So which does NMA think is more important: worldbuilding or the overall experience?

[TheHouseAlwaysWins]

I notice a thing classic Fallout fans have against the modern Fallout is the plotholes present in Fallout 4 and 3, to the point where some fans list it as a valid reason to dislike mods if they offer up a decent experience but are not rock solid with the worldbuilding of Fallout 1 and 2.

There is this battle of the thoughts going around where in the film industry, in the 70's and 80's people would judge movies based on the overall experience of the film as a whole and how it resonates with the audiences, the characters evolving and changing based on their experience, and how it was thematically consistent as an art piece. However, a lot of judgement now based on what I've heard seems to based on things that are pretty secondary like how much worldbuilding there is regardless if its relevant to the overall plot or experience, easter eggs, and whether or not there are plot holes.


So what does NMA think is more important? The overall experience of a Fallout title or how much worldbuild there is? If a different company owned Fallout and made a game that gave a good experience but wasn't 100% consistent with the worldbuilding made in games from over 2 decades ago would you have an issue?

 

[PlanHex]

These aren't really opposites or anything.
If there's lots of world-building but it's all stupid and makes you go "wtf this makes no sense" every other second, then that clearly has a negative effect on the overall experience.

 

[Norzan]

You're comparing movies with games, which have some different priorities. World building in open world games has to be a top priority because like PlanHex said, if you are questioning the world constantly it starts to make the experience worse.

This is why some people here criticize Fallout 3 and 4 world building. It makes some people questions several times during the game how this world is even alive. This is exarcebated by the fact that human survival is one of the narrative points of these games and questioning how these people are even alive in the first place clashes with the human survival aspect.

 

[Einhanderc7]

I can understand the quandary submitted by @TheHouseAlwaysWins however the two (world building & experience) are not mutually exclusive.

Video games are a bizarre amalgamation of elements that incorporate aspects from filmography, narrative writing, rules of play (Like a non video game), and interactivity. The two core elements here are the rules of play and interactivity, all others are not required.

Experience, I think is both a poor rationalization. In this context it does not apply as experience is subjective to the individual interacting with the content. Then there's world building that encompasses a great deal such as visual aesthetics, narrative, plots/subplots, characters, events, history, etc...

In this case comparing experience which is a non descriptive subjective term against an objective descriptive term is pointless; as one simply doesn't have any tangible nor rational content to explore.

When determining if a creative work is of value a rational individual would identify as many details as possible, then focus on each attribute one by one to determine the individual worth of each to the overall creative work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consider the following:

Experience is indeed a key component to an individual's perspective, however that person's experience can be influenced by outside factors such as their disposition, mood, preferences, past history, etc...

If one were declare the quality of a game based solely upon their own subjective perspective then there is a significant chance that their perspective is possibly skewed or could be misunderstood by another. Any debate wandering such treacherous waters is destined to devolve into conflict as no subjective view point is of higher or lower value than another person's.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
World Building:

In a creative work such as Fallout world building is a paramount detail inherent to it's design. Without it the player has no context, motivation, conflict, nor any other narrative driven influence to focus their agency upon. Without world building in a role playing game, all characters default to murder hobos wandering around, for example see Fallout 76 a game about being the best murder hobo one could ever be.

Therefore I ask you without world building what would a creative work such as Fallout 1 be to the player experiencing the title for the first time? What context or information could they possibly derive from any given scenario to make informed choices?

World building for a game such as Fallout is a core component, that even if marred slightly damages the overall experience of the content across the board as well irreparably. Imagine if you can playing Fallout 1 without the Great War, residing in a Vault, the Master, or even the Forced Evolutionary Virus.

What kind of experience would a player encounter from blank dialog trees, blank quest lines, and blank characters?

If you took the time to consider my questions above, which I do sincerely hope you do. You would likely come to the conclusion that the experience of playing such a game to be pointless simply because it doesn't have anything for the player to consider.

When it comes to role playing games, the construction of the universe in which the game resides cannot be cheapened lest it suffer the same fate as Fallout 76.

 

[TheHouseAlwaysWins]

I can understand the quandary submitted by @TheHouseAlwaysWins however the two (world building & experience) are not mutually exclusive.

Video games are a bizarre amalgamation of elements that incorporate aspects from filmography, narrative writing, rules of play (Like a non video game), and interactivity. The two core elements here are the rules of play and interactivity, all others are not required.

Experience, I think is both a poor rationalization. In this context it does not apply as experience is subjective to the individual interacting with the content. Then there's world building that encompasses a great deal such as visual aesthetics, narrative, plots/subplots, characters, events, history, etc...

In this case comparing experience which is a non descriptive subjective term against an objective descriptive term is pointless; as one simply doesn't have any tangible nor rational content to explore.

When determining if a creative work is of value a rational individual would identify as many details as possible, then focus on each attribute one by one to determine the individual worth of each to the overall creative work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consider the following:

Experience is indeed a key component to an individual's perspective, however that person's experience can be influenced by outside factors such as their disposition, mood, preferences, past history, etc...

If one were declare the quality of a game based solely upon their own subjective perspective then there is a significant chance that their perspective is possibly skewed or could be misunderstood by another. Any debate wandering such treacherous waters is destined to devolve into conflict as no subjective view point is of higher or lower value than another person's.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
World Building:

In a creative work such as Fallout world building is a paramount detail inherent to it's design. Without it the player has no context, motivation, conflict, nor any other narrative driven influence to focus their agency upon. Without world building in a role playing game, all characters default to murder hobos wandering around, for example see Fallout 76 a game about being the best murder hobo one could ever be.

Therefore I ask you without world building what would a creative work such as Fallout 1 be to the player experiencing the title for the first time? What context or information could they possibly derive from any given scenario to make informed choices?

World building for a game such as Fallout is a core component, that even if marred slightly damages the overall experience of the content across the board as well irreparably. Imagine if you can playing Fallout 1 without the Great War, residing in a Vault, the Master, or even the Forced Evolutionary Virus.

What kind of experience would a player encounter from blank dialog trees, blank quest lines, and blank characters?

If you took the time to consider my questions above, which I do sincerely hope you do. You would likely come to the conclusion that the experience of playing such a game to be pointless simply because it doesn't have anything for the player to consider.

When it comes to role playing games, the construction of the universe in which the game resides cannot be cheapened lest it suffer the same fate as Fallout 76.

I think you misunderstand what I mean by experience. I mean experience as in the whole product and what the plot has to say and in specific how it plays and how the characters interact with each other, their surrounding environment, and how they grow and change overtime in the story

I would consider Fallout 1 a better experience than Fallout 2 because even though the experience borrows a lot from other apocalyptic literature and movies it's much better as an RPG and an experience since the builds and progressions are more balanced, the feel of it is generally superior, and everything is in theme connected to each other.

Fallout 2 has a lot more worldbuilding that is fun to think about and individual great parts but as a whole product it doesn't stand out to Fallout 1.

 

[Risewild]

I think you misunderstand what I mean by experience. I mean experience as in the whole product and what the plot has to say and in specific how it plays and how the characters interact with each other, their surrounding environment, and how they grow and change overtime in the story

Isn't that also part of "world building"? How the characters interact with each other and their surrounding environment.
World building is how the world works, and how the characters in that world function and react to it and vice versa.

 

[TheHouseAlwaysWins]

Isn't that also part of "world building"? How the characters interact with each other and their surrounding environment.
World building is how the world works, and how the characters in that world function and react to it and vice versa.

I am talking about surrounding lore and ideas not the actual experience itself as a whole of Fallout. The Star Wars prequels have a lot of interesting ideas and worldbuilding but the actual movies are terrible especially Attack of the Clones as the writing and acting is awful for it.

 

[Risewild]

I am talking about surrounding lore and ideas not the actual experience itself as a whole of Fallout. The Star Wars prequels have a lot of interesting ideas and worldbuilding but the actual movies are terrible especially Attack of the Clones as the writing and acting is awful for it.

I still don't understand it. Lore and ideas are also part of world building...

 

[naossano]

About consistency, it isn't just about the old games. They are contradicting themselves big time even within a single game.

About contradicting previous games, it only raises my interest a bit (i am past the point of caring at that point), when they contradict major plot-points from previous games, like the Jet, the ghoul need to sustain themselves, the categories of super-mutants (New vegas is to blame there). When, there are minor inconsistencies, they aren't just worth the trouble.

 

[Einhanderc7]

I think you misunderstand what I mean by experience. I mean experience as in the whole product and what the plot has to say and in specific how it plays and how the characters interact with each other, their surrounding environment, and how they grow and change overtime in the story

I would consider Fallout 1 a better experience than Fallout 2 because even though the experience borrows a lot from other apocalyptic literature and movies it's much better as an RPG and an experience since the builds and progressions are more balanced, the feel of it is generally superior, and everything is in theme connected to each other.

Fallout 2 has a lot more worldbuilding that is fun to think about and individual great parts but as a whole product it doesn't stand out to Fallout 1.

I'm quite certain it is you that doesn't understand the nomenclature you have chosen to use.
Perhaps you should read my post again, except more conscientiously.

 

[NMLevesque]

Wholism vs just worldbuilding? uh...that's a bit of a weird comparison. Category vs instance is hard to do.

 

[R.Graves]

The Star Wars prequels have a lot of interesting ideas and worldbuilding

but they dont tho. they have interesting half ideas. why can't the jedi love? we're never told. i assume the character know but becuase there's no protagonist the audience is never told. the clones? you're telling me a republic made of 1000s of planets can't scrounge up a volunteer army?

what even are jedi in the prequels?

in those movies we see them play the following roles.

1. trade and tax negotiators
2. police
3. wierd religous cult
4. detective
5. body guard
6. teacher
7. soldier
8. general


also they have the authority to just commission an army

why did kamino agree to make the army?

why aren't they weird knight bois with lazer swords like in the original trilogy?

where do the separatists get the money for the droids? from the trade federation? why does the trade federation just help siddious? what did he offer them? what could he offer them that they don't already have? it couldn't be money or power because they already have that. and it couldn't be future political favors because that would reveal his identity. how come when they were caught they didn't show the recordings of siddious to lessen their sentence?

what about when the droid army lands on naboo they land way off away from the naboo city and have to cut down a forest to get there now? in fact they landed on the complete opposite side of the planet because the fastest route to the naboo is "through the planet core" what the fuck?
you could say thats just bad writing but all of that affects the believablity of the world and how it functions ie: worldbuiling.

too many people compliment the prequels for no good reason.

 

[Octavian]

Worldbuilding is an important part of the experience in an RPG but its not the most important part. I consider engagement, agency (choice, consequence), and potential for expression through creativity/problem solving to be more important. If I got enough of these, I could excuse plenty of plotholes or "it just works" moments. There's a point where its going too far because it contradicts the themes (think megaton) but if you whine about some shit like why super mutants are on the East coast or what the people at X settlements eat its just autistic.

 

[Norzan]

but if you whine about some shit like why super mutants are on the East coast or what the people at X settlements eat its just autistic.

Not sure if you are serious. Showing where people get their food is not fucking "autistic", it's mandatory for this type of games, because world building is a major part of open world games. You need to show where they get their food because if you don't, you question how they are even alive. It's made worse by the fact that Fallout's story was made around people needing water to survive and then you have places showing where people get their food by showing farms.

Then Fallout 3 just dropped this for no reason and the world building was pretty much non-existant. Even Fallout 4 showed where people get their food like showing farms and animals being herded, meaning they can do this but choose not to. Made even worse by the fact that the entire story of Fallout 3 is how people need water to survive. You can't make your story around how people need to survive but then don't even show how people are currently surviving.

And yes, people should complain about Super Mutants being in the East Coast. It's contrived, nonsensical and it was just more of Bethesda's recycle of stuff from the first two games because they were too lazy to come up with new things for the series.

 

[Einhanderc7]

Worldbuilding is an important part of the experience in an RPG but its not the most important part. I consider engagement, agency (choice, consequence), and potential for expression through creativity/problem solving to be more important. If I got enough of these, I could excuse plenty of plotholes or "it just works" moments. There's a point where its going too far because it contradicts the themes (think megaton) but if you whine about some shit like why super mutants are on the East coast or what the people at X settlements eat its just autistic.

I really don't know how to reply to this. It's like reading a forum post from a kid from middle school more interested in being edgy then actually contributing to a discussion.

World building for role playing games is paramount, it's literally a key feature that determines the dynamics of game play. From what I can tell you are trying to boil role play rules down, but missing the point of what the experience needs to entail to remain dynamic.

This perspective you have is very similar to how Bethesda has been approaching Fallout.

Take a moment to consider this critically, if you can. Without a dynamic world setting, how is there any progress? Game mechanics don't define progress, they define rules of play. Agency doesn't define progress, it defines the illusion of choice.

If a role playing game lacks the required world building, then all you have is an excel sheet with two options. Yes or no. That does not make a role playing game, that's only a binary choice.

 

[NMLevesque]

I prefer it when the lore is expanded, not lazily rewritten. The only way to excuse retcons is either if they're trivial (soda), or genuinely well written (vault 13 being a control vault could have factored into Jacoren's motives).

Supermutants outside of West Tek and Mariposa is contrary to the story of "Fallout". Not only is it explicitly stated that there are only two places where it was studied pre-war, and that success was only achieved in 2077 at a top tier lab (not something crammed into a random vault), but it was absolutely top fucking secret. The idea of abruptly bringing civilians into close proximity with something that restricted is just ludicrous.

 

[Gizmojunk]

The Star Wars prequels have a lot of interesting ideas and worldbuilding but the actual movies are terrible especially Attack of the Clones as the writing and acting is awful for it.

That's just because it's the product of a later generation.

...
If a role playing game lacks the required world building, then all you have is an excel sheet with two options. Yes or no. That does not make a role playing game, that's only a binary choice.

I like the gist [of the post], but in this case, I don't —exactly— agree... Saying Yes & No is precisely what RPG rules & game engines are meant to do. All RPGs evaluate when to say, 'No'; it is what separates the experience from mere "Let's Pretend" fantasy, and curtails the D&D magician PC from conveniently pulling a heard of stampeding Rhinos out of his hat.

One could do a lot with a detailed Excel spreadsheet that stipulated the Yes & No answers to all potential player actions (and their consequences). It doesn't matter as much whether the answer is Yes or No, as it does what happens when the PC succeeds or fails. In this case a binary choice always means taking the path to either the left or the right.

*Yeah, there are more than binary choices in the graphic.

 

[NMLevesque]

That's just because it's the product of a later generation.

I like the gist [of the post], but in this case, I don't —exactly— agree... Saying Yes & No is precisely what RPG rules & game engines are meant to do. All RPGs evaluate when to say, 'No'; it is what separates the experience from mere "Let's Pretend" fantasy, and curtails the D&D magician PC from conveniently pulling a heard of stampeding Rhinos out of his hat.

One could do a lot with a detailed Excel spreadsheet that stipulated the Yes & No answers to all potential player actions (and their consequences). It doesn't matter as much whether the answer is Yes or No, as it does what happens when the PC succeeds or fails. In this case a binary choice always means taking the path to either the left or the right.

*Yeah, there are more than binary choices in the graphic.

Isn't that more like 'this or that' than it is yes or no? I think he meant no would mean not doing something, as opposed to doing another (real) option.

 

[Gizmojunk]

Isn't that more like 'this or that' than it is yes or no? I think he meant no would mean not doing something, as opposed to doing another (real) option.

It still works out in the end. The character either manages to pick the lock or they don't; manages to enter—or they don't... convinces an NPC or cannot. A later binary choice (that becomes possible for having failed) might —or might not— turn into a second chance by another route; or even make the previous success become meaningless.

IE. Someone who tries —and fails— to catch a train, might (because of missing the train) encounter a friend with a car who will give them a ride...or might not. After reaching their destination, there is no need to succeed with catching the train; (not counting the choices on the train (if any), and their unexpected links to later choice & happenings).

Bioware got (and gets?) a lot of flak for multiple paths that lead to the same outcomes regardless. I did not mean to imply that a later binary choice would always ensure success by another means.

 

[NMLevesque]

It still works out in the end. The character either manages to pick the lock or they don't; manages to enter—or they don't... convinces an NPC or cannot. A later binary choice (that becomes possible for having failed) might —or might not— turn into a second chance by another route; or even make the previous success become meaningless.

IE. Someone who tries —and fails— to catch a train, might (because of missing the train) encounter a friend with a car who will give them a ride...or might not. After reaching their destination, there is no need to succeed with catching the train; (not counting the choices on the train (if any), and their unexpected links to later choice & happenings).

Bioware got (and gets?) a lot of flak for multiple paths that lead to the same outcomes regardless. I did not mean to imply that a later binary choice would always ensure success by another means.

That seems shallow to me. What narrative significance is there to catching a train as opposed to happening to get a ride from a friend? The outcome is identical. They could differ though, I'll grant you that, and each could be a distinct playstyle...but that would only lead to cycling through them in a sequence of binary stages...which is a silly way to do what is better accomplished by offering them all at the same juncture. To me, it's archaic; something that was once novel, but is now used to create the illusion of choice/depth. Layered gameplay is just better than endless forks in the road.