPG, even though it doesn't really offer you a huge array of choices and consequences. There simply was a market for those kind of games. You shouldn't forget that many game developers which made those games, have been actually vivid role players themself! Gaming and game development has changed a lot in the last 30 years in that regard. Today, you have a large number of game developers that don't even really play the content they create. I am not saying this to attack anyone, I am just saying the industry has grown exponentially since then.

I don’t care if gameplay comes first because I don’t give a shit about gameplay.

That's why you're a Fallout Tourist.

Clearly we all get different things out of fallout, so instead of bitching about “fallout is this” and “no, you moron, fallout is this” (Norzan), like every other thread on this website, we could return to the original topic of the post. Todd Howard. Is he a dick?

That's ok. I am not telling you what you take out of it or what you enjoy on it. What I am telling you, is why the game was made and what the developers, during their development thought of it.

Those two are completely different cases. I am not giving you shit for your taste or what you value in a game like Fallout.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Roleplaying games of the like of Fallout have always been a niche genre. It wasn't really before Diablo came along, that it became more of a thing for the masses and even back then, Diablo was not considered a 'true' RPG by many people. I am pretty confident, that Fallout 1 wasn't created back then, to become a large brand for a company like Bethesda to later buy it for millions and sell it to the masses. It was made for a very specific type of gamer. The quality of the content, the writting and unique setting simply made it also interesting for a larger number of gamers. But who could know that? If they chose a more generic approach, Fallout 1 might have been simply another RPG among many others which have been released in the 1990s.

Fallout 1 was really not the only game of its genre but it surely become one of the most popular titles, due to the quality of the content it offered - for its time of course. But when it comes to the genre it represents, it is actually a niche. What we call today 'CRPGs', which tried to create an experience on the PC that was inspired of the PnP RPG people enjoyed in real RPG sessions, at least during the time when Fallout 1 was in development. That's why Icewind Dale is considered a 'true' RPG, even though it doesn't really offer you a huge array of choices and consequences. There simply was a market for it back then. You shouldn't forget that many game developers which made those games, have been actually vivid role players themself! Gaming and game development has changed a lot in the last 30 years.



That's why you're a Fallout Tourist.

I would be much more content with the switch from RPG to Action Adventure if Bethesda was just more honest about it. They amrketed Fallout 4as something it was not, same with 76. And yes it is a shallow point for a thread. Because its not a serious thread. If you don’t like it, as i hope you’re aware, there are, in fact, other threads.

 

[Crni Vuk]

I can give that one right back to you of course. You opened the topic after all.

The gameplay is essential to Fallout. I don't know if I feel as strongly about it as Crni does but I loved NV and I'd still prefer it have been more like Fallout 1 and 2 in terms of gameplay. I think the settings, themes, etc. are important as well but the gameplay is not something that should be considered irrelevant. Hell, a big problem with the Bethesda Fallouts is that they are increasingly more action based and less RPG like.

I'd take an RPG over an action RPG nine out of ten times easily. Action RPGs can be fun though.



We could just ignore the thread at that point because it's a shallow and empty topic for a thread.

Of course action RPGs can be fun! I LOVED Diablo 1 and 2. 2 definetly more than 1 though. I think I wasted half of my youth on Diablo 2. Which makes it strange to see how Diablo 2 is considered 'hardcore' these days even among action RPGs ... how times change ...

Anyway, I think the recent development and slight hype around new upcoming games beeing even turn based, shows that there is still a small but strong market for those kind of games. Even if they are not the triple AAA kind of games like GTA, Skyrim, CoD or what ever. But that doesn't mean they can't be updated. Games like Wasteland 2, Pillars of Eternity, the newest X-Com and many more titles are proof that improvements to the genre can happen withoug bastardizing it and that they are very wellcome. To both the look and gameplay.

 

[Gizmojunk]

Its not a niche game... its intention was to suit the playstyles and personalities of all of its players. I don’t care if gameplay comes first because I don’t give a shit about gameplay.

Fallout is a GURPS based cRPG—with the GURPS license revoked, and subsequently altered just enough to not infringe; but it is still the same game they worked on for years before they lost the license.

It was intended to be the best GURPS implementation available on the PC.
Gameplay is paramount; the setting was an afterthought. They were brainstorming GURPS campaign settings, and settled on a retro future. Before that they were considering time travel, where the PC rescues his girlfriend, and inadvertently erases humanity, only to be helped out by a wizard.

The core tenets are the combat (which they designed before anything else), and ensuring multiple paths to every quest; with a running theme that the player should be able to do as they wish, but have to live with the consequences.

Now Bethesda ditched the combat, and AFAIK doesn't ensure multiple paths, and absolutely ignores the consequences. A player can shoot the BOS paladin in the face, and later ask him for admission to the Citadel. The player character can become reviled, and redeem their reputation by passing out radioactive water to vagrants. They can "kill" NPCs who stand right back up after a moment, and act like nothing happened. The original game revered nuclear weaponry, and when they were used it was never flippant; FO3 made even the concept a joke, and their use utterly arbitrary, and scattered them everywhere for the player to collect.

IIII DDDOOOOO NNNOOOTTTT LLLIIIIIKKKEEE FALLOUT 76

I didn't accuse you of that.

___________

But to the earlier points above: Liking Fallout for its setting, atmosphere, and perceived survival elements is completely fine, but it is equivalent to liking Halo for the aesthetics of the Spartan armor, and the Warthogs; or because it takes place in the future; on space ships and otherworld colonies. These are not paramount aspects of Halo, and the same goes for Fallout... they may be assumed, preferred—perhaps even demanded, but if features were being stripped down to essentials, they would be some of the first ones to go.

In Fallout, the player character did not need to eat; (it was assumed they ate, and found water). The game only inflicted [very minor] dehydration damage if the PC traveled the overland wastes without a canteen, and that was just to make the point they they should have taken one.

 

[Deleted member 98605]

The problem with having no NPCs is that players have no 'anchor' to the ground or world. They drift in when they want, do something, leave. NPCs are there and good NPCs are buttressing a faction, a quest, a story, or a stake in the world.

I remember playing this space MMO, SQO (StarQuest Online). It was basically a huge arena with ships you can crew with multiple people; and it fell quiet whenever 1) players weren't around or 2) admins weren't doing events, and the admins left around 2012. In theory, a world supported by and held aloft by the playerbase should be rich, imaginative, and spontaneous, but it just degraded to shitters enacting their metagrudges in game and across factions. The United Systems Alliance, the Federation analogue and original faction, was gutted out as everyone ran to the Klinshaya (the Klingons) or the Therataa (Romulan/Vulcan/Protoss mix) or the Tikopai (absolute shitters who are fish) to keep on destroying each other and the USA; or whatever free colonies emerged, and the game became little more than a place to duel out forum shouting matches. There were a few guys who tried to explore, mine, farm, or whatnot, but it was just a big pvp match between pirates and factions that no one liked. (Though I'll never forget as the USA in their Tico Cruisers ran at an occupied Alpha Centauri, which the Klinshaya had absolutely seeded with System Defense Platforms, and the hail of torpedoes that met us when we charged at it).

Is there anywhere that gets this right? EVE Online, maybe?

 

[Crni Vuk]

To be fair, I see a certain appeal in that idea.

You know, make a world where the players are the 'NPCs'. I would say, that is actually something I always wanted to see in some form, like 20-25 years ago when I imagined what role playing games would be capable of showing us today. I expected AIs to advance as much as the visuals did in those decades. You know, I imagined a dymanic role playing experience where the responses by the NPCs and their reactions would actually reflect your actions in the world. Leave a minefield somewhere around, and a few days later they reaction would be a child walked over it and now the responses changed accordingly. But not due to a scrpit or something, but actually dynamically, so you never experience the same event again. Or where you could have actuall conversations with the NPCs, where the algorythim would kinda respond to what you wrotte. Fallout really had like a glimpse of this with their 'ask questions' feature. But, the gaming industry moved ina different direction and now every shit is cinematic and has to be voiced. So there is the whole power going to, instead of simulating human interaction.

The thing that really comes close to that, is to simply let human players take that role. But to pull of a believable and actually fun experience where everything is done by human players, you really need a completely different tone and setting. You have to give people an actuall incetive to fill those rolles. Like beeing merchants, or quest givers, thiefs, forming guilds and so on. You would have to create an actuall breating world where trading really matters. I am not sure how to achieve this feeling of being in the wasteland though and rebuilding civilisation or what ever, without making it just another MMO.

At this point I think, what Gizmo said is really true. Beth really just wanted to see how much they can dumb down their game, before anyone complains.

F76 really shows what happens when you give someone just a giant bowl of icing, leaving the rest of the cake away. Sure, it sounds great and it tastes good, at first, but at some point, you just want to puke.

 

[Gizmojunk]

To be fair, I see a certain appeal in that idea.

You know, make a world where the players are the 'NPCs'.

One should instead (and probably have) make a game where the NPCs use the other players to supplement the AI. For instance, two players both/separately elect for the 'good' [solo] path, to save the town from invading raiders, and in certain situations, each one sees the other player as the raider who is trying to kill them. The game has NPC AI, but can peek at what the other players are doing, and learn (or at least mimic) from how they react to certain events & behavior.

A problem in any RPG/re-enactment/larp is having everyone play in character—not everyone does. So instead, imagine if the player talks to an NPC, and that NPC's reaction is influenced by how another player reacts to similar dialog said to them. The AI chooses among responses that reflect a certain tone, (ie. hard-ass, wise-ass, kiss-ass/ haughty, sly, nice, meek ) in attempt to give a true human reaction.

This is how I would prefer a game use other players as the NPCs; rather than them having a literal presence in my game; chatting leet speak taunts, and hopping all the time.

 

[Deleted member 98605]

One should instead (and probably have) make a game where the NPCs use the other players to supplement the AI. For instance, two players both/separately elect for the 'good' [solo] path, to save the town from invading raiders, and in certain situations, each one sees the other player as the raider who is trying to kill them. The game has NPC AI, but can peek at what the other players are doing, and learn (or at least mimic) from how they react to certain events & behavior.

A problem in any RPG/re-enactment/larp is having everyone play in character—not everyone does. So instead, imagine if the player talks to an NPC, and that NPC's reaction is influenced by how another player reacts to similar dialog said to them. The AI chooses among responses that reflect a certain tone, (ie. hard-ass, wise-ass, kiss-ass/ haughty, sly, nice, meek ) in attempt to give a true human reaction.

And this is how we get talkbots talking about death or sex...but yea, NPCs are needed just as a framework to build off from. Players aren't here to always RPG, but just to fuck around, waste time, have a good time, etc. They can't be relied on to churn out all the content by themselves.

 

[Gizmojunk]

And this is how we get talkbots talking about death or sex...but yea..

In this case I did not mean verbatim player dialog, but built in rated dialog that imparts a similar tone.

[Like decline: or incensed:, or greed: etc... Where the actual speech was still character lines from that NPC.]

*And it could be a polled average of many players. Not unlike Captcha technology.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I can give that one right back to you of course. You opened the topic after all.



Of course action RPGs can be fun! I LOVED Diablo 1 and 2. 2 definetly more than 1 though. I think I wasted half of my youth on Diablo 2. Which makes it strange to see how Diablo 2 is considered 'hardcore' these days even among action RPGs ... how times

To be fair, I see a certain appeal in that idea.

You know, make a world where the players are the 'NPCs'. I would say, that is actually something I always wanted to see in some form, like 20-25 years ago when I imagined what role playing games would be capable of showing us today. I expected AIs to advance as much as the visuals did in those decades. You know, I imagined a dymanic role playing experience where the responses by the NPCs and their reactions would actually reflect your actions in the world. Leave a minefield somewhere around, and a few days later they reaction would be a child walked over it and now the responses changed accordingly. But not due to a scrpit or something, but actually dynamically, so you never experience the same event again. Or where you could have actuall conversations with the NPCs, where the algorythim would kinda respond to what you wrotte. Fallout really had like a glimpse of this with their 'ask questions' feature. But, the gaming industry moved ina different direction and now every shit is cinematic and has to be voiced. So there is the whole power going to, instead of simulating human interaction.

The thing that really comes close to that, is to simply let human players take that role. But to pull of a believable and actually fun experience where everything is done by human players, you really need a completely different tone and setting. You have to give people an actuall incetive to fill those rolles. Like beeing merchants, or quest givers, thiefs, forming guilds and so on. You would have to create an actuall breating world where trading really matters. I am not sure how to achieve this feeling of being in the wasteland though and rebuilding civilisation or what ever, without making it just another MMO.

At this point I think, what Gizmo said is really true. Beth really just wanted to see how much they can dumb down their game, before anyone complains.

F76 really shows what happens when you give someone just a giant bowl of icing, leaving the rest of the cake away. Sure, it sounds great and it tastes good, at first, but at some point, you just want to puke.

I agree with most of that, but I think its hard to deny that bethesda has some passion for the series. If they didn’t, we wouldn’t see all the ambitions they had with Fallout 4, and would instead just have made it a safe, calculated attempt at pulling in cash. When I play through fallout 3 and 4, sure, I see inferior products to the origninaps ( not even close to spelling that one right) and New Vegas, but I also see a passion. And I think they are still, on some level, the same bethesda behind the elder scrolls, and they still have a motivation towards making good games.

 

[Gizmojunk]

I agree with most of that, but I think its hard to deny that bethesda has some passion for the series.
...
And I think they are still, on some level, the same bethesda behind the elder scrolls, and they still have a motivation towards making good games.

I don't think they have any passion for the series—or for making good games. Their passion [IMO] is to make a timeless reactive sandbox, and skin it for different genres; thereby selling it multiple times over, to mutually exclusive markets. It's like selling Ramen Noodles with different flavor packets; shrimp, chicken, and beef.

If they have any passion beyond that—it's landscape design. [Credit where credit is due]

 

[KingArthur]

Todd has a dick. Is he a dick? I don’t think so. I think he and Beth are just more focused on money than the fans of their series’. That doesn’t make him a dick it makes him... ok yeah he’s a dick.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Todd isn't a dick. Dicks are Todd.

 

[SquidWard]

I think he and Beth are just more focused on money than the fans of their series’.

Every major game company is this way. And they do care about the fans, they just care about the ones that make it easier for them to do their job and maximize their sales at the same time.

 

[Black Angel]

I don’t care if gameplay comes first because I don’t give a shit about gameplay.

Except the essence of role-playing games, not just Fallout, is in the gameplay. When there's little to no gameplay, it stops being an RPG at all, and starts becoming a LARPing simulator.

"What is an RPG?", you ask? Well, that is another topic for another thread, another time. The one thread I participated over a year ago is this http://www.nma-fallout.com/threads/the-essential-salts-what-makes-a-roleplaying-game.215006/ and then turns out there's another thread discussing it when I was away from the forum for quite some time http://www.nma-fallout.com/threads/so-what-makes-an-rpg-an-rpg.216551/

If you ask me, neither of those two threads managed to barely even touch a particle floating on the surface of a stormy ocean that's known as 'RPGs'. And since you shown on your profile that you're still just a 14-years old wee-lad, I'm gonna give you an advice: whatever it is you have on mind that you think defined an RPG, forget about it. Especially considering you personally thought that gameplay is secondary. Discussing and defining what an RPG is has always been a never-ending topic of heated arguments, shitposts, and memes. Steel yourself, and may you find an RPG that floats your boat.