The_Time_Master
First time out of the vault
You may be right Fred2, but I have to try. 
Thanks for the Gamasutra link, it was interesting!
Thanks for the Gamasutra link, it was interesting!
Think a voiced protagonist is a bad idea? Here's Bethesda's reasoning!
- Thread starter Reaper Shackal
- Start date
First time out of the vault
Poopicus Butts
First time out of the vault
I won't mind the voiced MC if it says exactly what I'm going to say on the dialogue wheel, but I'll be pissed if we have an LA Noir 2 on our hands
I am a bit sad about the limited dialogue options, but if the writing is good enough (which tbh I don't have hope for) then I don't see the problem.
I am a bit sad about the limited dialogue options, but if the writing is good enough (which tbh I don't have hope for) then I don't see the problem.
Bethesda's formula is the only one that actually immerses me in the world. I vastly prefer open-world exploration in a title/setting like this to the limiting and forced isometric gameplay of the classics -- though I do love the classics. Just not Tactics though, can't really seem to get into that one.
u really enjoyed that empty open world in fallout3 or skyrim ? i dunno what to think about , when u play both games for the first time then its very immersive but after u have spend some time with it will get pretty boring after some time ... because eitherway theres nothing in the world which u can do beside some boring x y sidequests which are all feeling the same or you get bored of the 50th cave that did look exactly like the last one ...
i never touched these kinda games again after spending some hours in them , maybe some mods would revive these titles but on standalones they wack ... also personally i prefer some CoD gameply over fallout3 or skyrim because its giving me ecactly same thing just not packed into a false box , i was never a fan of these animations with dat modified gamebryoengine , best thing i can remember was also when u tried that awesome itemgrabbing and you tried to made your house look badass and then when u enter the house one day all stuff flys around like some mininuke gone off was hilarious... lmfao . ill rather grab some shooter with propper animations and not somuch loadingscreens , flyin stuff around instead of any fallout from bethesda . some days ago ive checked the fo3 manual and its even more hilarious what they predict in it , skills matters blah blah , after some time u really realize how bad it was in compariosn 2 what they promised ... i dont say its a bad game at all but they didnt gave us what they promised us... and this time it will be exactly the same with unkillable npcs and all that bethesda introductions , where is the freedoom if i cant kill every npc in the game ? GTA is a prime example , many casuals just play it to kill some people on the streets ... i mean GTA storys always very good but the gameplay itself is also very good , for storyfocused people or just casuals ... i could go on but meh . when did u played fallout3 vanilla the last time ?
Last edited:
I've never played Fallout 3 with mods installed. At least, not without the ones that actually fix bugs or help to stabilize the game. To be honest, I got tired of all the crashing... I've finished Fallout 3 a grand total of three times, played New Vegas way more.
Last time I played Fallout 3 was a week ago, though, since that was the question. Uninstalled because I got tired of all the CTD's and because I'm saving up for a console to play Fallout 4 on because I can't afford a better computer -- not enough space anyway.
And you're right, without mods, content to do once the main quest is over IS a huge problem, for BOTH games. Something I have a sneaking suspicion might be solved (at least partially) with that settlement thing being brought to us in Fallout 4. Or had no one here thought of that?
lol that settlement building looks to me like state of decay gameplay which isnt bad at all but gets boring very fast too , a modded sate of decay is interesting tho . still i think that it isnt such great feature as promised when i hear that we can only build in restricted areas , and then again i look on the released footage and some things hurt my eyez ... for example when u let a whole house dissapear with one click . also building houses in singleplayer games is so meh , if i wanna look for some crafting , building games i just look for 7dayz2die or minecraft or rust or however these games are called . its not an good idea to just stick something in because its popular atm plus all these games ive mentioned are based on that buidling and not other way around like it will be in fallout4 . well maybe they did a good job in fo4 i cant say for sure becoz we havent seen anything else than e3 trailer footage ... but since howard stated that u dont have to build settlements i guess it will not be story relevated or anything which would be more interesting , another thing which makes me wonder is when i see all this crafting with weapons , armors and houses im asking myself what PC im playing in a post apocalyptic world ... thats the thing which bothers me the most , i dont even know any single guy or girl in my pre apo world who could build all that stuff ... normally they all have just one opportunity and some minor hobbys , but i havent seen anyone in real life building houses , weapons , armors , generators , turrets , lights and so on ... now imagine someone doing this in a post apocalyptic world KEK ... oh yeah lemme get this glass out that clock and i will do magik make some lamppost or wait sugarbombs + nukacola = MininukeTurret LMFAO . the whole presenting to me doesnt look like some post apocalyptic world i have enjoyed from the originals , yet howard still says its that harsh enviroment , that u feel alone blah blah when i look on all that stuff from e3 it feels like you play some ubermensch PC in just some fantasy world which has nothing to do with post apocalyptic , where u can even build nuclear bombs 200 years after the world was destroyed ... i could go on but well , i dont want to loose this day and get frustrated .
Last edited:
Speculation like this is why it's better to reserve judgement until we've actually played the game. The super-cynics on this site will never say it, but there IS a chance Bethesda will program the crafting system to make some sort of sense. At least, when I was watching the E3 presentation that's how it looked. But of course that's optimism towards a Bethesda title and such attitudes aren't allowed here, so what the fuck am I doing?
why speculating ? ive seen the crafting stuff in the e3 footage and it doenst make sense to me or atleast u cant read my posts propperly , all im sayin is that it all doesnt make sense . or do you know such multi talent in real life ? whole point was that it doesnt look and feel like post apocalyptic in the first way , just because there are some destroyed buildings and other shit doenst make it automatically a good atmospheric believable world ...
5545Trey
Underground Deviant
I guess the good thing is that those people do not exist, at least not in the gaming community.
PossibleCabbage
Vault 22 Survivor
I don't think there's anything automatically wrong with the developer giving the protagonist a voice. "What the character sounds like" is just another bit of the framework that defines the character before you get your hands on it. The Courier is a courier, and not a farmer. The Chosen One is a tribal from Arroyo and not anything else from anywhere else. Defining these sorts of things about the character are fine.
The real problem about voicing a character is that it makes producing dialogue much more expensive. When it's just text, producing more lines for the protagonist is basically free, but now you have to pay two actors. So there's an inherent cost to making deep conversation trees or quests with lots of different options. That Bethesda probably isn't going to design quests so there's a smart solution, a diplomatic solution, a sneaky solution, as well as the perfunctory violent solution is the real cost. Of course, I don't know that I expected Bethesda to give us a smart solution, diplomatic solution, and sneaky solution to quests anyway (that doesn't seem to be their interpretation of "player freedom" even if it's mine.) We were probably going to be stuck with a good/bad dichotomy or a "these guys/those guys" dichotomy most of the time.
The real problem about voicing a character is that it makes producing dialogue much more expensive. When it's just text, producing more lines for the protagonist is basically free, but now you have to pay two actors. So there's an inherent cost to making deep conversation trees or quests with lots of different options. That Bethesda probably isn't going to design quests so there's a smart solution, a diplomatic solution, a sneaky solution, as well as the perfunctory violent solution is the real cost. Of course, I don't know that I expected Bethesda to give us a smart solution, diplomatic solution, and sneaky solution to quests anyway (that doesn't seem to be their interpretation of "player freedom" even if it's mine.) We were probably going to be stuck with a good/bad dichotomy or a "these guys/those guys" dichotomy most of the time.
Oppen
FIXT n°1 fan
I'd agree, but as long as there aren't several voices and 'styles' for the PC, it takes a lot from the actual role-playing. Voice can tell you if someone feels confident, afraid, maniacal, it can hint at you if that person is wimpy or strong, voice does a lot. Having it fixed to a single voice actor, a single interpretation of every line of the dialogue, takes a lot from what you can do to actually build your character. Just think of Seinfeld: "THESE PRETZELS ARE MAKING ME THIRSTY!". Who says it, how it says it, while not changing the actual meaning of the phrase, says a lot about the character, its feelings, its mood, regardless of the words used.
If someone threats you and you answer "come and get me!", it is not your choice of words that will decide if this someone actually attempts to make the threat a reality, but how you say it.
TL;DR: voice still does a lot for the character.
If someone threats you and you answer "come and get me!", it is not your choice of words that will decide if this someone actually attempts to make the threat a reality, but how you say it.
TL;DR: voice still does a lot for the character.
Khannis
Rebuilding America
I have no problem with the concept of a voice character per se, in that sense I can easily write it off as a pre-defined thing. It takes away from roleplaying, I agree, but to me its of little consequence. Worst case, I can imagine it in my head as something different, annoying perhaps, but I won't complain. My main gripes with it are of a more practical nature:
1. I find it extremely irritating to click a dialogue option only to have your voiced character say something completely different (I'm looking at you, Dragon Age Inquisition). The newest Deus Ex, however, had an elegant solution to that, in the form of little tooltips that informed you of your next words, exact in text, if not in tone. Far from perfect, but good enough.
2. I won't pretend to know how much doing an entirely voiced system and recording the lines costs, both in currency and man-hours, but I feel it's a wasted opportunity to make the game richer in other ways, using that time and money to do just a little more quest, flesh out an area just a little more, etc. Not to mention the limits it imposes on the dialogue options themselves (you can only record so much). In a lot of recent games, like Mass Effect and the aforementioned DA:I, I'm caught by surprise sometimes by the absence of the response I wanted to give or even something similar.
All in all, I think it COULD be ok, as long as they did it very well. At the moment, I have my doubts, but here's hoping I'm completely, utterly wrong.
1. I find it extremely irritating to click a dialogue option only to have your voiced character say something completely different (I'm looking at you, Dragon Age Inquisition). The newest Deus Ex, however, had an elegant solution to that, in the form of little tooltips that informed you of your next words, exact in text, if not in tone. Far from perfect, but good enough.
2. I won't pretend to know how much doing an entirely voiced system and recording the lines costs, both in currency and man-hours, but I feel it's a wasted opportunity to make the game richer in other ways, using that time and money to do just a little more quest, flesh out an area just a little more, etc. Not to mention the limits it imposes on the dialogue options themselves (you can only record so much). In a lot of recent games, like Mass Effect and the aforementioned DA:I, I'm caught by surprise sometimes by the absence of the response I wanted to give or even something similar.
All in all, I think it COULD be ok, as long as they did it very well. At the moment, I have my doubts, but here's hoping I'm completely, utterly wrong.
Battlecross
Banned
I learned recently that LA Noire botched it because they changed doubt from something else it was supposed to be, which was accuse I think.
Zerginfestor
dear god, the scrapping
Yes, because "Skills" totally mean my character will instantly be godly among all things, despite that my perk selections allow me to focus into specific weapon types and playstyles. I'm totally not just dumping the skills to the side like I did in FO1 and 2 because I stopped caring once I got my character done right. Why is it so hard for people to use creativity and imagination to create a character without derping and grabbing everything to be godly upon everything? :L
I don't have qualms with the lack of skills yet, but I'm still going to be very cautious.
Last edited: