Todd answers 25 questions

[Bernard Bumner]

[Sometimes, Bernard, less is more. Throwing a load of adjectives in a sentence doesn't make you look eloquent and intelligent, it kinda makes you look a bit like you're trying too hard. Itinerant is implied in the definition of hobo, and how on God's green earth is your char reduced to the status of "moralistic"?

And sometimes more is more: I have nothing to prove, just take what I've written at face value, rather than trying to construct some sort of linguistic psychoanalysis. (Itinerant hobo might be tautological, but then, that just adds emphasis.) Really, why were you compelled to throw in that snipe, rather than just address the point? I believe that somebody was complaining about the low tone of the argument around here.

You character is reduced to a moralistic wanderer, because the random encounters essentially lack the moral ambiguity of the more complex interactions to be found elsewhere in he world. It starts to become a case of killing bad guys, and sparing the good guys. (I suppose that the other option is just to kill everybody, but then amorality is hardly a fulfilling roleplaying experience.) The random encounters are simply binary moral choices, or else, shopping.

Bullshit.

Would that be more, or less?

The sandbox element of the original Fallout games is in the eye of the beholder. If you want to go straight to the Necropolis and solve the water chip quest straight away, you can do so. If you want to go to Shady Sands, do all possible quests there, then go to Junktown, then the Den and so on, you can do that too. That's what makes a sandbox game. Yes, there's a story, but how you go about finishing that story is up to you.

My point was, and it seems to be the bugbear of others here, that sandbox used be a distinct and useful term, different to non-linear, for example. The game has a distinct beginning and end, bridged by an over-arching narrative and a number of key player actions. The player may take a non-determinate route to achieve those outcomes, but doesn't have complete freedom. I would describe this as non-linear, but not sandbox play. (Perhaps I'm just a dinosaur?)

If you're arguing for non-linearity in Fallout games, then I don't believe anybody here is going to disagree, in actual fact, I think that everybody considers it a prerequisite. On the other hand, if you're arguing that Bethesda should spend time creating a mode of gameplay for those who choose to entirely opt out of the narrative, then I would disagree.

Fallout 3, as per the first game, should concentrate on a strong, narrative-driven, roleplaying experience. As I've said, electronic stamp-collecting doesn't appeal, and role of a cyber-hermit is in no way compelling.

Fallout 2 wasn't improved by the amount of fat it carried; the larger map and special encounters consituted little added value. The storyline often lost focus, and too much of the game - areas like New Reno - felt like discontinuous devices for introducing more quests which added little to the overall story. The problem was that I felt compelled to complete those quests simply because they were there, and so they became a distraction, and therefore detraction. Places like the NCR or vault city - which felt much ore organically authentic - would have benefitted from better development and debugging. This is where the game suffered from gimmicks, when the core gameplay was incomplete.

Fallout was, primarily, a narrative experience, not a sandbox - by whatever definition - game. And better for it.

 

[Bernard Bumner]

By stating "without a strong story" do you refer to the plethora of quests subordinate to the main storyline as well?

Also, I don't consider amorality to be an unfulfilling roleplaying experience. Selling your services to the highest bidder is eminently possible in Fallout and may be just as rewarding as pursuing a good or evil path.

In the first game, the main plots and subplots don't feel especially distinct.

I think an amoral character will miss out on a great deal of the richness of Fallout; much better for a replay than first time through.

Any game which gives you the freedom to, from the start of the game, go to any other location in the game and do anything within reasonable bounds can now, I think, be referred to as 'sandbox' gaming. GTA (San Andreas, specifically), Morrowind, Oblivion, Just Cause, Crackdown, and a host of others all boasted this.

Fair enough, but I think that the non-linear aspect should take precedence over freedom of actions.

Because these features don't appeal to you, you think they should be left out of the game? Hell, a lot of people hated building up the alchemy skill in Oblivion, but that's ok because you can simply ignore it and do other things. You can also choose to ignore dungeons almost entirely and stay within city limits, if you wish, or take the opposite path and stay out of cities for the majority of the game. The point is, the game is the player's to play as he or she wishes.

Which is fine, if the major mode of authentic Fallout gameplay isn't compromised (forgetting all other apparent issues with Bethesda's direction so far). However, I'm not sure that it is possible to have the best of both worlds in any game. The more freedom a player is given, the less sense of urgency and danger is necessarily imbued into the main narrative.

I happened to like the special encounters, especially those which showed complete disregard for breaking the fourth wall.

I like them, too, but I also think that they add nothing to the game, especially if Fallout 2 was your first introduction to the series. They diminish the gravitas of the piece, compared to the first game.

A world which is governed by the main narrative and that alone are far too contrived. I like a world which seems like it could be just fine without your character in it, instead of worlds where everything revolves around your actions.

But the main narrative does very subtly pervade the entire world in the first game, and it does so without being intrusive or contrived. That should be the gold standard.

New Reno was one of my favourite portions of the game because of its sleazy amorality and the very fact that its quests were tangential. This was a place that didn't care about the Chosen One's quest for the GECK, and where the people weren't particularly inclined to help you. Quests that have nothing to do with the main storyline are good, because they show that a world beyond the preoccupations of the protagonist exists.

Again, I enjoy New Reno, but I would still have preferred it to be sacrificied to concentrate on developing the NCR and completing Vault City. I like the style of the quests in New Reno, and indeed the sleazy amorality, but the setting and quest structures are somewhat incoherent within the piece as a whole.

I'm not saying that all gameplay should be restricted to direct continuation of the narrative, but that New Reno felt insulated from that narrative, and that the other distractions around that point in the game constituted to a lack of peril and drive.

If anything, Fallout is less driven by its narrative than other sandbox games. There are no objective markers, no 'make this my active quest' options, and subquests are not locked until you reach a certain point in the main storyline. Of course, you are reined in somewhat by the 'find the water chip' time limit in the original, but other than that you are not overly compelled to concentrate on that quest at the expense of everything else.

Actually, I think that it is much more strongly driven by its narrative, but that this acts via the player, rather than providing absolute direction (do x next, because of y). The narrative impels, rather than compels, the player to progress. The narrative - and overall gameplay - encourage proper roleplaying investment by the player.

 

[Sander]

Because these features don't appeal to you, you think they should be left out of the game?

*blinks*
I remember you claiming that all that mattered to you was whether you would find the game fun. Why aren't others allowed to have the same opinion, then?

Now, does this mean "I think Bethsoft will do the exact same things with Fallout, LOL ORCZ!!111"? No, it does not. It means, as I have ALREADY STATED and will do so again, that I think Bethsoft are a quality producer and will produce another quality product. That does not equate to me getting "confused" about my own arguments.

This is a nonsensical argument. The Pro Evolution Soccer team is also a quality developer, that doesn't mean I'm going to expect them to do a good job at a Fallout game since it's a completely different ballpark.

To put it simply, all Bethesda has shown so far is that they've been able to make popular games. That's it. That's not very re-assuring as to the quality of the next Fallout game in the context of the previous games.

New Reno was one of my favourite portions of the game because of its sleazy amorality and the very fact that its quests were tangential. This was a place that didn't care about the Chosen One's quest for the GECK, and where the people weren't particularly inclined to help you. Quests that have nothing to do with the main storyline are good, because they show that a world beyond the preoccupations of the protagonist exists.

For all your insistence on setting and story as the most important elements of the game, this is a rather odd opinion to have. New Reno was an obvious stylistic break from the rest of the game and largely didn't fit with the setting.

 

[Ausir]

Well, New Reno is very well designed and is great as a standalone location, but it just doesn't fit the setting much.

 

[KnowHow]

Personally I liked FO2 over FO1 because of for instance new reno and the lighter "sense of urgency" that the removal of a timer gave.

I realize that a lot of you are probably knee deep and RPG's you've played, I never really found other RPG's than FO and maybe BG interesting.

I'm was a little worried about the dialog and quests but all that seems to be cleared up. I'm starting to look forward to FO3, just because I love the universe and story. I wish it was 3rd person, but hey, I can live with 1st person.

I definitely would like a FO3 that was just FO2 with a new story, but hey, FMF will provide that.

You guys should loosen up a bit and relax with the insults and namecalling, it really doesn't help your arguments.

 

[Bernard Bumner]

Personally I liked FO2 over FO1 because of for instance new reno and the lighter "sense of urgency" that the removal of a timer gave.

The timer in Fallout was hugely frustrating for me, epsecially the first time I played, and it is an incredible artificiality in some respects (or, perhaps it is actually too realistic, but either way, it is an imposition). It is an obvious device to drive the quest forwards, but it can make the game feel unecessarily very rushed in the early stages.

Having said that, perhaps we are just too used to playing games where the player dictates the speed of progress?

 

[Ausir]

I liked the timer and the sense of urgency in FO1 very much. Much more realistic than everything in the world waiting for you.

 

[Morbus]

Much better that the stupid process of Arcanum where you could travel for YEARS on without any setback...