Before you get the idea Yoda, I actually enjoy discussing this with you. Just to be clear here
I touched on the audience bit for Bethesda games. I'm not blind to that fact. Fallout 3 looks like an FPS, and so attracted a lot of the shooter crowd that only likes killing people and skips all the dialogue. I also hate most of the immortal characters (although I'd always reload anyway if Dogmeat or any other follower died in any Fallout game, so I don't particularly care that Dogmeat is immortal this go around, especially given how terrible the companion AI can be). However, they make up a small portion of the game's population. Being able to kill 95%-99% of characters is fine in my book, and I understand why children are immortal.
I didn't said that you are. Hey we are for the most part on the same page - I guess. Though I feel the reason why there are immortal idiots in the first place is more because Bethesda has the feeling that they need to protect the teenage rage gamer with the mind of a 5 year old form his trigger happy personality. Oh damn! I killed everyone in this fucking little town! How I am gona finishing the quest to save the wasteland now? Looks like I have to reload the game now. Shitty! Shitty! Shitty! Game it is, making ME(!) reload because of something I did!
What ever if that is the mass of players that enjoy their games or not is a whole different question. But I get the feeling Beth really sees the typical average player of their games as to dumb to figure out a plot even if it bit it in his ass. That is why Bethesda has for example established certain
design rules. Like NPCs should never lie to the player - with a few exceptions. For example you will never see a companion or love interest etc. betray you. NPCs shall never steel anything from you. Or that nothing the player does should cut him off from quests. Outcomes of quests never
surprise the player and so on.
That's why towns forget after 2 days what or who you massacred. That's why every NPC is absolutely straightforward with his intentions. Like Burke. Imagine if the player would ever come in a situaiton where I dont know, Burke somehow tricked the player in detonating the Bomb. Or if there was some kind of scheme going on that you had to discover.
99% of the NPCs that you can interact with and which give you quests make their intentions clear with the first lines of dialog.
Though I don't think that I have to mention why this is a really huge limitation on your story telling and character creation. It doesn't leave you much room to show nuances. Not every character is acting always in the same way. And not every character will use you in the same way. Some might even lie to you to get you to do something good even. You don't encounter characters with big secrets and they always really fall in 2 or 3 categories which makes NPCs either clearly "good" or evil characters often enough behaving like psychopaths doing evil stuff for lulz.
I think there's plenty to do in Bethesda games though. Certainly combat is more heavily featured, but that doesn't mean there aren't options for speech-based characters or crafting things you can do. Sometimes, I even like to make up my own stories, which is what role playing is about.
Yeah, I agree. Hikking, watching trees (Skyrim) or ruined buildings (Fallout 3), walking trough the metro tunnels and caves. Plenty to do
Sometimes, I even like to make up my own stories, which is what role playing is about.
No it isnt. Role playing isnt about making stuff up, it is about playing a role. If no one actually reacts to your role, than you're pretending to role play. Which isn't the same really, but I guess you know that. You could try to role play a pacifist marine who never engages in combat in Doom and see how far you can get with that. But I just love to point that out.
Also, looking at Fallout 1/2, while the main quest and side quests had more diplomatic options, what else was there to do outside of those things except killing things and the occasional random encounter? You could talk to people in towns, but you can do that in Bethesda games. You couldn't craft things or role play a life as well outside of the story because there simply wasn't as much content (although of course, Fallout 1/2 had much stronger mechanics for character building).
Are you sure you played the same games as I did? I mean I really don't want to attack you ... but it does sound like you never played them seriously. What about all the locations you encounter in F1 or F2 that had no real ties to the main quest? There was nothing to do? Really?
Combat was sure a big part of the previous games, and rightfully so. I won't argue about that point. Because combat IS a viable alternative after all. But we should not get this missconception that Fallout 1/2 was an open world game or that it even really requires a (hell) lot to do. In other words the random encounters for example could also serve a purpose in the fact that a high outdoors man skill gives you a chance to avoid many of those. Those locations however that had content of interest would offer you many times non combat approaches or a mix of it etc. In other words. You had options.
Something which most Bethesda games today don't have. Almost every situation ends one way or another in the player choping someones head off. In rare cases you get to decide which head it is, but in the end it is someones head on a pike, like killing for the Imperials or the Stormcloacks in Skyrim.
The only realy great situation in Skyrim was Parthunax, probably one of the gloriest moments they had. And it shows extremly nicely how much you can achieve with just a few changes and that you don't need to write novels to make something great or give characters a personality and showing nuances. It has a reason why he is one of the most liked characters of all Bethesda games. And he really doesn't even have THAT much to say. The fact that the greybeards make a mystery around him also adds to that! That both groups, also had actually viable reasons to follow their stance gave this even more quality. As it doesn't make it a clearly good vs. evil situation. The Blades have sound reasons to hate him and the greybeards have sound reasons to protect him.
It was such a perfectly well executed quest that I question if anyone at Bethesda was actually responsible for that ...
Kill him, and the grey beards hate you. Don't kill him and the Blades will stop working with you. The effects are very subtle actually, because they just dont give you FULL support anymore. Though that is one of the great quality of this quest. But they are there and you really feel that the ONLY reason the faction still helps you is because you are the Dovakin, so they respect your title, but not you as person. Awesome! Sadly the only situation that plays out like that in Skyrim. But I am starting to rant now ...
I agree that role-playing came first in Fallout 1/2 (and also New Vegas), or at least diplomacy was as viable an option as combat. I guess it was more of a feature in those days that anything was expendable should you choose to go on a rampage through a town. I give Bethesda credit, however, for being one of the few developers these days to still try to adhere to that philosophy. It's not like you can do that in Mass Effect and I think the Witcher II (although it has been a while since I played the Witcher II and never got too into it). Even if there are some limitations and you don't have absolute freedom, you still have a ton of it.
My point, however, was that the ability to slaughter entire towns was as much a feature of Fallout 1/2 as it is of Skyrim and Fallout 3, whether or not more people took that option in the latter than the former. As such, I don't see how your whack-a-mole analogy applies only to Skyrim but not Fallout.
Also, I still don't entirely get the whack-a-mole analogy (is it because when a bunch of things pop up, you're inclined to attack them?), although the theme park one seems appropriate. Still, theme parks are very fun. The food is overpriced and the carnies will rip you off, but the rides are great.
I never argued that it wasn't a feature. I am just saying it was:
1. Better implemented - playing a psychopath killing everyone and everything wihout immortal idiots.
2. It was not the main goal of the game. It never feelt like the game was build on it.
Oblivion, Skyrim and Fallout 3 all feel like the whole game was build on this principle. To whack everything in sight and not feel any consequence from it. But that's of course just my feeling.
