Retrolook at Fallout

[Frog]

I think it's about npc's role in a game. If npc is player's friend, folower or just another merc to do the dirty job. While mercs care only of themselfs and give a shit abuot player, friends ( and don't tell me there can't be a friendship in a wasteland. in that case there would be no families, no childern and at the best rate humanity would be back to the stone age .... not technologicaly but mentaly ) would suport player with thair resources. Folower ( the person who have some mutual goles with the player but don't care that much about him/her as i see it) could ( as Bradylama suggested ) be affected by players charisma and agree or not agree to the requests.
But there is aplace for fighting pacmules in a wasteland. How about npc robot ? Assuming it's not some super AI robot that wanders freely and only hangs with player to acomplish its goals ( then it would go to follower class ) then it's basicly fighting packmule.
So without stating relation betwen nps and player agrues about if npc should give away stuff or not are rather pointless. In a game where npcs are reduced to computer controled bots killing players enemys ( and unfortunetly I see it this way in Fallouts ) interface should be reduced as well because there is no gain in reality and only loose in a user-friendly-ness ( hell, I dunno how to put that word in english )


And back to general discussion. Fallout 1 and 2 interfaces ( excluding npc and inventory related stuff that are matter of a debate and one thing that I had problems with - aiming at the crowd where it was hard to hover pointer over correct target ) were great and really easy to learn and use. I wonder .... maybe it was about being graphicaly clunky ? But then, it should be grim, scratched and not some shiny colorful to make the mood.

 

[Roshambo]

While I recognize the roleplaying aspects of it, it's not exactly fun.

Exactly how is that denying the intent?

The intent of having NPCs. Again, they weren't packmules.

The NPC is a non-player character. As in a character in an environment that operates independant of the control of the player. They are both NPCs, and members of your "party." Your entourage. Your, whatever.

That monster? It's an NPC. So is that dwarf and that ghoul.

The distinction of a REAL NPC versus a BioWare NPC is that you do not control your NPC's actions aside for minor things like pushing them out of the door. This includes combat, equipment decisions, and more.

Therefore, why were you bitching about having to steal things back when they are NPCs? In a post-apocalyptic environment, you are what you hold and wear. I know some kids can't understand this concept, but it's one that those who have been through military training know quite well. You are what you can be and provide to the unit as a whole. Where the wasteland takes off from that is that your value is what you own and wear, or you might end up talking to Doc Morbid. To give someone something in a complete anarchy of an environment, you're giving it to them. You're not bartering with them and the item as a trade piece. If you willingly give them valuables and expect them back at a later time, that's your problem, again. As I said before, they weren't exactly designed to be packmules.

Of course, I doubt you've been through Sociology, so I had to dumb things down a little in the above.

Yes, it squanders an entire tactical aspect. It forces the player to use burst weapons only if they don't have NPCs, because otherwise they'll do something stupid and get themselves shot.

Having played JA2 and other real tactical games, I find the burst mode to be not much of a problem. In fact, my first move is to move to the rear of the party and snipe over shoulders. Or, I'll take a route to the enemy as a melee character that isn't (gasp) in the line of fire. Silly concept, I know. APTYP and the others wonder what your problem in understanding that comes from.

I don't give a fuck who develops the game. I just don't want Absolute Realism. Then again, the game is in a FICTIONAL SETTING. Mimicking the real world becomes a moot point when the game's situation is unlike anything humans have ever had to endure.

But, if you lose the aspects of what makes it post-apocalyptic, and one of those is NPC behaviour, then what is the purpose of using the post-apocalyptic setting? Call it "future with junk".

The situation is exactly like many other times in humankind's history.

Have you ever heard of the Dark Ages? Do they still bother to teach it to you in school? Or did you think the Dark Ages were like Forgotten Realms? If you did, then humanity deserves to be nuked out of existence if you're an example of the species. It appears today's society makes a few kids a little blind to basic history lessons. Oh, right off the top of my head. Cavemen! You were what you wore and could do. Did you seriously think people evolved from sheep? This society what allows fluff like you to live without having to deal with the real world and real physical contact with people.

Absolutely nothing. But if the NPC followed you for protection wouldn't it be logical that what you said goes? They're following you into the wastes. The absolute nothing. They recognize you as the leader, why shouldn't your commands dictate their actions?

It's funny you think this is your Counter-Strike clan or something. Leaders in the post-apocalyptic world...something important about them. Oh, yes. The predominant aspect of the post-apocalyptic setting....now only if I could just remember what it was. Dog eat something.

Now, I do like the considerations you're showing towards aspects like protection. I'll go out on a limb here and say that you really needed to structure what you're trying to say a bit better. Be more complete. Saying that the interface is poor because you have to steal from your team, despite their being NPCs and in a post-apocalyptic environment, is frankly quite amazing to have come up with.

However, instead of flailing around with a tangent, you can go onto something a bit better as said by others. There should be different roles the NPCs have in regards to your relationship to them. If you outright own them, then they would follow every command, etc. EDIT: I mean this in how they will follow your commands to them, depending upon what they are, but not outright control of them. I was honestly trying to steer you into coming to this conclusion.

I never said that they should be pack mules, I said that they shouldn't be how they were implemented in Fallout because it was TEDIOUS.

Well, they weren't meant to be packmules. Therefore, yes, if you're going to be giving them the items, they will want to keep them.

An avatar is a representation of an entity in a world not it's own. In Ultima the avatar was a literal application of the word, as the player is assumed to have been sucked into Brittania through his computer screen. In Fallout the avatar was the Vault Dweller. Although the Vault Dweller is a pre-determined role, the Vault Dweller himself, is you.

And who was the Vault Dweller, initially? NOBODY.

I don't think a virtual social environment accurately mimicks social interaction in the post apocalypse. Seeing as how nobody is at risk of losing their lives. Or their worldly possessions. The entire world is an abstract.

That is a PATHETIC excuse as validation as to why post-apocalyptic themes shouldn't be used for a post-apocalyptic setting.

Minus the packmule portion, how exactly is that not like the NPCs in Fallout? All you've done is add packmule.

Not quite. The other characters were not packmules, and neither was those in Fallout.

Certain NPCs can disagree, others may not. But the charismatic can convince anybody to do anything, I don't see how my suggestion is so terrible. See, this entire discussion is based around conflicting matters of opinion.

I think it's because you're persisting in the conflicting loop of interest going on at the same time. You bitch about having to steal back from your teammates in Fallout, but then point out that they are supposed to be NPCs. I think Charisma isn't nearly enough, given the harshness of the wasteland. I believe more depth should be given towards the relationship between the NPC and the player, the different permissions, and THEN Charisma should take affect. It makes it then into an uber-stat that would be used exclusively Monty Hauling right through the game. Not a good thing at all for play balance.

 

[Ashmo]

If I remember correctly, wasn't Fallout originally not even meant to have the option of talking people into joining you?
I think one of the developers said the idea was tossed in when a lot of the engine was done already, which is why the AI came a bit short. Or something like that.

Whatever. Please continue.
I find this discussion rather enlightening.

 

[SynthWailer]

Therefore, why were you bitching about having to steal things back when they are NPCs? In a post-apocalyptic environment, you are what you hold and wear. I know some kids can't understand this concept, but it's one that those who have been through military training know quite well. You are what you can be and provide to the unit as a whole. Where the wasteland takes off from that is that your value is what you own and wear, or you might end up talking to Doc Morbid. To give someone something in a complete anarchy of an environment, you're giving it to them. You're not bartering with them and the item as a trade piece. If you willingly give them valuables and expect them back at a later time, that's your problem, again. As I said before, they weren't exactly designed to be packmules.

roshambo, bradylama, i rest my case...

come on people, if you were in a wasteland, and someone gave you a goddamn ton of worthless junk for you to carry, would you even accept it? in fallout case this means they are only half-packmules, because they accept whatever kind of shit you give them but they don't give you back...

but roshambo, if you asked the designer about this and they gave you the response you are hammering on us by force, them i blindly agree.

 

[Frog]

Now we're talking about likes and dislikes. About own vision of post apoc society and relationship.
No one can disagree with others because it's their own opinion but in the same way others opinions can't be discussed.
While Fallout community speaks with one voice about some things that fits or doesn't fit the setting there are apparently areas where different people have different points of view and they all have their rights.
This debate showed that some people see post apoc relationships and human behavior in a different way.

I don't see how Fallout human behavior should be so different then nowadays behavior. There are kind of degenerate people who care only about their asses and people that cooperate to cope with problems. Take a look at some natural disaster cases ..... or to be extreme, at extermination camps in Europe at WW2. It's highly unfriendly environment ... I know it's faaaaar comparison to post apoc word but that world is just too extreme to find good situations to compare. To continue, in these situations people either cooperate and support each other or fight for resources, sure, but cooperation was always part of such situations. Of course people can be changed into mindless animals who can easily kill others for a bit of food. There was such ... experiment ? ... where bunch of people were thrawed into a pit and left for a long for hunger. Then some food were thrawed into pit and people were reduced to animals trying to grab anything that could be eaten. But objective to hang with others in Fallout world is not finding food or die ... or not all the time ... or at least not when you have weapon and can hunt some dinner.
Selfish-only approach is just not in human nature. Sure wasteland was reduced to stone age with certain exceptions of technological enclaves, but I don't think humanity suffered some mutation and got back to stone age mentally.
Some could say that it's education that may have influence on selfish behavior and if others care about their own so does their children. But at this rate such people would just die out from hunger or be eaten by predators ... or just killed by other people who follow the same way. At this rate there would be no place for towns, maybe not even for villages.
of course we could agree that there are savages who care only about their own and are selfish asses that is majority of humankind and there are some civilised people who make communities, build towns and so on. So now ask yourself a question, would you rather wander around wasteland with some savage that gives a shit about you, will run away form enemy because he doesn't care and he will propably backstab you in the night for your stuff or you join with some civilised folks who will help you and support you because he know it's also best way of survival for himself ?
There may be cases when you have to join to some savage, like when you need a guide or something, then of course you won't give him a thing, except some payment maybe but then some other folk that wanders with you may share with his weapons to make sure everyone are armed in case that savage goes wild and try to stole your gear or kill all companions. just an example.

I'm sure there are others who could talk about social matters all day long and have their points, but let's not forget we're talking about game in a first place.
To some point the more realistic it is the better, but if you make game too realistic ( I don't say where the border is though ) it will suck from one single reason, there won't be any fun factor. Sure some will enjoy such game saying "cool, look how real it is". But no matter how realistic game it is it's always compromise between realism and gameplay/fun/interface.
Wile I can understand some who like doing something in a harder way to acomplish something because it's more realistic this way I also understand others who prefer to make things easier because certain thing is not any gain to the reality in their opinion.

 

[Ashmo]

Hate to put some clouds into that sunny sky of your candyland, but the only thing which prevents people from doing certain things in our world is law, that is, fear of being prosecuted -- which is now more real than ever before because of the advancements in criminal research.

If people know there's no trace that will lead to them (given they are in any system of law similar to ours), there's nothing keeping them from comitting a crime but their personal ethics.
Even in cases where a law exists: look at Junktown, Killian knew Gizmo was a crimeboss, but he couldn't cap him without real evidence; in the Den everybody knew about the crime, but there too nobody was able to do anything to big fish because of the lack of evidence.

We're talking about a world in which an unarmed girl in a dark alley could get raped (and/or killed) without the rapist ever being found. It IS the new Dark Age.

Heck, even illiteracy is a topic again, just talk to some of the more educated NPCs (Lynette for example) and they will mention it.

People aren't naturally immoral, but persons oftenly are. At least if you define moral the same way most people do nowadays.

Heck, to the crusaders it wasn't evil to kill infidels. Not that long ago it wasn't even a bad thing to torch infidels because you were actually helping them to get into heaven (or at least that was what you believed). To soldiers it isn't an evil thing to kill enemy soldiers and to every second person killing a criminal isn't either. Ethics are very personal and ethics change a LOT throughout time.

 

[Roshambo]

I don't see how Fallout human behavior should be so different then nowadays behavior.

So much for having a post-apocalyptic environment...

That pretty much sums up most of your points.

Selfish-only approach is just not in human nature. Sure wasteland was reduced to stone age with certain exceptions of technological enclaves, but I don't think humanity suffered some mutation and got back to stone age mentally.

Did you fail to notice that LIFE WAS CHEAP? Even to the point of selling pieces of humans on a stick as food, the setting was far from as Candyland as you'd like to believe. That is why some people like Fallout better, because it is darker and explores the setting a bit more than the easter egg park of Fallout 2.


SynthWailer: You are quite true, but that wasn't a consideration. You were giving them items that still had worth.

In addition, I do recall this same issue being brought up about having to steal from NPCs, on the Fallout forums, almost 7 years ago. The general answer was, if I remember right, they weren't meant to be joinable packmules like in other games because they were not under your control and not meant to be.

So, instead of making them more like NPCs for Fallout 2, they turned them into more like automated packmules. Inventory shouldn't be a different concern than weapon preferences, it is just as valid a consideration.

 

[Bradylama]

Therefore, why were you bitching about having to steal things back when they are NPCs?

BECAUSE IT'S A PAIN IN THE ASS

Have you ever heard of the Dark Ages? Do they still bother to teach it to you in school? Or did you think the Dark Ages were like Forgotten Realms? If you did, then humanity deserves to be nuked out of existence if you're an example of the species.

The Dark Ages are not a parallel to the Nuclear Apocolypse. At least during the Dark Ages people still had arable land.

Saying that the interface is poor because you have to steal from your team, despite their being NPCs and in a post-apocalyptic environment, is frankly quite amazing to have come up with.

Well I never mentioned the stealing part. I didn't like doing that because it felt like I was exploiting a bug. So I didn't.

And who was the Vault Dweller, initially? NOBODY.

*sigh*

The Vault Dweller is an empty shell. That shell is filled by the player, as the Vault Dweller becomes the player. The entire outcome of the game, and how the game progresses depends on the moral and practical decisions of the player, therefore, its not a huge stretch of language to consider the Vault Dweller as an avatar. Unless, of course, you used one of the pre-defined characters.

That is a PATHETIC excuse as validation as to why post-apocalyptic themes shouldn't be used for a post-apocalyptic setting.

I'm not pointing that out as an excuse for my assertions. I'm pointing out that social interactions in a virtual environment don't mirror those in the real world. There's no possiblity of situations like Stockholm's Syndrome occuring when you can just disconnect from the game world. Unless, of course, one is an idiot.

I believe more depth should be given towards the relationship between the NPC and the player, the different permissions, and THEN Charisma should take affect. It makes it then into an uber-stat that would be used exclusively Monty Hauling right through the game. Not a good thing at all for play balance.

As do I. I thought the way the player recruited NPCs in Fallout 2 was a more defined manner of player-NPC relations. The only NPC in Fallout that had a good reason for joining you was Tandy, since I mean, you did save her life.

In Fallout 2 every NPC had a justifiable or identifiable motivation for joining the player. The only one that comes into question is Marcus. I mean, sure you got rid of the anti-mutant/anti-anti-mutants conspiracies, but does that mean that his job as a Sherrif is fulfilled? After you do recruit them, though, the relations practically stop, and you attach yourself to your NPCs based on their skills in combat or their ability to make up for your own skill inadequacies.

Having played JA2 and other real tactical games, I find the burst mode to be not much of a problem. In fact, my first move is to move to the rear of the party and snipe over shoulders. Or, I'll take a route to the enemy as a melee character that isn't (gasp) in the line of fire. Silly concept, I know. APTYP and the others wonder what your problem in understanding that comes from.

Because in a game that doesn't let you control other party members in combat, forcing the player to use single-shot weapons limits the roleplaying options.

EDIT: Yes, that has nothing to do with being tactically impractible. But it's still a bitch to be placed in the wrong place at the wrong time during a random encounter and getting ventillated by Ian.

 

[Frog]

You give examples for a game Ashmo, it's not a real world there.
I did not said a word about candyland, nor had any intentions.
As i said with such aproach everyone would die or get slaughtered even before they would be able to set up a town with any crime boss.
Of course in a wasteland there would be hard to find goverment executing laws .... laws ? what laws ? Therefore people would organise themselfs to survive. Yes, unarmed girl in a dark alley would be easy target therfore she would find some group to join for protetion and share her resources to ensure that protection is effective. I'm not talking about giving back a rocket launcher, but how about giving a stim to wounded guard ? Give it and he will survive to keep you protecting, give a shit and he die and you have one man less on a guarding perimeter.

So much for having a post-apocalyptic environment...

Come on, don't say i spoiled all post apoc setting by trying to figure out how people might behave.
I tried to find some similary extreme situations and showed how poeple might work their way through them.

Did you fail to notice that LIFE WAS CHEAP? Even to the point of selling pieces of humans on a stick as food, the setting was far from as Candyland as you'd like to believe. That is why some people like Fallout better, because it is darker and explores the setting a bit more than the easter egg park of Fallout 2.

I did not failed to notice that, but I wasn't talking how was it in good ol' Fallouts. I wanted to point how would it look like if you want to make it more realistic. Since you mentioned sociology and ways how it works and how it does not work i followed and digget it little deeper.

I know you like the facts, so do I. Then please do not assume what i belive somethig or not if i didn't stated it. It's like putting words I didn't sayed in my mouth. It's not a good way of debating.

Indirectly but you agreed to other of my points. Certain things are matter of likes and dislikes. Some people do like Fallout better, because of what you said.


But it's little confusing when you say

Apparently, you've been living in video games too long. Someone decides to back you in your journeys and put their life and risk, and they're now expected to be your bitch, just because they joined you?

I'm sorry, but the real world doesn't work like that. Also, in a post-apocalyptic environment, it's pretty clear that if you give someone something, it's going to be pretty damn hard to convince them to give it back. Especially when they are following you around for no other discernable purpose than you're a great guy or something. You don't even pay NPCs or give them any real reason why they should be bullet sponges, so I really don't see why you're bitching about how they were designed.

and then you mention

Even to the point of selling pieces of humans on a stick as food, the setting was far from as Candyland as you'd like to believe. That is why some people like Fallout better, because it is darker and explores the setting a bit more than the easter egg park of Fallout 2.

In first quote ( and to be clear I don't mean any interface related issues now ) you talk about real world's ( I wonder which word to use ) ... mechanics.
In second you mention Fallout's (un)-reality.

As I see it you cover your flanks with oposite things that in my interpretation negates themselfs.


At my previous post I wanted to show to what conclusions one may work out concentrating on a reality part and disagreed with you at the relationship and sociology issues.
You replied with Fallout (un)-reality arguments.
I do see your point there.
The problem is it's not related to what I wanted to say.
I said " I wanted to say " to mark that I'm aware that i could be missunderstand and from your point of view it was related.


As I mentioned that we can't talk about npcs without concidering their relations to the playes neither we can discuss relationships itslefs without agreeing if we're refering to real-what-might-be or fallout-like-setting point of view.

To talk about reality is to ferget about setting for that time, to talk about setting is to ... well, not forget, but making compromise ( to certain point where setting stops being setting ) with reality.



*sorry for any possile typos and misspelings, spellchecker for some reason now hangs my browser. computer restart did not help *

edit: lol, i speled "relationshit" in a one place as i noticed reading my message after posting ... freud's mistake ?

 

[Roshambo]

(Snip.)

That's YOUR problem numbnuts,
BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T MEANT TO BE PACKMULES

So why are you STILL bitching about them not being such other than to keep griping? Stealing from them is a moot point unless you're intending them to be packmules.

The Dark Ages are not a parallel to the Nuclear Apocolypse. At least during the Dark Ages people still had arable land.

/me backhands Bradylama with a history book.

Get back to school. Also, given that most of what a farmer made in the Dark Ages was taken by thieves and the local lord, I really wonder what difference it is compared to say...the farmers in Shady Sands and other locations. People DID have farms in Fallout, else how would the brahmin feed?

Speaking of raiders, they were quite common in the Dark Ages, and the peasants had nobody to go to. Just like in the post-apocalyptic world. They were between those that exploited them and the raiders, more times than not.

Well I never mentioned the stealing part.

Liar.

I didn't like doing that because it felt like I was exploiting a bug. So I didn't.

So then why are you bitching about how tedius it was, unless you did so? Otherwise, as you claimed it was like an exploitation of the system, it wouldn't have been a question.

You can't reinvent what you said, sorry.

Let's not forget the origin of this tangent resulted from your quote below:

Being the leader, you shouldn't have to barter back for items that you gave them to use. Giving them powerful weapons is assuming the premise that you're going to take them back and sell them in order to acquire more powerful weapons for the NPC to use.

Hence proving that you had little understanding of why they were constructed the way they were, and you've just contradicted yourself again, especially with the lie you gave above.

And who was the Vault Dweller, initially? NOBODY.

*sigh*

The Vault Dweller is an empty shell. That shell is filled by the player, as the Vault Dweller becomes the player. The entire outcome of the game, and how the game progresses depends on the moral and practical decisions of the player, therefore, its not a huge stretch of language to consider the Vault Dweller as an avatar. Unless, of course, you used one of the pre-defined characters.

That was a PATHETIC straw man argument.

I'm not pointing that out as an excuse for my assertions. I'm pointing out that social interactions in a virtual environment don't mirror those in the real world. There's no possiblity of situations like Stockholm's Syndrome occuring when you can just disconnect from the game world. Unless, of course, one is an idiot.

Yet another hopelessly pathetic straw man. Using something like that as reasoning against why NPC interactions shouldn't be adhered to, expecially since you really had no personal connection to any of the NPCs in either game except for one that wouldn't leave you after you were married and another you made by wearing a jacket (Your best and only reliable friend was a homicidal dog who thought he was yours.), is frankly quite obtuse as it goes against good NPC design. It is what makes the NPCs in Arcanum different from anything BioWare has done. Command them to kill someone they wouldn't want to and they will refuse to do so. Other aspects of the NPC design weren't too good, but overall they behaved in regards to you and your relationship involving them.

Again, this still stems from you weaseling into another tangent in order to dodge out of the obtuse assertion you've made and I've requoted above.

I believe more depth should be given towards the relationship between the NPC and the player, the different permissions, and THEN Charisma should take affect. It makes it then into an uber-stat that would be used exclusively Monty Hauling right through the game. Not a good thing at all for play balance.

As do I. I thought the way the player recruited NPCs in Fallout 2 was a more defined manner of player-NPC relations. The only NPC in Fallout that had a good reason for joining you was Tandy, since I mean, you did save her life.

In Fallout 2 every NPC had a justifiable or identifiable motivation for joining the player. The only one that comes into question is Marcus. I mean, sure you got rid of the anti-mutant/anti-anti-mutants conspiracies, but does that mean that his job as a Sherrif is fulfilled? After you do recruit them, though, the relations practically stop, and you attach yourself to your NPCs based on their skills in combat or their ability to make up for your own skill inadequacies.

How the hell does this have anything to what I said previously? I included that so you could see it again for yourself. I wasn't talking about interaction of that kind. Or you can save yourself the trouble of having to cook up another few tangents and straw man arguments and just stop.

There is one correction, I forgot to include one very important line, but that's okay, you weren't even in the same discussion.

I believe more depth should be given towards the relationship between the NPC and the player, the different permissions, and THEN Charisma should take affect. CHA should NOT let you do everything for everyone, as some would be vehement about their "personal space", so to speak. If it were to the point of allowing you to get even the most stubborn person to follow your orders, it does at that point remove the differences from the characters in that regard. It makes CHA then into an uber-stat that would be used exclusively Monty Hauling right through the game. Not a good thing at all for play balance.

Having played JA2 and other real tactical games, I find the burst mode to be not much of a problem. In fact, my first move is to move to the rear of the party and snipe over shoulders. Or, I'll take a route to the enemy as a melee character that isn't (gasp) in the line of fire. Silly concept, I know. APTYP and the others wonder what your problem in understanding that comes from.

Because in a game that doesn't let you control other party members in combat, forcing the player to use single-shot weapons limits the roleplaying options.

EDIT: Yes, that has nothing to do with being tactically impractible. But it's still a bitch to be placed in the wrong place at the wrong time during a random encounter and getting ventillated by Ian.

I think we've already pointed out the solution to your problem, at which you'll just Copy->Paste your previous reply almost verbatim and without regard to the counter-point. If you're just going to repost the same vacuous straw man arguments, I can Vat them.

Frog:

Where was Doc Morbid? Where did he sell his "product"? How was Shady Sands, Vault City, and NCR founded?

About the only idyllic places that existed and where people had morals (other than keeping a mercenous watch upon the city) were the ones that originated from Vaults. I doubt I would be in err to suggest that you completely forgot about that. The only remnants of civilization are those safely bottled up to survive the destruction and open up later. The rest of the world was quite unforgiving by that point.

That is, again, the point of a post-apocalyptic setting.

Then there's the semantic straw man about "real world" that I will now address. If you're going to have a post-apocalyptic setting, but believe that people are going to be nice-nice out in middle of a wasteland, what's the point of calling it a post-apocalyptic setting? It should be common sense that the people would be just as dog-eat-dog as any other dire situation that they've had to endure FOR YEARS. When did the bombs drop? When did Fallout take place? How long is the difference? That's quite a bit of time for people to drop the naive assumptions that people are going to be a friendly neighbor and have their best interests at heart. Chances are, if someone is living at an oasis, some bandits are going to be looking to take it from them in turn.

Are you aware of the history of the Middle East and the kind of people who live there? I'm not saying this as some prejudice, but some of the desert dwellers have a very staunch look on life. A very practical one given their way of life and the Real Bandits living in the area.

 

[Jay]

From experience only in FO1, I have different problems with the NPC's. The first is getting them to hold still.

"Tycho, you are almost dead. I want to give you a stimpac/use first aid/ set your broken arm."

"Thanks, PC. Just chase me halfway across the screen first."

The second is the limited amount of dialog. I can think of a few good additions like "Ian on left flank. Tycho on the right."

The third is armor. "Here you go Ian, I got you a suit of combat armor. It's a lot better than that leather jacket."

"Thanks, PC, I will carry it around. Need some extra stuff in my pack when Tandi shoots me in the back. You don't think I'm gonna give up this cool leather jacket, do you? Aaaaaaaay!"

Jay

 

[PsychoSniper]

From experience only in FO1, I have different problems with the NPC's. The first is getting them to hold still.

"Tycho, you are almost dead. I want to give you a stimpac/use first aid/ set your broken arm."

"Thanks, PC. Just chase me halfway across the screen first."

I think that's a player issue, not a game one.

The second is the limited amount of dialog. I can think of a few good additions like "Ian on left flank. Tycho on the right."

Last I checked, there was no real way for the game to implement that without radicly altering the engine.

The third is armor. "Here you go Ian, I got you a suit of combat armor. It's a lot better than that leather jacket."

"Thanks, PC, I will carry it around. Need some extra stuff in my pack when Tandi shoots me in the back. You don't think I'm gonna give up this cool leather jacket, do you? Aaaaaaaay!"

That problem was fixed in the upgrade to the engine in FO2.

 

[Jay]

I have not played FO2 at all, I'm not about to spend $70 on the game and I have not been able to find one of those sweet deals I keep reading about on the boards. Most of the time, when I ask about FO, I get blank looks and a mumbled "Yo, old dude, those games are, like, ancient! You been in deep freeze or doing hard time? Might as well ask for Asteroids or sumptin."

But on the topic of "clunky" and problems with the interface...I had to pick up everything from trial-and-error (no book & didn't research it before playing). There was a lot of error in my trial, but I liked it anyway. I thought that it made FO a lot more fun than the "Diablo" games, and a lot more interesting.

Jay

 

[Frog]

Roshambo:

Obviously we didn't understand each others.
So I finally realised it. You concider dog-eat-dog as you say it a part of Fallout's post apoc setting. And it seems all the time you were refering to the, I'll quote myself

to talk about setting is to ... well, not forget, but making compromise ( to certain point where setting stops being setting ) with reality.

part.
Since you concider it as a part of the setting there is nothing to say about it. And, no, I don't say it's wrong or good. It's your point of view that i respect.

But again, it's hard to expect one can convince them all to his point of view.


But just to be clear. I didn't meant nice-nice approach where you meet some stranger in destert and greets him with tea and cookies. You blast him with weapon quickly thrawed at you by your mates ( to increase firepower ) and then you give them ( the mates that is ) a stim to heal wounds because you'd have no use of their corpses in the middle of a desert.




And again, back to the topic.
As Jay said, it was quite tricky to control npcs that followed player. But I think it's more AI issude. Well, the better AI is, the less players control it needs. Of course it would be cool to interact with npcs ( like giving them commands ) but it's separate thing form them being unable to properly react to changing tactical situation ( being annoying stupid ).





Edit: hmm, forum just said I'm stupid because I used "cuz" instead of because. Oh well, fixed.

 

[Bradylama]

That's YOUR problem numbnuts,

NO SHIT!?

See, this entire discussion is based around conflicting matters of opinion.

I THINK ITS A PAIN IN THE ASS. Just like you think that it isn't.

/me backhands Bradylama with a history book.

Get back to school. Also, given that most of what a farmer made in the Dark Ages was taken by thieves and the local lord, I really wonder what difference it is compared to say...the farmers in Shady Sands and other locations. People DID have farms in Fallout, else how would the brahmin feed?

Speaking of raiders, they were quite common in the Dark Ages, and the peasants had nobody to go to. Just like in the post-apocalyptic world. They were between those that exploited them and the raiders, more times than not.

Comparing the amount of arable land in the Wastes to that in Europe is a joke.

The Dark Ages also had one source of Order in the form of the church. In fact, if it hadn't have been for the Dark Ages the church wouldn't have been able to consolidate its power in the Feudal System.

Liar.

Where in that post did I mention stealing from NPCs?

So then why are you bitching about how tedius it was, unless you did so? Otherwise, as you claimed it was like an exploitation of the system, it wouldn't have been a question.

You can't reinvent what you said, sorry.

Let's not forget the origin of this tangent resulted from your quote below:

Hence proving that you had little understanding of why they were constructed the way they were, and you've just contradicted yourself again, especially with the lie you gave above.

I have a perfectly fine understanding of why they were designed that way. I came to the conclusion that the NPCs were designed with the intent of enhancing the dog-eat-dog world of the post apocalypse a long time ago. I JUST DON'T LIKE IT.

Again. Where did I mention stealing from the NPCs?

That was a PATHETIC straw man argument.

Then if it was so pathetic it shouldn't be that hard to pick it apart now, shouldn't it?

You talk big without talking objectively.

[qutoe]Using something like that as reasoning against why NPC interactions shouldn't be adhered to, expecially since you really had no personal connection to any of the NPCs in either game except for one that wouldn't leave you after you were married and another you made by wearing a jacket (Your best and only reliable friend was a homicidal dog who thought he was yours.), is frankly quite obtuse as it goes against good NPC design.[/quote]

I never said that's why they shouldn't. I was trying to point out that a game set in a virtual environment is going to mirror virtual social interactions. Which are, obviously, not going to mirror those in the real world. I'm trying to tell you that it's a BAD EXAMPLE.

How the hell does this have anything to what I said previously? I included that so you could see it again for yourself. I wasn't talking about interaction of that kind. Or you can save yourself the trouble of having to cook up another few tangents and straw man arguments and just stop.

How you recruit the NPCs can affect the relationship between the NPCs and the Player. Why are you bitching about that? I said myself that it stopped short.

 

[Claw]

Comparing the amount of arable land in the Wastes to that in Europe is a joke.

I agree, why did you bring it up in the first place?

Then if it was so pathetic it shouldn't be that hard to pick it apart now, shouldn't it?

Well, duh. Mabye he just didn't want to honour it with an answer. You are talking about an avatar in a technical sense, Rosh was talking about the Avatar, legendary hero and saviour, and besides travelling with his old friends, not strangers.

At the end of the day, it's a question of mechanics. The ability to directly control a party is nothing more than a makeshift solution for the lack of actual people to play with.
There can be no doubt that it was never meant to be the alpha and omega of crpgs. In every generation there are new attempts to give the companions more personality and independence with varying success.

 

[Briosafreak]

This is getting better than the legendary miniguns thread in the old NMA, if you guys can keep the heavy artillery down for awhile it may be the most productive Fallout theory topic for some time.

 

[Bradylama]

I agree, why did you bring it up in the first place?

The amount of arable land in Europe made it easier for a large number of communities to develop around a food source. There was some sense of civilization even considering all the dangers at the time.

In Fallout, Civilization is practically non-existant. The members of Shady Sands were increadibly fortunate to find land that they could use for farming. Shady Sands, the Hub, and the settlements in Los Angeles established themselves around what little crops they could grow. Its not so much the presence of civilization that's the problem, its the overall lack of it. The Wastes aren't comparable to the Dark Ages because the situation is far more desperate. The Europeans didn't have to deal with radiation poisoning either, which adds a whole new dimension to the establishment of wasteland communities.

Well, duh. Mabye he just didn't want to honour it with an answer. You are talking about an avatar in a technical sense, Rosh was talking about the Avatar, legendary hero and saviour, and besides travelling with his old friends, not strangers.

I know he's talking about the Ultima Avatar. I still don't understand the big deal of referring to the Vault Dweller as an avatar when he's not the Ultima Avatar.

 

[Claw]

In Fallout, Civilization is practically non-existant. (...)

Strangely, everything you are saying now seems to support Roshambo's point, not yours. You are aware that general opinion is that the Dark Ages were bad, right? Fallout is worse.

Regarding the NPCs behaviour, actually I have seen examples of such in reality, and I think it's actually quite prominent in movies. The hero gives something to some shady character who tags along for some reason, and then has to demand it back.
Allright, that is somewhat overinterpreting the NPCs. They were an afterthought, they are NPCs more than companions, and when you give them something - you are bartering. It's a hack, but it suits the theme, so it's pointless to argue.
I'd like to see a new Fallout build on that rather than move on to a traditional party.

I know he's talking about the Ultima Avatar. I still don't understand the big deal of referring to the Vault Dweller as an avatar when he's not the Ultima Avatar.

You aren't serious, are you? That wasn't the point.

 

[Bradylama]

Regarding the NPCs behaviour, actually I have seen examples of such in reality, and I think it's actually quite prominent in movies. The hero gives something to some shady character who tags along for some reason, and then has to demand it back.
Allright, that is somewhat overinterpreting the NPCs. They were an afterthought, they are NPCs more than companions, and when you give them something - you are bartering. It's a hack, but it suits the theme, so it's pointless to argue.
I'd like to see a new Fallout build on that rather than move on to a traditional party.

Fair enough.

You aren't serious, are you? That wasn't the point.

Then what was the point? That whenever someone refers to an avatar it has to be based on Richard Garriot's avatar? That's never what I said, and I don't see what the big deal is.

Though, I do see how mentioning the Vault Dweller as an avatar is besides the point. In fact, I don't remember why I did that.