Retrolook at Fallout

[Frog]

I just thought about fallout's nps ( I'm referring only to characters that may join with player ), the debate about stealing from them and so on.
Well, I realise they're not supposed to be packmules but independent npcs and on the other hand I am aware of inconvenience with fallout npcs.
As I heard npcs that may join player were not in original plans and were added .... shall I say, ad hoc, thus their AI and interaction with player sucks. So they failed to be "good" ( well, I used "good" word for short. I mean all relationship, AI, setting, design stuff that makes npc independent being that properly plays its role in game ) npcs which pretty much turned them into fighting packmules. But again, they were not designed as a packmules, so they suck in this role as well. In other words they try to be too many things at once and are good at nothing.
seeing this, I'm not surprised people may complain about lack of proper interface to exchange goods, not trade them. It would be far more simple to make npcs a good packmules then a good npcs afterall.
While setting up a proper exchange interface could shallowed the mood, setting, whatever you call it, and if we consider actual stealing form companions as a part of interface this would make overall interface less clunky.
On the other hand working on a npcs AI, ways of interactions with player and wasteland ( as an environment and other npcs that don't follow player ) would make game more deep ..... and well, people wont argue about "steeling form npcs" stuff now.
While I'm not a programmer, using my limited knowledge I can say it's far easier to make exchange window I mentioned before then improve npcs behavior. I don't see the reason to blame people that are not satisfied from npcs ( which are far from being perfect as I said ).
Sure, player can pretend that npc companions are good ones ( well, games are not real, it's mostly about pretending anyways ) but in fact player would only cheat him/herself this way. It would be idealising a thing that is not even any good, not to mention being ideal.
While having realistic well made npcs would be the best option, having dumb bots pretending to be fair npcs is not in my opinion second best choice. Second best choice ( it's not good, it's just less bad I'd say ) would be having well made packmules and only after that would be actual npcs from fallout.
And, no, I'm not complaining about it or trying to force anyone to agree with me, I'm only judging it and share my opinion. I see it's hot spot of discussion so I thought I'd bring some new point of view to it.

 

[Roshambo]

That's YOUR problem numbnuts,

NO SHIT!?

So why are we discussing the problem as if it has any relation to the game and not yourself, as you admit?

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

Hey, I think having to level up is a pain in the ass. If it chafes your ass so much to be bothered about exploiting an aspect of the NPCs, that is YOUR FAULT. IT IS THEREFORE IRRELEVANT TO THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE GAME.

The stealing topic is no more.

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

Well, considering much of Europe's fields were also razed and burned as part of routine national wars and warring fiefdoms, the serfs also went hungry routinely while the rich were easily able to eat. A theme common with both the Dark Ages and the post-apocalyptic world.

Did you seriously think I hadn't thought about the parallel in-depth before I made it?

The Dark Ages also had one source of Order in the form of the church.

HAHAHAHAHAHA!

Go back to school, kid. Holy shit, I don't know where to start with that uneducated drivel.

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.

Mainly because only until later the church was able to do any uniting, but at the core of the Dark Ages, the church was NOTHING, and often an excuse to treat peasants poorly (who cannot read on their own, kept illiterate on purpose). The church often became heavily influenced by the local government (naturally), but in such a state it was even worse. I could also point out the changes with the official religion/church of England could also be a good lesson, but I'm afraid it would be wasted.

In regards to a wasteland and the life of most people (and rich people would be like Gizmo), the environment wouldn't be much different from the Dark Ages. The rich landowners would still have hold over those less fortunate and less powerful.

And in lieu of guns, their manner of control was often religion.

You make this far too easy.

Liar.

Where in that post did I mention stealing from NPCs?

That's it. You're done in this topic. You have absolutely no ability to understand context, much less what you have written yourself. Frankly, at this point, you're either fumbling around by reflex or looking for the attention.

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?

Hello, apparently you don't remember what you've written previously in this thread. If you can't be bothered to remember, don't bother continuing.

And, if it's a personal issue, then that's your problem, again, and not particularly relevant to the issue.

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.

Anyone with any ability to read would easily see that what you replied with had jack shit to do with what I wrote. I wasn't going to get diverted by your pathetic dodge. Don't bother trying to fix it, I'd hate to see what kind of new sleazy dodges you'll cook up. I know it must be a disappointment that nobody jumped onto your cooked-up line involving Troika, given the other involvement of yours in this thread.

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.

I think the main problem you have is that you have difficulty understanding a hypothetical situation.

How would people act in the post-apocalyptic wasteland?
What would they do to survive?
How would they go about getting it?

Those are real-world considerations, especially given any context of disaster. People tend to behave in regular patterns given their stimulus. Psychology 101.

Of course, I could point out the irony in mentioning that it would be silly to have people that didn't treat the post-apocalyptic world like a post-apocalyptic world in the post-apocalyptic world and have post-apocalyptic world problems. It's a funny concern I have with the setting, I know, but it is an important consideration in design.

 

[Briosafreak]

Speaking of retrolook just take a look at this site

http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/news_events/exhibits/futuristics/index.html

 

[Frog]

Beauty site you mentioned Briosafreak. Great source of cool pics. It's shame this site works so slow.

 

[Briosafreak]

You`ll love this one then
http://www.forevervintage.com/links.html

 

[Frog]

Erm . . . , Site itself kinda lacks resources and it's mainly pics that I'm after.
But thanks, maybe I'll work out something from that site's links list.

 

[Briosafreak]

I was talking about the girls of course

The links are indeed cool

 

[BlueNinja]

by Roshambo -
How would people act in the post-apocalyptic wasteland?
What would they do to survive?
How would they go about getting it?

Those are real-world considerations, especially given any context of disaster. People tend to behave in regular patterns given their stimulus.

Rosh, from reading this thread, I have a feeling you've never read Lucifer's Hammer by Larry Niven. It's post-apoc, though set right at the time when civilization goes bye-bye, and maybe the author just has a sunnier disposition than you do, but the characters co-operate quite a bit more, at least inside their little enclave, than you seem to think Fallout-universe party-NPCs should.

I mean, picture the exchange here:

Leader: "Here, take this, you need it."
*two days later*
Leader: "Ok, I need that back now."
Follower: "Fuck you, I'm keeping it."
*two more days later*
Follower: "Help, I need that!"
Leader: "Fuck you, I'm keeping it."

Both of them are guaranteed to end up dead, sooner rather than later, because they're being short-sighted and overly selfish.

That being said, however, using your NPCs as packmules is a bit ridiculous, but so if having to barter or steal for every little damn thing you give them. An option to have them return items to you, or perhaps give you an automatic coupon when bartering, would have been somewhat more realistic. YMMV.

 

[Roshambo]

(Snip)

You know, I love it when people trot out this kind of garbage as some kind of argument. It is easily dismissed by observing the simple fact that we are talking about Fallout, not a comet impact-induced post-apocalyptic universe. Fallout was designed to be (as noted before a number of times) a setting where life was cheap, brutal, and hard to survive in. That is why GURPS was pulled.

Let's also think about this. One setting was the result of a NUCLEAR FUCKING WAR. The other was the result of a comet impact. It doesn't take too much of an imagination to see which one would inherently breed a feeling of more distrust, especially when the descendents of enemy troops are on what used to be US soil, among a lot of increased military stationing at important facilities in preparation for the Great War. It doesn't take much to see which one would force humankind to want to band together, for the good of the species.

When humanity is ready to waste the planet for politics, then it doesn't take too much writing ability to see that naturally the setting should follow suit AFTER the result of the politics unless the writer is trying for irony that all of the world's ills are cured by the bomb. Fallout did not (but showed how you can live with the bomb in certain ways by "curing" some problems), and kept the universe brutal, with some "decent" places that need help or else they're helpless (most of those with double-plus happy dispositions originate from the Vaults). They are often unwilling to use the same measures as those who become stronger than them and suffer because of it and hence need a powerful "champion" (or perhaps villain).

People are only worth what they own, because in the wasteland "Life is Precious" just means whomever believes in it is rather stupid and a miracle they weren't preyed on beforehand. I thought I had made it a bit clear about the setting before, but I could be mistaken.

Sorry, but your interjection into this with your irrelevant garbage was exceedingly pointless and a waste of time to anyone who really did read the thread.

And seriously, if you have problems surviving with what you yourself can carry, then in the immortal words of Sulik:

"Most people have evil spirits. You, you have stupid spirits. Go see shaman. Get hole in head. Very big. HUGE!"

I hate it when the mongoloid children point at another title in the genre as a comparison and make grunting noises as if they have any relevance to each other. As I've noted before, there's a LOT of post-apocalyptic settings, constructed their own way for their own purpose.

That being said, however, using your NPCs as packmules is a bit ridiculous, but so if having to barter or steal for every little damn thing you give them. An option to have them return items to you, or perhaps give you an automatic coupon when bartering, would have been somewhat more realistic. YMMV.

I've already answered this.

You're done in this thread, too.

 

[Frog]

Roshambo, I think I know where is the problem.
You keep saying such dog eat dog relations are part of the setting and are must have for the fallouts. You tried to explain this using arguments based on ..... let's say .... reality-as-far-as-setting-allows-it. But I guess at beggining you failed to mark it clear enough that whole discussion is still capped by setting. So people ( including me ... till you made things more clear ) started pulling arguments without concidering that fact. All arguments were quite justified .... as arguments ..... but irrelevant from your point of view.
I don't know if it was others that didn't get your ideas or you that were not clear enough. But when there is even slight chance it's the second case, flaming others for their lack of understanding isn't good move as it wont help and may even make your speakers take even more oposite statements.
As I mentioned in previous posts setting is a compromise with reality and include things that ( in ones opinion ) has to be implemented to keep setting true. Sometimes such things hard to be discussed because of multiple opinions ( that all may be justified ).
Then simple stating that - a certain thing is a part of particular setting and it cannot be otherwise - is better than using argumentaion that is easy to counter-argumented and that may wont hold too long when concidered more deeply.

 

[Roshambo]

Frog, to sum up the typed tapdancing, you're trying to excuse the lack of observance to context by yourself and others. In a very weak way.

So of course I'm discussing in regards to Fallout's setting. Of course I'm referring to how this works in Fallout's setting, probably because I'm discussing Fallout's NPCs. What WOULD I be discussing in regards to? Buck Rogers?!

Gah, dealing with the hopelessly retarded is taking up too much of my time... It's not MY fault you and others have a problem with context.

 

[Bradylama]

Not understanding what Rosh says has less to do with his inability to clarify his position, and more to do with his status as a failure of a human being.

Its generally difficult to yield any points to an insufferable jackass.

 

[Claw]

At least you managed to not come across as aggravatingly immature or anything.

 

[Frog]

So of course I'm discussing in regards to Fallout's setting. Of course I'm referring to how this works in Fallout's setting, probably because I'm discussing Fallout's NPCs. What WOULD I be discussing in regards to? Buck Rogers?!

What would you be discussing in regards to? Hmm, let's see . . .

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.

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.

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, considering much of Europe's fields were also razed and burned as part of routine national wars and warring fiefdoms, the serfs also went hungry routinely while the rich were easily able to eat.

I think the main problem you have is that you have difficulty understanding a hypothetical situation.

How would people act in the post-apocalyptic wasteland?
What would they do to survive?
How would they go about getting it?

Those are real-world considerations, especially given any context of disaster. People tend to behave in regular patterns given their stimulus. Psychology 101.

You bring arguments regarding history, reality and human behavior.
While historical examples might have something in common with post apoc world, human behavior in your edition is just pure fantasy based on wishful thinking and stretched to what you would like to see in fallout setting. You tried to justify your setting likes with such argumentation. But those things could not do it because such aspects of setting are not matter of reason but matter of tastes .... to quote you again

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.

So yeah, you finally said that. It's likes and dislikes !
But then again ... what were you talking about before ? Wasn't it Buck Rogers afterall ?

If you bring arguments it's natural others will state their minds to it. When you build your argumentation line in a wrong way, don't be pissed it wont hold.
And if you decide to participate in discussion it's up to you if you will be understood by others, even if this means lowering your form of expression to the level of your audience's understanding ability ..... if your point of participating is showing your opinion to others, that is. And if you don't care about that, why posting in a first place ?




And speaking in general, I don't see the reason why you people can't keep things civil here. While it's somewhat entertaining watching you throwing curses on each others this brings nothing new and only spoils atmosphere here.

 

[Roshambo]

@Bradylama: Maybe if you weren't such a lying cocksucker, I might have more respect for you. Do you seriously think those lies will fly when the proof is in the SAME FUCKING THREAD? Wake up, kid.

Now, onto debunking more waffling:

(Snip one fucking huge straw man argument.)

You bring arguments regarding history, reality and human behavior.

Funny that people would expect people in a dark, life-is-cheap setting to actually ACT like they are. It's that whole important part of "writing" and "NPC design". Perhaps the people in Fallout aren't acting like the fine folks in Cherry 2000, but guess what? Fallout isn't Cherry 2000 either, nor is it in the same style as Cherry 2000 was presented in a very corny manner. Corny worked for FOS and I hope you saw the reception of that. Fallout was designed in a life-is-cheap setting, especially when in the first people were sold as food and in the second people were hunted for slavery.

I know that doesn't mean much to you since you don't have a damn clue enough to be concerned with that aspect and you really don't care. The ostrich logic around here by newbies is pretty fucking amazing and quite annoying. If you can't see it or if you aren't aware of it, it doesn't exist. Turn on the snivel machine when that ignorance is pointed out.

While historical examples might have something in common with post apoc world, human behavior in your edition is just pure fantasy based on wishful thinking and stretched to what you would like to see in fallout setting.

No, I am going by what is IN THE FALLOUT SETTING.

Brilliant fucking concept, isn't it, kid?

You tried to justify your setting likes with such argumentation. But those things could not do it because such aspects of setting are not matter of reason but matter of tastes

No, they are a matter of ]design. Something you and the the other hopeless idiot have fumbled around with no clue about. Your vacuous "logic" could also be used to rationalize everything Interplay has dreamed of raping the setting, including to the undoubted setting rape of Fallout Online and especially the butchery of FOS.

So yeah, you finally said that. It's likes and dislikes !
But then again ... what were you talking about before ?

Another straw man argument. Whether people liked Fallout 1 having a darker feel to the universe, that still doesn't remove the fact that life is cheap in the Fallout universe. This isn't a matter of opinion but one of observing Fallout's design, so why are you harping on "opinion" like some inbred chimp? So you can see words appear on the screen?

If you bring arguments it's natural others will state their minds to it. When you build your argumentation line in a wrong way, don't be pissed it wont hold.
...
And speaking in general, I don't see the reason why you people can't keep things civil here. While it's somewhat entertaining watching you throwing curses on each others this brings nothing new and only spoils atmosphere here.

IRONY! Read your own words a few times.

And if you decide to participate in discussion it's up to you if you will be understood by others, even if this means lowering your form of expression to the level of your audience's understanding ability ..... if your point of participating is showing your opinion to others, that is. And if you don't care about that, why posting in a first place ?

I'm not going to educate you and every other bumbling moron that manages to both find this site and do the Infinite Monkeys thing with the registration form until they stumble upon the winning combination of text by accident. It is not my fault that others are coming into the discussion without having read it, having educated themselves about the subject, and then they come up with some hopeless pipe-dream of design critique delivered in jean cream form, and then complain when it's debunked. It is not my fault someone is having the rude awakening of the simple fact that their opinion of the matter doesn't mean a damn thing when the evidence doesn't agree with them.

If someone is going to stumble into the discussion without a clue, then what they get is pretty much what they deserve. What kind of idiot goes into a discussion or debate without even the slightest idea of the subject? For fuck's sake, people, wake up and act as if you have a brain. If you can't, this thread is locked, because I'm tired of the kiddy martyr games and pity parties. Take it elsewhere.

 

[Bradylama]

@Bradylama: Maybe if you weren't such a lying cocksucker, I might have more respect for you. Do you seriously think those lies will fly when the proof is in the SAME FUCKING THREAD? Wake up, kid.

Maybe you weren't paying attention to the part when I said that items you acquired should be considered your own property. According to that train of thought taking back things you gave the NPC wouldn't be considered stealing.

At the worst, I made a mistake, but I'm no liar. If I didn't think I was talking about stealing, how could I have been lying?

 

[Frog]

Alright Roshambo, it's design then ... just switch likes parts with design thing at my previus post and you have my answer.
You still try to justify ... design which can't be justified in a way you tried it. It's like this ( design I mean ) because it looks cool ( and I'm not saying it's not cool or I don't like it. it's just something that can't be judged by reason or it will break apart, loose the mood ), not because of naive arguments you used. If you pull out such arguments just to stretch them to your wishfull thinking then why you're so surprised others replyed to them in negative manner ?
And why you're so agresive ? You're out of your naive arguments to stretch or you just behave like pissed child because you can't stand someone just disagreed with you . . . kid ?

 

[Bradylama]

What exactly is it about Rosh's statements that make them wishful thinking?

 

[Roshambo]

Maybe you weren't paying attention to the part when I said that items you acquired should be considered your own property. According to that train of thought taking back things you gave the NPC wouldn't be considered stealing.

You traded the items to the NPCs for nothing in return. Then you bitch because you have to steal them back. Well, if you have such a problem getting the items back, don't trade them for nothing. That's the point. I have already pointed out that the NPCs in both games don't have much of a reason to follow you other than to repay you or follow you to see what happens. Even so, they don't really demand a damn thing. I suppose considering someone to be worth what they are carrying is great for the wasteland setting of Fallout (and we can't really ignore that is how the setting is in most places outside of Vault dweller influence), but it doesn't quite fit into the munchkinish ideals of some kids. The extra inventory space with the vehicles isn't enough, they need mobile carts walking along with them. Now only if they could find the button to instantly win the game.

After a mix of explaining what the NPCs were meant to be, how the wasteland environment OF FALLOUT (I have to keep that point painfully clear for you to keep it in mind) and how you were expecting them to be packmules, you STILL didn't get it. Then you try to come up with lies about how you weren't talking about stealing. This is on top of me explaining why Fallout's universe is how it is for which reasons. The point of many generations living without a central govt and in a wasteland caused by nuclear war...well, I can easily imagine you kids have no idea of what that could mean. Try to explore the world outside of your parents' basement and join in some social interaction, please.

At the worst, I made a mistake, but I'm no liar. If I didn't think I was talking about stealing, how could I have been lying?

Tedius only applies to the NPC inventory system only if you're trying to use them as packmules. You, in fact, said it was tedius and that you didn't do it. Stealing was pretty much the only tedius way about getting the items back from the NPC. Therefore, if not explicitly discussing stealing, you were talking about the mechanics of "getting your items back" as tedius.

Want be to bust your bullshit even further, or are you finished covering up your lies with further lies?

Alright Roshambo, it's design then ... just switch likes parts with design thing at my previus post and you have my answer.

It doesn't quite work that way. Your ignorance is still quite present.

You still try to justify ... design which can't be justified in a way you tried it.

Really? In how it is according to the setting? Seriously, do you know the setting, or are you just bullshitting around? Do you have a clue as to why series are made/broken, or are you one of the reasons why the game market is going to shit and buy anything with a name on it, regardless of the game?

It's like this ( design I mean ) because it looks cool ( and I'm not saying it's not cool or I don't like it. it's just something that can't be judged by reason or it will break apart, loose the mood ), not because of naive arguments you used.

It's amusing that you use "naive".

If you pull out such arguments just to stretch them to your wishfull thinking then why you're so surprised others replyed to them in negative manner ?

I was explaining why the mechanics worked the way they did and why it is asinine to expect what amounts to an exploit to be more easy because Twinkerbell there is a drooling incompetent and bitches about the inconvenient, but then claims it is like exploiting a bug so didn't use it, but then keeps bitching because it's tedius.

And why you're so agresive ? You're out of your naive arguments to stretch or you just behave like pissed child because you can't stand someone just disagreed with you . . . kid ?

How are my arguments naive when I'm the one who has been citing canon and setting design as reference? I've also been pointing out the important aspects of Fallout's setting, in how the inhabitants treat each other and the PC, which is an important factor to consider. Making a game is much like writing a book. In many ways, it is much more difficult since you have to allow for human interaction while still maintaining the presence of other entities in the story and make them come to life in turn. If the book reads like shit, or the characters feel dead or out of place, guess what? People won't like it. There was another major reason why people didn't like Lionheart besides the engine.

Since you're going to continue acting as if you reproduce like the common flatworm, this thread will probably be locked soon.

 

[Bradylama]

Stealing was pretty much the only tedius way about getting the items back from the NPC.

Stealing items back from the NPC wasn't tedious at all, as the NPCs didn't react negatively if they caught you. In fact, I don't remember them even catching me at all. That's why I said it felt like I was exploiting a bug.

What was tedious was finding enough items of value that you could carry in order to trade for your items back. That was tedious.

Are you saying that you were supposed to steal your items back?