MCA on Fallout2

[Briosafreak]

The RPG Roundtable at RPG Vault now has a new part, this time in part 3 you can continue to read the opinions of several CRPG specialists, like Chris Avellone, here`s a zip of what he wrote:
<blockquote>I'll play devil's advocate with Andrew Popov's comments about Fallout 2 (since I worked on it), and critique it using the points from Stage 1. Here are the flaws with the game's story. This was our fault, and I've been guilty of all the sins mentioned below, so I'm not criticizing anyone:

- Player Doesn't Give a Shit: The initial character motivation (which goes almost until 75%-90% of the way through the game) fails the "Why Should the Player Give a Shit?" test. Fallout 2 assumes you care about Arroyo enough to find the GECK. The "hunt for the McGuffin" aspect of it aside, the initial motivation is flawed, depending on how the player wants to play, which is pretty contrary to the Fallout genre. Granted, you can say "screw the GECK," but there is no evil end-game reward for doing so (our fault.)

Not until the appearance (and the revelation of the motivation) of the Enclave very, very late in the game are you placed in danger, which is where the player's motivation starts to get on the right track. Why does the player give a shit about the Enclave? Because they want to kill the player. Granted, it sucks that they don't want to kill you in particular (which fails the player-centric test) - you're just one of a bunch of other people they want to kill. Still, it's clear why the player should care about stomping them into the ground.</blockquote>
And he adds quite a few more insights on Fallout2 , you can read the rest here, thanks Raymondo2000 for the heads up.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

Story just provides some lovely context to the stabbing.
~ Jeff Vogel, Spiderweb Software

Heh.

 

[atoga]

U.S. imports decreased 66% from $4.4 billion (1929) to $1.5 billion (1933), and exports decreased 61% from $5.4 billion to $2.1 billion. Thus, net exports declined from $1 billion to $600 million, while GDP was $58.9 billion. According to government statistics, U.S. imports from Europe decreased from a 1929 high of $1,334 billion to just $390 million during 1932, while U.S. exports to Europe decreased from $2,341 billion in 1929 to $784 million in 1932. Overall, world trade decreased by some 66% between 1929 and 1934.[18] Using panel data estimates of export and import equations for 17 countries, Jakob B. Madsen (2002) estimated the effects of increasing tariff and non-tariff trade barriers on worldwide trade during the period 1929-1932. He concluded that real international trade contracted somewhere around 33% overall. His estimates of the impact of various factors included about 14% because of declining GNP in each country, 8% because of increases in tariff rates, 5% because of deflation-induced tariff increases, and 6% because of the imposition of non-tariff barriers. The new tariff imposed an effective tax rate of 60% on more than 3,200 products and materials imported into the United States, quadrupling previous tariff rates on individual items, but raising the average tariff rate to 19.2%, in line with average rates of that day. Unemployment was at 8% in 1930 when the Smoot–Hawley tariff was passed, but the new law failed to lower it. The rate jumped to 16% in 1931, and 25% in 1932-33.[19] Douglas A. Irwin says, "Smoot-Hawley ... probably did not contribute significantly to the economic downturn."[20] It was not until WWII that unemployment fell below 1930s levels.[21] Imports during 1929 were only 4.2% of the United States' GNP and exports were only 5.0%. Monetarists, such as Milton Friedman, who emphasize the central role of the money supply in causing the depression, note that the Smoot-Hawley Act only had a contributory effect on the entire U.S. economy.[22]

 

[papa_legba]

Granted, it sucks that they don't want to kill you in particular (which fails the player-centric test)

Failing the 'player-centric' test is a GOOD THING. Really. Not all of us have such wild inferiority complexes that we want a decent plot thrown away for the sake of making us the Center of Everything in the Universe.

The fact that Fallout 2 made the player just 'some guy who was in the position to save the world' as opposed to 'OMG YOU ARE EVERYTHING!!!' was an unqualified Good Thing. The only objections I'd have, in fact, would be the Brotherhood of Steel guy in San Fran bragging about the Chosen One to Frank Horrigan. I would have much preferred the whole 'chosen one' thing to be left as a backwoods fairy tale that the player gets over as he matures.

In fact, I'd really prefer a game where the plot is a bit more subtle than "SAVE TEH WORLD!!!"

 

[Brother None]

I agree with, uhm, papa legba (wtf, btw) I often prefer non-player-centric plots to player-centric plots. Fallout 1 and 2 were still pretty player-centric in that *you* are the saviour of humanity, though.

I loved that in Gothic and Planescape:Torment too. In Gothic, you were just a prisoner trying to rise in ranks and escape, and you stumble upon something bigger by accident, in Planescape...helll...you're just trying to figure yourself out.

 

[4too]

Strange Philosophy Or Post Mod Posturing

Strange Philosophy Or Post Mod Posturing

- Player Doesn't Give a Shit: The initial character motivation (which goes almost until 75%-90% of the way through the game) fails the "Why Should the Player Give a Shit?" test. Fallout 2 assumes you care about Arroyo enough to find the GECK. The "hunt for the McGuffin" aspect of it aside, the initial motivation is flawed, depending on how the player wants to play, which is pretty contrary to the Fallout genre. Granted, you can say "screw the GECK," but there is no evil end-game reward for doing so (our fault.)

So the assumption is the average game player can not project, or "pretend", that saving the lives of one's family, and extended family, and or "the tribe" matters without some immediate personal threat stimulus. The social linkages are mere gestures, and it's the individual's self preservation that ultimately matters.

That seems very 'post modern' (""We live as we dream...alone""[sezs Mr. "Heart Of Darkness"] 'n' all that...) and not quite the "team play" pep talk I'd expect from someone whose livelihood depends on the "kindness of strangers" and "working well with others''; collaborative work over extended time periods, making computer games.

I wouldn't want to consider that the general shoddiness of published works, the QA and the patch for the patch for the patch syndrome, (I cite Win XP; was it a year before CDR's and DVD R's were 'plug and play' ?), would have any basis in the cruel confinement of modern'e individuals in prisons of social work environments. For we are all pitifull wage slaves in a "world we did not create". '''Cry me a river''', why don't ya.

Post mod democracy where no one under 35 votes, until they own a house and realize the local tax referendums DO matter. Maybe a return to a military draft might politicize some, but most will be too busy being modern'e. Maybe a story and or a game where a sense of community and "the band of brothers" might fill some unfullfilled
primal bonding is too old fashioned, too world weary, for the post modern'e play'a killer, the Kewl Skool where FOOL RULZ, 'n' all that.....

Child consumers of the television age, I guess total self absorption is the modus operandi and the pinnacle of being.

What color is your belly button lint?

4too

 

[Fyu-jon!!!]

I loved that in Planescape:Torment too. in Planescape...helll...you're just trying to figure yourself out.

Eh? PS:T is very player-centric. Though you're not out to save the world, the entire game revolves around you.

 

[pnutz]

Re: Strange Philosophy Or Post Mod Posturing

So the assumption is the average game player can not project, or "pretend", that saving the lives of one's family, and extended family, and or "the tribe" matters without some immediate personal threat stimulus. The social linkages are mere gestures, and it's the individual's self preservation that ultimately matters.

But the problem is that Arroyo's inhabitants are all caricatures. There's no character in the vilage that the player has any deep bond with. You casually know your cousins and aunt and Haunikin (sp? its been a while...), but parents? siblings? good friends? memories of times with these people?

I can't pretend that much.

The whole town is flat. Look at your dialog choices. It's the player that's a detatched postmodern shell of self-interest. You develop more attachment to Modoc and Broken Hills than to your own village. That's a design problem, not a soul of the young American male problem.

 

[Ratty Sr.]

Story just provides some lovely context to the stabbing.
~ Jeff Vogel, Spiderweb Software

Say, isn't Jeff Vogel president of Scorched Earth Party?

 

[4too]

By Design Or Default

By Design Or Default

That's a design problem, not a soul of the young American male problem.

Yes, the treatment of the hearth and home in FO2 was rather minimalist, and more a tutorial than compelling social bonding. The 'real' action is out in the larger world.

Where it may be a ""young American male problem"" is that game developers and market'eers consider it unlikely that their target demographic can be dramatically manipulated to "'give a sh't"".

Or maybe game developers and market'eers are too world weary to convincingly portray the social context to motivate "the hero" beyond
the ol' dog worldview,.. if you can't eat it, drink it or f'ck it, than pee on it.

4too

 

[Roshambo]

Say, isn't Jeff Vogel president of Scorched Earth Party?

Yes, even if he doesn't admit it!

 

[Brother None]

I loved that in Planescape:Torment too. in Planescape...helll...you're just trying to figure yourself out.

Eh? PS:T is very player-centric. Though you're not out to save the world, the entire game revolves around you.

In that sense it is, but there's a difference between the story revolving around the player (I can't name any game that doesn't do that) and the player not having a major impact on the world. We were discussing the second point.

 

[Azael]

However, I would argue that the Fallout 2 story worked for the following reasons:

- Reactivity: Reactivity was good, and your choices definitely had an impact on the future of the world. Karma changed based on what I did. People's reactions changed based on what I did. Reputation changed. People reacted if I was a slaver, etc.

- Good Power Fantasy: It provided a great power fantasy - and several variations of them. At no point did I feel that I wasn't a total badass (or goody two-shoes, if I wanted). I could walk into a bar, order a drink of whiskey, cap anyone who gave me lip, and Miss Kitty will swoon into my arms at the end of the game. Granted, this is not a far departure from my everyday life as a game designer, but sometimes, seeing it mirrored in a game is good

Nice to see that he hasn't lost his sense of humor, and I agre with him that Fallout 2 was very good in that area, especially in New Reno despite the other flaws with that location.

Jeff Vogel and his "Edward option" was the best part of this roundtable though.