Won't someone please think of the children (I.e.) ...

[Tagaziel]

May I voice the urges of all Fallout fans...

And I believe we have a 50/50 chance of appearing children in the game. It all depends on whether or not they get what Fallout really is. Which I *really* doubt will ever happen.

 

[Davaris]

I just spoke to Scott Rodenhizer (the guy who did the clay work in Fallout). It turns out he made the heads in the dialogue screen so they could be digitised. So yes I was wrong about the creature animations. Oh well... Bad guess.

Anyway he is a really cool guy and if he gives permission, I'll post his reply here. He said it was a real up hill battle getting Fallout made. The suits wanted to kill it off until they saw the demo and then it became Interplay's baby.

EDIT:
Permission was granted. You can find it here:

http://www.nma-fallout.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=344722#344722

 

[OG Loc]

MODS! Mods can make it all happen for us.

No children? Add them later.

Can´t kill em? Make them killable.

Same goes for the whores.

I think we all saw that Beth made Oblivion relatively easy for modding. I don´t know much about mod making but there must be more than enough hc fans who have the skills.

I was wondering if the isometric view could also be achieved with modding. I haven´t seen a mod like that for Oblivion but that doesn´t prove anything.

OK, back to the children... I also think kids will be there and that you can kill who you want to. It is a question of how. In Oblivion when you hit someone with no armor with a huge warhammer the only visible effect is some red mist. That´s totally different from what happens in F1/2. Totally different level of violence.

Again, that´s maybe something the mod makers can change.

 

[Sander]

So, essentially, if Fallout 3 sucks, the modders should change everything about it.
Why bother? I'd rather play a decent game than to completely overhaul a crappy game just because it has the Fallout name.

 

[OG Loc]

Well I´m pretty sure F3 wont totally suck and I´m hoping only a few tweaks will have to be made.

Oblivion is actually quite good and the engine has lots of potential.

Also, this could be the last Fallout ever made so it´s hard to imagine all the people just giving up on it.

 

[Lumpy]

Ok if someone made a re-make of fallout 1/2 with todays tech what do you guys think it will be rated, I mean melting the skin off someone with a very large engery gun is bonud to get the rating up, and the first time some mom walks in on there son doing that we'll have same problem as GTA.

Ok and i'm not saying that fallout is only about killing drugs and sex, it's those and a lot more that add up to make the game what it is.

Oh no one ever tried to awser my question, do you think there will be children in the game?

First question - it would be rated M.
Second question - I don't know. One thing is certain - children wouldn't change the rating. But maybe they simply won't care enough to put them in. In Oblivion, they said they didn't include children because they would cause clipping issues with the clothes.

 

[Gekko]

World of morrwind and oblivion was harsh? Racism, drugs? Quite flat world if you are looking for harshness. Harsh is, when I enter the town and I see a child being smashed to bloody porridge, a young woman raped in the alley, drug dealers everywhere, drug addicts lying around uncoicious. I really wish they make the game hardcore like the old fallouts, but in more grapical way. All the lunatic lawyers and parents would certainly start their holy inquisition to bethesda, but bethesda would finally reaquire it's respect from me.. if it matters at all.

 

[Talisien]

I HOPE that the kids and whores and things go in, but... well... We all know that many companies these days are (to quote Jeremy Piven in 'PCU') "so cravenly P-C that they wouldn't know a good time if it was sitting on their face." I hope all of the little nasty bits we all loved so much about FO and FO2 go in, but I'm afraid they might not.

On another note:
A few of you have posted about potential issues with parents not wanting their kids to have graphicly violent/sexual games. I have always had a strong opinion about this, and I felt I like putting my two cents worth in.

I've read about a lot of these parents bitching about games their kids play, and I always want to meet these parents. The conversation would go like this:

ME: What's your problem with (insert game)?

PARENT: It made my kid violent/sexually active/drug addicted!

ME:*SLAP!*SLAP!*SLAP!*No, it didn't. Your complete inability to raise a child who has a brain and the ability to reason out the difference between a game and real life screwed your kid up. *SLAP!*Shut your pie hole and take the blame you are due for once. *SLAP!*YOU made your kid that way, it's YOUR fault. *SLAP*YOU should be sued. *SLAP!*YOUR lack of parenting ability has inflicted ANOTHER moron on the population at large- and we've got too many of them to deal with as it is! *SLAP!*

I have always thought it curious that you need a license to carry a gun, drive a car, and get married, but not to have a kid, which can potentially cause more harm than all of the other three combined. Parents these days always seem to be looking to shift the blame for their kids behavior to someone other than themselves. And yet, if they were to raise their children properly, they could shovel violence, foul language, and porn into the children's faces all day long without the kids being affected in any way other than learning not to be shocked or surprised by it.

Now, I'm sure that some of you will disagree with me, perhaps violently, but I say Too Bad. I have had this opinion for many years, and having a son didn't change it one bit; it just made me feel more strongly. If a kid doesn't know the difference between a game and real life, whose fault is it: the people who made the game (which millions of others play without issue), or the parents who taught the child his/her/its values and system of reasoning?

The man whom I made my screen name in memory of once drew this out for me:

2x1=2
2x2=4
2x3=6
2x4= a tool for the enlightenment of others

More of the stupid, lazy parents in this world need enlightenment.

 

[Grotesque]

I can bet that we shall not have children in Fallout 3.

I wonder what excuse will Beth bring this time!?

 

[Roshambo]

Well, Todd has a problem with BOOBIES!, maybe someone else has a problem with children...

Yeah, I went there.

 

[mortiz]

It won't contain children for the simple fact that they don't want their game fucked over by anyone but their design team.

Having "killable" polygon models that resemble children in a game is risqué business in the days of crusading anti-game lawyers and politicians such as Jack Thompson and Hilary Clinton. Though Jack Thompson is of course a complete hack incapable of coming up with a decent case.

In the short run headlines such as "Blah Blah Is A Murder Simulator..." may push up sales, though if places like Wal-Mart refuse to stock your game because of the bad image it's garnered from the press you're screwed. Wal-Mart don't need an AO rating to refuse to sell your game, they just out right refuse to sell any title with that rating.

 

[Bradylama]

It's not really going to matter if children are left up to modders. The ESRB's practices indicate that if somebody adds in children that they'll re-rate the game anyways, so there's no point making it T.

 

[Lumpy]

It's not really going to matter if children are left up to modders. The ESRB's practices indicate that if somebody adds in children that they'll re-rate the game anyways, so there's no point making it T.

Uhm... what?
Both Hot Coffee and the Oblivion nude textures were things that were hidden on the DVDs, and only unlocked by modders.

 

[Sorrow]

Having "killable" polygon models that resemble children in a game is risqué business in the days of crusading anti-game lawyers and politicians such as Jack Thompson and Hilary Clinton. Though Jack Thompson is of course a complete hack incapable of coming up with a decent case.

I think that people who blame computer games for violence should get sued for slander and libel.

 

[Syphon]

I actually think that if Beth made children it could be interesting, ya know? Let's say, maybe, you could start off as a fallout-child.. hm.. And you're parents are killed by raiders or you watch your town become invaded by Khans or somethin'?! Kinda like Fable but more innovative.

Lets say one of your kid missions is to abtain a gun for your first hunting trip with your pop. Now you can either work down at the armorers, which will increase your (science?) skills when you grow up, steal it (increasing steal) or talk your way to it (speech). I dunno... I'm just talking shit but I think that if Fallout 3 is going to be successful, Bethesda is going to have to have many new innovations from the old '96 &'97 engines. Ya know?

Is anyone on the same page as me?

 

[Ratty Sr.]

Is anyone on the same page as me?

If you're currently on page 16 of N00b Extermination Guide, then yes, we're on the same page.

*locks and loads*

 

[Sander]

If you're currently on page 16 of N00b Extermination Guide, then yes, we're on the same page.

*locks and loads*

Ehm, why?
The idea of having your character shaped in part by determining his background actively is not a bad idea at all.

Innovations aren't bad per se, as long as they're in line with Fallout's core design.

 

[Ratty Sr.]

Ehm, why?The idea of having your character shaped in part by determining his background actively is not a bad idea at all.

Consider what his suggestion entails. He's proposing that you get railroaded into a *single* background, one that culminates in raiders wiping out your village. That way you are basically nudged into a particular role before the game has even rightly started. The tragic death of your entire family and all your friends will determine your character's attitude and motivation. Part of Fallout's appeal for me was the idea of being just another anonymous individual with no past and no personal connection to anything or anyone in the game, and then shaping his role and forging his destiny on my own; major personal tragedies being forced on me would certainly compromise that.

His suggestion is also implausible. Kids don't survive raider attacks that wipe out villages, not in Albion and especially not in the wasteland. In Fable the protagonist is saved by deus ex machina in form of Maze, who has his own, sinister reasons for helping him. These reasons have to do with the protagonist's lineage; in Fable, the protagonist is TEH CHOSEN 1 and the game's plot revolves around him and his family members. Hardly compatible with design of the first Fallout game, or even the second.

The only part of his suggestion that I like is the concept of age having effect on the player character. Indeed, a 20-year-old fresh out of the vault shouldn't have the same appearance and stats as a 60-year-old who has spent the last 40 years wandering the wastes, fighting beasts and absorbing radiation like a sponge.

 

[Sander]

Consider what his suggestion entails. He's proposing that you get railroaded into a *single* background, one that culminates in raiders wiping out your village. That way you are basically nudged into a particular role before the game has even rightly started. The tragic death of your entire family and all your friends will determine your character's attitude and motivation. Part of Fallout's appeal for me was the idea of being just another anonymous individual with no past and no personal connection to anything or anyone in the game, and then shaping his role and forging his destiny on my own; major personal tragedies being forced on me would certainly compromise that.

Bullshit. Fallout put you in a very similar situation by determining your background and giving you a mission.

No, it didn't do this as radically as is now suggested, but it did determine a limited background scope. In fact, the idea of determining your own background in this way would fit perfectly in the Vault setting, and it would have fit well in the setting of Arroyo.

His suggestion is also implausible. Kids don't survive raider attacks that wipe out villages, not in Albion and especially not in the wasteland. In Fable the protagonist is saved by deus ex machina in form of Maze, who has his own, sinister reasons for helping him. These reasons have to do with the protagonist's lineage; in Fable, the protagonist is TEH CHOSEN 1 and the game's plot revolves around him and his family members. Hardly compatible with design of the first Fallout game, or even the second.

This has no bearing on the idea of having the player actively determine his character's background.

The only part of his suggestion that I like is the concept of age having effect on the player character. Indeed, a 20-year-old fresh out of the vault shouldn't have the same appearance and stats as a 60-year-old who has spent the last 40 years wandering the wastes, fighting beasts and absorbing radiation like a sponge.

That's mostly featured in an element called 'experience'.

 

[Ratty Sr.]

Bullshit. Fallout put you in a very similar situation by determining your background and giving you a mission.

Similar? Let's see, your predetermined background in Fallout consists of the following:

1. You have lived your entire life in a Vault.
2. You have been sent on a mission to find a water chip for your Vault.

That's it. Those are the only predetermined facts about your character. You don't know anything about what your life in the Vault was life. You don't know who your parents are. You don't who your friends are, or even if you have any. You don't know why you, of all people, have been selected for the mission to save the Vault. You can explore the Vault and talk to people there, but you will learn nothing concrete. You are, simply put, a tabula rasa. Your entire "background" serves only to give you a starting point in the game and a role in the main plot, while minimally restricting your freedom to roleplay in any way you see fit.

On the other hand, this is your background in Syphon's Fallout:

1. You have lived your entire life in a village.
2. You have parents.
3. Your father is a hunter.
4. You and your father go on hunting trips together.
5. Your village is attacked by raiders and everyone you ever knew is killed, while you are left for the dead.

At the very beginning of the game you experience a traumatic, life-changing event. Consider what this means, from roleplaying perspective. You will seek to exact revenge on the assailants. You will fear all raiders and hate them with a passion. You will be traumatized and bitter. Congratulations, you are stuck with a heapload of restrictions on account of a handful of stat adjustments that you can accomplish on the character creation screen.

No, it didn't do this as radically as is now suggested, but it did determine a limited background scope. In fact, the idea of determining your own background in this way would fit perfectly in the Vault setting, and it would have fit well in the setting of Arroyo.

Determining your background, yes (though I'm personally averse to that too). Having your background determined for you, no.

This has no bearing on the idea of having the player actively determine his character's background.

True.

That's mostly featured in an element called 'experience'.

I'm talking about negative effects of age, such as diminishing physical and motor ability, like in Darklands.