Cow said:
[What games, in the past 8 years, has even bothered to simulate a PnP game?
Go ahead, I'll wait.
It's pretty obvious we're talking past each other here.
This isn't a good excuse for Beth's disregarding of Fallout's PnP roots.
There's little interest in PnP "simulation." If you want to play a PnP game then go buy a core book but computers game haven't and most likely never will reach anywhere close to what a PnP game allows a player and games that have either failed (Vampire the Masquerade Redemption) or focus on gameplay aspects (multiplayer combat in Neverwinter Nights) rather than actual role playing and freedom of choice.
First point: No shit. So what? It's happened before; there are indie designers now who are doing it, and yes, it is a niche market, but it's not out of the question.
Second point: that's a pretty harsh reply, "Go buy a core book." I'll be more specific: what Fallout games are supposed to be are computer-based simulations of pen and paper roleplaying games. They did a pretty good job of it, even if it was, by necessity, a very story-driven experience.
Fact is, we're dealing with video games here which, by design, require a clear set of goals. Even the most open ended games have a set goal and while Fallout allowed you some freedom you can't deny that a new player wouldn't be able to complete the game with a social only or int 1 character without some major frustration.
Ah, yah, true, but... not really to the point of the fact that Bethsoft's totally ignored Fallout's PnP roots and the purpose behind their being there in the first place.
But that's sort of like saying "Man, these roleplaying games are really restrictive... all those numbers and dice and stuff." There are restrictions in any system, and any system that tells you it's not restrictive is lying to you.
Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter used the DnD ruleset but I still felt like I was playing a video game.
Honestly- that's good. You're supposed to know that it's a character. That's one way of thinking about PnP emulation. Totally immersing yourself in your character is more a LARP thing, really.
Not to say that story-based immersion is out of the question, or negative in any way. Just that character-based immersion isn't the focus of this sort of PnP emulation.
Which, as a side note, is also missing the social aspect of gaming. That's pretty much impossible to work into a game too... but we don't complain about PnP emulating cRPGs if they don't have a multiplayer option, right?
Even Arcanum, which I think is the penultimate PnP type computer game, had a clear beginning, middle, and end that you couldn't diverge from. Planescape Torment is one of the few RPGs that focus on talking over combat yet from a design point that game is more linear than any other Black Isle/Bioware game.
Yeaaaah.... but.... side notes. Main point again: Fallout was made as a form of PnP emulation. It was very story-driven, and had quite a bit of railroading (more than usual for actual PnP) BUT, the design decisions- such as turn-based combat, isometric view point, and so on- were supposed to reflect PnP systems. Fallout 3, so far, doesn't really seem to reflect it that much.
Instead, the aesthetic choices- RT, FPP, and so on- seem more informed by LARP, or a general orientation toward action. In and of themselves, not a problem. But taken into consideration with the fact that this Fallout doesn't seem to be geared toward PnP emulation, and that it's CALLED Fallout 3.... that's the issue.
In this case, change is good and unavoidable if a company wants to survive.
No, no, no, no.
HOW many times do we have to hear this excuse? Sorry, this isn't a valid argument, and I can't even list the number of times new posters have come on here and tried to act like "well, they need to do exactly what everyone else is doing to stay commercially viable" is a good excuse.
It's not, and for a very recent example of a company that's bucking the trends, and probably will be rewarded with millions of international sales: Blizzard.
I play PnP games because I actually want to roleplay a character from my imagination but even the best PC games shoehorn you down a specific path and the only thing that interests me is either the setting or the story (the setting and characters for Fallout as the story itself was pretty boring).
That's pretty much what everyone does. Yes, PC games do railroad pretty bad... and those that don't end up making you feel like you're just playing as "generic character Y" instead of a character with a name. Morrowind is like that; so's Wizardry (though to be fair, in that one you're playing a party....) Yet, Fallout's appeal is that you do have certain choices. They're often not readily apparent from a quicker glance- or even an in-depth glance (I mean, I JUST learned that you can use TNT on the radscorpion caves, and I've been playing FO since 2000 or so), but they are there.
Despite the railroading.
Aside from simulated dice rolling and illusion of choice there's nothing about video games of any genre that remind me of why I play Dungeons and Dragons and World of Darkness.
And that's fine, that's your personal perspective. It doesn't have anything to do with my point, which is that the FO developers have gone on record saying what they were trying to do specifically with the game. And as far as limitations of cRPGs go, they did quite a good job.
Bethseda, on the other hand, hasn't really shown the sort of care they probably should have when it came to keeping the PnP roots of Fallout. Thin though they are, compared to true PnP games, they are there. Take them out, what do you have? Generic PA retro-'50s setting. As I've said earlier, it'd been done before. It wasn't new.
At this point, though, I'd like to point out that stats and simulated dice rolling doesn't even remotely a cRPG make. There have been countless stat-based shooters and adventure games.... hell DIABLO uses stats and rolls.... it doesn't really matter as a definition. It's just a matter of whether the mechanics are visible or not.
World of Warcraft has killed "PnP" style pc games IMO. I hate the game, but it took the role playing/exploration aspect of rpg's and MMO's and combined it with a big world with fun party based combat.
Ooo, no, WoW didn't kill it. It was pretty well dead, at least in MMOs, waaaay before Blizzard made the game.
Though for what it is- and PnP simulation it isn't- it's a very good game. You basically summed up what WoW is, so, good on ya.
This is what gamers want, a fun game, and sales have proven that it works. I totally understand why Bethesda won't revert back to their archaic Daggerfall design simply because a handful of hardcore fans want it that way and aside from the occasional Bioware game I can't imagine any company in the future doing the same.
Yes, gamers do want a fun game. BUT, shock of shocks, if a game's supposed to be a sequel, there's supposed to be some continuity. Of course, the game's going to change a lot if it switches hands, but how pissed would people be if the next Civ game turned out to be an action-heavy FPS? Or if Doom 4 was a turn-based puzzle game?
Pretty damn upset, I'd wager.
Also: very funny, calling TB/ISO "outdated." They came after RT and above AND first-person view. They're not outdated, just under-utlized. When done properly, they can allow the player to get more tactical.... and from a computing standpoint, it also allows for much smarter AI, since you're not splitting system resources between all the stuff that needs to be run all at once, but instead running them sequentially.
EDIT: I'm rereading my post and laughing pretty hard. I'm like arguing against the very foundation that made Fallout FALLOUT. It's like telling a Star Wars fan that their hatred of Lucas' new material makes sense but Georgie is just trying to make a buck like everyone else.
Yea, you are. I don't begrudge you for it, though. You're a hell of an arguer, and it's good to see rational people with other viewpoints.
Though honestly, the thing with Lucas and Star Wars is a bit flawed, because Lucas IS Star Wars. It's his baby... he can fuck it up however he wants. Though the same can be said of Bethseda.... and it will be the case, in terms of canon, when Fallout 3 comes out.
Which means that the Fatman is in. *Sigh*
Still, though.... Bethseda has absolutely 0 original Fallout developers... hell, Fallout coders, playtesters, advisors, anything... working on the game.
Their only real claim to the game is that they bought the license. From the Herve-run Interplay, I might add... the same geniuses that brought us Brotherhood of Steel and caused their own destruction by turning their back on the non-console crowd.
