The Rhythm of the Quest in Fallout 3 and New Vegas

WorstUsernameEver

WorstUsernameEver

But best title ever!
It seems the way quests were handled in Fallout: New Vegas wasn't appreciated by Rowan Kaiser who, in an editorial over at Joystiq argues that Fallout 3's more exploration-based content had a better "rhythm" than the quest hubs of Obsidian's title. I'll freely admit I'm not sure I follow the train of thought, but here's a snippet:<blockquote>The conventional quest rhythm of the modern RPG started with the original Fallout, back in 1997, as so many things did. It was refined by BioWare in Knights Of The Old Republic, and in multiple MMRPGs. The game's main quest guides your character to a central location – a hub – usually a town, where multiple characters offer you quests. If you're like me, you load up on as many of these as possible, and then try to clear them up as efficiently as possible.

Fallout 3 didn't follow this model entirely. Its rhythms were more based in exploration. Find a Vault, delve into the Vault, spend half an hour figuring out what's going on. Sure, it had quest hubs, but they were minor. Skyrim, when it's working well, follows the exploration model even better than Fallout 3. Fallout: New Vegas, to my disappointment, was not so exploration-based. It used the conventional "hub" form, with too-simple rhythms. Everything seemed to take the same amount of time, and if it was too hard – and it rarely was – there was another quest to do first, to improve your Courier just enough that you could handle whatever you were trying to do.

[..]

My journey into D.C. disrupted the rhythm of Fallout 3. It took the basic form I'd begun to learn, and it changed it. It added length and difficulty. Instead of spending half an hour clearing a Vault, I was spending three or four hours struggling against a seeming army of Super Mutants, underground. A relatively straightforward game became a much bigger challenge, forcing me to play in a fashion I hadn't anticipated.

[...]

Fallout: New Vegas didn't do this. Oh, sure, I still enjoyed the Fallout 3 engine, I was impressed with the writing, and I had great respect for the moral ambiguities of the choices in the main plot. But it didn't grab me; it didn't force me to pay attention. One quest hub tended to seem the same as the next one.
</blockquote>
 
Fallout 3 didn't follow this model entirely. Its rhythms were more based in exploration. Find a Vault, delve into the Vault, spend half an hour figuring out what's going on
Click to expand...
Yes. And then die because of boredom.

If only those "vaults" and "exploration" had a real purpose in F3. But they didnt. Most of the time at least.

But yeah. Its the best way to make a game I guess. Call me bitter. But I think Vegas was from todays standart the best we could get from exploration AND interesting quest design. Many locations had a reason to explore them. Not only because "it was simply there". I never understood that fun people have with locations that serve no purpose. I mean how can that be so exciting ?
 
Skyrim, when it's working well, follows the exploration model even better than Fallout 3.
Click to expand...

Oh god, don't remember me of that... I just hate the way quests are thrown at the player in Skyrim. And most of them are sending you to the other side of the gameworld, so you can stumble "accidentally" over new stuff while traversing the miles. I find this highly annoying.
 
I guess I understand where he comes from, but I can't agree. I much prefer the smooth indroduction's of New Vegas' hub-based structure to ''run around like a headless chicken until you find cool locations/stuff'' like Bethesda usually does. I also don't understand how he talks about story when is ''magnificient'' experience is basically going around with no goal at all. And he completely loses me when he praises the Gears of War model while talking about what should be done in a RPG.
 
It appears that all these guys want is to wander around and find quests and loot. They praise the story of Fallout 3, when that was the weakest part of the game. They criticize FNV for having quests and stories that actually matter. He critiques FNV for having a faction/hub system which actually makes sense, but praises Skyrim because you can wander around aimlessly, and find pointless quests which have no effect on the world. The main gripe I see from people is that FNV didn't have a load of Bobbleheads, subways, and meaningless locations. He enjoyed the Fallout 3 engine too which is hilarious! Who enjoys that broken piece of shit? That was the only part of FNV that I didn't like; other than the bugs at launch, which can be expected from every Bethesda game ever made. I am beginning to hate these people more and more. Wow I can explore subways full of ghouls for hours on end. I can travel the same fucking tunnels until my brain bleeds. Did this guy notice that FNV was built around a Faction system unlike Fallout 3? Damn this peeves the hell out of me. I won't even go into how stupid it is to mention GOW in the same context as a RPG. Fuck it. Maybe Roshambo had it right..... These games are being made for 12 year old boys. :?


Edit: I can't help it. The fact that he bashes on Dead Money being linear, but doesn't mention Fallout 3's DLC, is a bit ridiculous. Fallout 3 DLC (Other than Point Lookout) had some of the worst railroad BS in recent memory. It was as linear as you can get. Epic fail journalism.
 
I remember when I played Fallout 3, while still hoping I play the next game in the series of Fallout and Fallout 2 (I knew this was unrealistic), one of the things I totally hated was the way the quests feel - even if a quest looks like it's going to be short (some guy in Megaton sends me to collect the money from some other person he knows), it always went out for longer, though I remember an exception (but it was only short if I played it in a way that wasn't rewarding). I haven't played Fallout: New Vegas yet, though.
 
So he likes Skyirimish mindless wander-grind-loot-become too powerfool type of a game system a.k.a. Bethesda(TM) game. Fanboy?
He forgot to mention that this "great" system he talks about was actually refined by consolified games. Strictly speaking, while PC gamers in those "old" days actually read what was written (like quest journals or dialogue choices) and paid a lot of attention to what the consequence was to their choice of doing/typing/clicking stuff, today's "refined" system is press x/y/blah key to continue. Even better, today you can choose 3 answers that lead to the same point. Check Bioware+EA combo-breaker.

It's really hard to strain the brain that much today, is it?
Fallout 3 was a complete troll of a game with all DLC installed, save Swamp parts which was good but short. FNV DLC pack were linear, but they were much more entertaining, brain stressing and interesting. If Bethesta bothered to properly copy Fallout 1, or simply take Van Buren story and incorporate it, a single stupid easy thing they did not care to do, that could have turned awesome. Now I got a bad taste in my mouth whenever I mention awesome, except when it's about Kung Fu Panda.

The problem us "oldies" always had and will have is these guys ridiculously boasting about something that isn't their brand or their creation. Freaking talking about revolutionizing the genre when "gods of RPG" are still alive today and kicking. Sure, they don't get much money as back then, but is it their fault because everything went to hell with mainstream thinking of easy console game ports? How blind can a man be not to see the game for what it is?
Like Shelldon once said, I'll try to teach creationists evolution. Feels like that always.
 
Fallout 3 didn't follow this model entirely. Its rhythms were more based in exploration. Find a Vault, delve into the Vault, spend half an hour figuring out what's going on.
Click to expand...

And then skip it the next time you play the game since it doesn't have a purpose. Excellent kind of quest.
 
So according to this guy, quests randomly placed on a map without sense or logic = pinnacle of gameworld design.
 
I think they figure it is easier and more profitable to keep with the lame system that has worked so far. I tend to lurk around Bethesda forums to see what the fans think, and it is pretty obvious that a lot of the fans have never played real RPG's. I guess Bethesda figures why bother when all the vast majority want is loot and dungeons to explore. They want to max out their character and feel like a badass. They want to do every single quest with one character. They want to collect a lot of stuff. Why should they change the formula? Obsidian did that and all the fans cried. It is a sad state of affairs indeed.
 
I am not sure I understand his reasoning, or concept of "good Rythm", how are quests just sprinkled around with no sense of urgency or progression has good rythm?
 
Walpknut said:
I am not sure I understand his reasoning, or concept of "good Rythm", how are quests just sprinkled around with no sense of urgency or progression has good rythm?
Click to expand...

They don't have good rhythm( whatever the hell that means). He has no idea what the fuck he is talking about. I see a similar trend in most mainstream video game journalism. I guess the main point he was trying to make is that he likes random quests that you can stumble across, instead of quests done for specific factions in key locations. Why not both?
 
I don't get this reasoning. Sure Fallout 3 has random quests, but not only are they a linear progression, but they make no sense usually.

Fallout New Vegas has plenty of quests, sure, but many of them have multiple outcomes, and the main story allows for so much more freedom in New Vegas. I found it much more liberating than the follow the objective list in Fallout 3. Sure Fallout New Vegas has objectives, but many times they can just be broke if you can find your own path through the quest. Freedom is an illusion in Fallout 3, but freedom in Fallout New Vegas is deep enough to actually allow you, the player, the chance to properly alter the outcome.

He also contradicts himself with the JRPG formula he describes. The Town-Dungeon is properly in use in Fallout 3 much more so than Fallout New Vegas.
 
Yeah, Fallout 3 is basically full of nonsensical dungeon-towns.

Like that one with the Raiders who've got the Behemoth locked up in a cage.

Or Minefield.

Or my personal favorite, Oasis.

Sometimes, I wonder what it must be like to be so easily impressed sometimes.

And I don't even have high standards for things I do like!
 
I disagree with this in every possible way. New Vegas only lacked in exploration if you chose not to explore. And the hubs are precisely what make the game interesting (and also feel more like a Fallout game). The lack of them in Fallout 3 was disappointing, and made the game boring. Except for the main quest, most of it is just a series of generic enemies and locations. So far, I think Oblivion was more interesting than Skyrim, because the cities were larger, and populated with more characters. Also, Skyrim is just a series of fetch quests and dungeon clearing. The exploration is the best part because the rest of it is pretty predictable.
 
sea said:
snip
Click to expand...

Well said my friend. The guy actually gives me a little hope though. If he can write for a gaming website then maybe I can. I guess they accept anyone nowadays. Do you even have to have credentials, or do they accept any guy off the street? Not to bash the writer too much, but he didn't even explain why he thought the way he did. It seems like he was jumping on the New Vegas hater bandwagon to get a positive response from Bethesda fanboys. Maybe I'm wrong....

PS: I love your blog BTW.
 
sea said:
Writing in the games industry, as I gather it, is mostly about establishing a presence. You have to do stuff, generally for free, until people are willing to look at your portfolio and pay money for your time.

That is much easier said than done considering that 99% of sites aren't willing to pay their writers, and they don't have to because standards are so low even 15 year old kids on forums can get the job done. It's about output and hits, not about quality - unless quality is your selling point, that is, which is pretty rare.

I'm kinda lucky in that a) I do get paid a little for some of the stuff I write and b) I'm doing it mostly to build a design portfolio and further my own understanding, rather than to get page views and appease anyone. If I was interested in working for the news blogs or whatever, I'd be doing some Jim Sterling shit, and I guess I'm not enough of an asshole for that.
Click to expand...

That makes sense. Just glancing at your blog I can tell you are a damn good writer, and have a pretty interesting viewpoint on games, so good luck with everything. :)
 
I don't think this guy really writes honestly. This article is obviously something that everyone wants to read. It makes you feel good when a 'professional journalist' and thousands others agree with you, huh?

I hate long exploring (and especially the bland, repetitive one that Bethesda gives) and love the hub system. This is essentially why I really liked the Hub in the original Fallout. There were at least ten or so major conflicts outlined, just within the city, and much more that lead to you on the Main Quest. Not only did it make sense, it had less (not impressing) visual storytelling and more actual dialogue and story involved.

Plus, essentially these 'hubs' are better than any manual you can get - by the time you've wandered around for at least 5 minutes, you already start calculating how much money you need to get yourself that impressing piece of armor, weapon, and how much experience you need to help out that guy and gain some faction respect. You build a goal. There's practically none - unless it's given to you - in Bethesda's games.
 
The writing in that article is uneven, barely coherent, and occasionally contradictory. The author should pay more attention in his writing class. Sea, your writing is far more articulate than that guy. It's a pity that the writing you do doesn't pay better.
 
I agree with the man that there is a difference in rythm. I also spent much more time exploring in Fallout 3. But that was because I didn't care about the world, the people and their stories because of the overall stupidity and clear pattern I figured out after going through few dialogues and plot twists.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top