Fallout 3 Developer updates

Mr. Teatime · Post by **Mr. Teatime** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 9:36 pm

[ Community -> Update ] - More info on <a href="#Emil Pagliarulo">Person: Emil Pagliarulo</a> | More info on <a href="#Fallout 3">Game: Fallout 3</a>

Given there's a <a href="http://www.duckandcover.cx/forums/viewt ... sc&start=0" target="_self">12-page news thread</a> with some developer-community discussion, I figured it appropriate to give a brief summary to keep the things fresh. Emil Pagliarulo, Fallout 3's Lead Designer, has had quite a bit to say, especially considering the <a href="http://www.bethsoft.com" target="_self">Bethesda</a> policy of silence on FO3 at the moment. This has also, so far, included answering some specific questions put to him by people on the forums. Here's some (not all) of what he's said:<blockquote>

At this point, I talk about Fallout 3 excitedly because, well, I'm
excited about it. And when you do that, and can't give out any real
info, it can sound like a PR spin-job. So I'll do my best to keep that
stuff toned down. It's just that I've always liked to be accessible,
even when I'm not at liberty to disclose any info; those of you who
might know me from Blood and Shadows or TTLG understand how it goes.

In the end, you guys are going to judge Fallout 3 based on its own
merits anyway, and that's the way it should be. Doesn't mean we can't
communicate and pass the time together while we wait.
--------<table width="90%" height="87" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="3" border="0" align="center"><tr><td>Quote:</td> </tr> <tr> <td class="quote">What
I would really like to see is for BethSoft to branch-out from its
current M.O. -- "OMFG grafiX!", like most game companies nowadays --
and to really focus on the more subtle things with Fallout 3.

</td> </tr></table>

Ultimately, what about the best of both worlds? Aren't the two capable of co-existing?

<table width="90%" height="99" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="3" border="0" align="center"><tr> <td>Quote:</td> </tr> <tr> <td class="quote">We've
already heard the demand for such things on this forum: non-linear
gameplay, immersion, choices, character development, etc. Ignoring the
specifics, I think the majority of people on this forum are just saying
one thing: "tell us a story, and make it convincing. </td> </tr></table>

You've just described everything I look for in a game, certainly.

<table width="90%" height="39" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="3" border="0" align="center"><tr> <td>Quote:</td> </tr> <tr> <td class="quote">When we shall see first concept art of F3?</td> </tr></table>

Hmmm... hard to say. That ball is in our marketing department's court. When you do, God knows you'll have plenty to talk about.

<table width="90%" height="123" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="3" border="0" align="center"><tr> <td>Quote:</td> </tr> <tr> <td class="quote">That
said: Emil, what are the chances of bringing "outside consultants" into
the Fallout 3 development process to help write the main story, and to
keep it consistent both with itself and with the history of the Fallout
universe? As has already been noted numerous times, Fallout-type games
are not exactly B.S.'s forte. Perhaps a little bit of employment
expansion should be called for.</td> </tr></table>

Honestly, I think you'd be surprised by the types of things that
interest our designers (games, literature, what have you), and what
they're capable of. There are muscles they haven't even begun to flex
yet. So, short answer -- no outside consultants. We all feel very
comfortable with Fallout 3 and our combined knowledge of the world.

<table width="90%" height="51" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="3" border="0" align="center"><tr> <td>Quote:</td> </tr> <tr> <td class="quote">With even the faintest flavour of Elder Scrolls, Fallout 3 really will not be Fallout. </td> </tr></table>

What, to you, constitutes Elder Scrolls "flavor"? Are you referring
to "swords and sorcery," "first-person," "topic lists," or something
else entirely (or all of the above)? I'm really curious to know where
YOU guys draw the distinction.</blockquote>That last question sounds like a good cue to give some feedback. I'll just mention one last thing taken from one of Emil's posts:<blockquote>When someone communicates articulately and politely, I'm obviously much
more likely to listen. When someone starts spewing vitriol, well, it's
hard for me to take anyone like that seriously. But, putting myself in
your shoes -- it's your right to bitch. Passion breeds passionate
discourse. I'd much rather work on a game that people love and debate
than one that no one gives a damn about.</blockquote>So there you go. I know a lot of flaming's gone on in the past, and to be honest it was deserved with games like Brotherhood of Steel, but I've felt for a while there's a genuine opportunity here for some productive fan-developer communication, if people are open to that - and to be fair, most people seem to be, which is rather nice.

Mr. Teatime · Post by **Mr. Teatime** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 9:43 pm

And because I didn't want to make the newspost any longer, I'll add my opinion on what makes ES flavour here:

What, to you, constitutes Elder Scrolls "flavor"? Are you referring to "swords and sorcery," "first-person," "topic lists," or something else entirely (or all of the above)? I'm really curious to know where YOU guys draw the distinction.

All those things mentioned constitute ES flavour, and I'd rather they were kept from FO3. Though, I do have a suspicion that first person will be an option in FO3, which I'm ambivalent about. Would be nice to have an option for a classic viewpoint. I'd also miss the fading rooftops as you enter buildings, so I hope that's in. Another key feature of the ES is the combat - again, I don't feel it has much relevance to how things are done in Fallout. Having said that, I'd prefer a pure realtime mode instead of pause-and-play, which is the worst CRPG combat system in the world. Kind of a lesser-of-two-evils thing. The honourable thing would be pure turn based combat. Then you've got the quests and... well, I guess it's true what they say. The two games are pretty much at opposite ends of the CRPG spectrum.

I think the last RPG I played that had the majority of quests offering multiple, non-violent solutions was Anachronox in 2001 (and that didn't include the choice of sneaking, diplomatic or any other methods where appropriate), so if Bethesda can offer that it's a fine start. NWN2 and Gothic3 all disappoint in that regard.

Points where ES and FO could crossover? Not many really. The engine seemed pretty neat (though some kind of memory leak or incompatability with the ATI x800 series or something make it unplayable for more than 15 minutes for me)... and quest lines like the dark brotherhood were good in terms of story/interest. NPC schedules always add life to things, though shouldn't be the focus of a game like FO, and I think could be improved from Oblivion if they were to be included. I'd like to cut the physics for every object and have seamless exterior/interior transitions instead. Also the world of Oblivion felt pretty small - Fallout deals with in continents, so manually travelling from one place to another should be pretty impossible unless you want to spend real days doing it.

Killzig · Post by **Killzig** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 10:08 pm

from t3h thr34d.

Bethsoft_Emil wrote:Ultimately, what about the best of both worlds? Aren't the two capable of co-existing?

Absolutely correct sir.

Bethsoft_Emil wrote:You've just described everything I look for in a game, certainly.

I'm still partial to Fallout 3: The Master's Revenge. Or Dogmeat Teaches Typing... (ChrisT. stop working on Tolkien games!!)

Hmmm... hard to say. That ball is in our marketing department's court. When you do, God knows you'll have plenty to talk about.

Will the brahmin and the vd images be among the batch?

Honestly, I think you'd be surprised by the types of things that interest our designers (games, literature, what have you), and what they're capable of. There are muscles they haven't even begun to flex yet. So, short answer -- no outside consultants. We all feel very comfortable with Fallout 3 and our combined knowledge of the world.

As long as you're not solely relying on the bileball for said knowledge, sure.

What, to you, constitutes Elder Scrolls "flavor"? Are you referring to "swords and sorcery," "first-person," "topic lists," or something else entirely (or all of the above)? I'm really curious to know where YOU guys draw the distinction.

the first person thing would probably get you hung. I think top down is still the standard the DAC/Codexer's cling to. I myself am partial to OTS views that give a lot of viewing area to the world in front of you with still that ego stroking view of your billy bad ass PC running about. Kind of like being a kid sprawled out on the floor running your action figures god damnit through dioramas. topic lists? what are those? is that what you call the wikichat thing? yeah, we'd probably have nasty photoshop contests of you if you insisted on that for dialog.

...

the tes flavor to me is actually the lack of... always felt like generic fantasy universe #42462469. The character system seemed like it was an afterthought, just a bunch of meaningless names and numbers without much in the way of visible/meaningful effects in game.

that and the fucking loading. why oh why must we load so much. fucking tony hawk's american wasteland is more immersive than this shit. fuck fuck fuck

why do you swear so much? The fuck are you talking about?

/vent off.

sorry. just the frustration I felt when I'd QV on the remote to sportscenter while sitting on my couch in front of the secks bocks.

Rosh · Post by **Rosh** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 10:11 pm

We've already heard the demand for such things on this forum: non-linear gameplay, immersion, choices, character development, etc. Ignoring the specifics, I think the majority of people on this forum are just saying one thing: "tell us a story, and make it convincing.

Actually, that's the story that Bethesda keeps telling itself, and using only the majority example as a design logic. It's like saying "oh, the only thing most people remember in common about Godzilla was that he was a giant fucking lizard". So some idiots decided to make a US Godzilla movie, which only had a connection to the original by merit of the presence of a "giant fucking lizard". We've already had two "giant fucking lizard" schools of development try and fail. Pointing out unspecific items as some sort of reassurance, when this has been done repeatedly in the past, doesn't quite work.

Notice that turn-based combat isn't on that list? It and other elements are missing for a reason, until such a time that they can issue an <s>excuse</s> press-release to hype why they were changed. As are the other specifics that are carefully avoided mention while trying to prolong this "we're doing what people want" song and dance and Bethesda goes "uh...make it post-apocalyptic, right?"

Emil and others already know fully well what we mean, and this game of obfuscation can really suck my nuts. If Emil wants to act with some integrity, it's up to him, but claiming that the Fallout 3 team knows what they're doing in almost the same breath as asking what we mean in context to key design points that have been around since the original designers have said them and put them down into design, and which NMA, DAC, and RPGCodex have covered at length - it doesn't quite match up.

Neither does it work when some of us are already aware that your combat in no way honors Fallout by any convceivable means. Care to explain, or is there something about "combat dynamics" and "experience and immersion being more important than some combat system the US market can't sell easily to X-Brick cattle" you'd like to talk about instead? Yes, we're aware it's real-time and for the consoles. Anything else you'd like to clarify while you're here making claims about Bethesda?

We've already heard the demand for such things on this forum: non-linear gameplay,

Not TES "non-linear", of course. Fallout actually offers resolution depending upon how the protagonist in Fallout acts. Oblivion is a sandbox with story/event non-linearity possibly trumped by Deus Ex.

immersion,

WRONG! It's about playing the character, not being the one who "swings" by clicking the mouse repeatedly. Oh, wait...getting ahead of myself, since you hadn't actually used that and the "innovation" excuse yet as Bethesda has planned to excuse the RT combat. Oh, and if you guys would look elsewhere, TB is quite alive and well. Only the console trash don't seem to like it en masse...or they do, if you count Final Fantasy and the many other TB games.

choices, character development, etc.

Again, not the "choices" and "character development" in TES, which are both pretty non-existent outside of stats.

Ignoring the specifics, I think the majority of people on this forum are just saying one thing: "tell us a story, and make it convincing.

So that's all you can say you guys intend to try sticking to? My sources say yes. We aren't "just saying one thing", and haven't for as long as you've had the license - about two years. We've had enough "ignoring the specifics" long enough. It's now time for some Bethesda honesty.

...

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

Killzig · Post by **Killzig** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 10:20 pm

Rosh you bring up a good point about those side endeavors being meaningful to the game world as a whole.

Rosh · Post by **Rosh** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 10:44 pm

Killzig wrote:Rosh you bring up a good point about those side endeavors being meaningful to the game world as a whole.

I'm really starting to wonder if/when we'll receive word that a Bethesda developer has finished Fallout...and realize that compared to the Radiant AI, Fallout is to a story/resolution complexity previously unheard of in Bethesda games. In fact, compared to multiple location outcomes, location interactions, multiple storyline path resolutions depending upon how the player plays the character, well, it looks like Fallout would be innovation to TES itself. (No, before some idiot thinks so, that doesn't mean replacing the combat - since TES is an action game.)

Except for the random retarded city guard fights of Oblivion. Oh, wait, the long hooker-wars in Fallout 2 when a hooker got shot instead of you, and something long, a bit amusing, and yet logical compared to the Radiant AI occurs. At least none of the hookers would purposefully attack each other. So even Fallout is more advanced on amusing "bugs".

TelemachusSneezed · Post by **TelemachusSneezed** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 10:59 pm

Rosh wrote:BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

Do I look like Emil Pagliarulo? Address your complaints to him, cranky-nuts! Stop going off half-cocked without reading past posts.

And be honest with yourself Rosh, are you disagreeing with everything I said because you thought the quotes were from Emil, or because you actually disagree with what I said? Because at this point, it sounds like you are so frustrated that you are coming to conclusions before you actually consider the evidence... of which there is none. There's just a bunch of casual, fuckin' comments! An appropriate response to casual, fuckin' comments is more casual, fuckin' comments. Read up on your interwebs ediquette... of which there is also none.

Bethsoft_Emil wrote:Ultimately, what about the best of both worlds? Aren't the two capable of co-existing?

Ideally, yes. But I'm sure you would be the first to admit, Emil, that your profession places limits on how much resources -- time, money, etc. -- can be devoted to a game within a certain period. Ergo, if resources are finite, sumtin' gotta give! This appears to be what happened to Interplay: all hail Fallout 3, consoles mit purdy grafix = $$$, Fallout 3 resource use scaled back, unrealistic schedules, collapse.

Of course, BethSoft is by no means in dire straits. I'm just hoping the men-upstairs in your neck of the woods have the patience to let your team do things right, to allow you to create the masterpiece that Fallout 3 deserves to be.

Bethsoft_Emil wrote:Honestly, I think you'd be surprised by the types of things that interest our designers (games, literature, what have you), and what they're capable of. There are muscles they haven't even begun to flex yet. So, short answer -- no outside consultants. We all feel very comfortable with Fallout 3 and our combined knowledge of the world.

Otay!

Bethsoft_Emil wrote:What, to you, constitutes Elder Scrolls "flavor"? Are you referring to "swords and sorcery," "first-person," "topic lists," or something else entirely (or all of the above)? I'm really curious to know where YOU guys draw the distinction.

Well, let me just say that Fantasy (swords und sorcery, magik, etc.) is totally gay, IMHO. This is one of the reasons I have never been a fan of any other RPG except for the Fallout series... and it's the only RPG series I would ever pay money on as well.

In terms of perspective and dialogue paths, enough has been said on those topics so far.

In summary: :pig:

Rosh · Post by **Rosh** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 11:30 pm

TelemachusSneezed wrote:
Rosh wrote:BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
Do I look like Emil Pagliarulo? Address your complaints to him, cranky-nuts! Stop going off half-cocked without reading past posts.

Try reading in context, please. Thanks.

And be honest with yourself Rosh, are you disagreeing with everything I said because you thought the quotes were from Emil, or because you actually disagree with what I said?

No, I was pointing out that is how Bethesda IS treating this, with exactly the items they have been going about that could be as loosely-quantified as any of the bullshit lies they have made about TES in the past. About the only thing I've seen them have a firm grasp upon is maybe the story and setting...well, not really. In fact, some used to get FOT, F:POS, and Fo2 mixed up when Fo3 was first announced. Hell, Emil was making amusing yet laughably incorrect comments involving Van Buren having to be Fallout 3 or it's unacceptable.

Uh...to whom? So much for him reading and paying attention to the community.

As for what you said, just "telling a story", seems to have worked for Redguard, Battlespire, and...oh, wait, they didn't. And has anyone bothered to keep track of the revolving door of talent there at Bethesda, except for the usual suspects?

Because at this point, it sounds like you are so frustrated that you are coming to conclusions before you actually consider the evidence... of which there is none.

To you, maybe. But maybe a Bethesda employee...or three, have decided to become so pissed off at me they wanted to personally disprove me wrong, who do have pride in the company and remember when the original workers of TES and other titles were there - but now it's been all sacrificed for the console as an inflation of sales. The same with VDweller and a couple of others, who also have pointed out some details that are quite obvious given the direction of their PR comments.

I would like to think that I have instigated most of the witch-hunt there at Bethesda, but I wish them good luck when those details are released, because it's not going to matter if they find the leaks.

It's going to be fucking hilarious. Chuck didn't have it so bad with the Big Boy parody and thongs. Okay, maybe not as bad as the thongs, but still pretty bad.

They're just a bunch of casual, fuckin' comments! An appropriate response to casual, fuckin' comments is more casual, fuckin' comments. Read up on your interwebs ediquette...

Brush up on reading what has been said before (in particular, by Bethesda, and not just in the last couple of days), or continue having a budget for kneepads and having to brush up after buying yet another pig in a poke.

Rosh · Post by **Rosh** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 11:59 pm

TelemachusSneezed wrote: Good try at saving face Rosh, but your entire post was addressed as if it was Emil making those comments, not me.

Really, when I pointed out that it seems to be Bethesda's reason, "that we kept the setting" when little else bears familiarity to the game. Try to keep up, here.

If your comments were in fact addressed to me, you need to specifically say so, not expect me to parse through your ranting and toss a coin to decide whether you are an idiot or a genius.

So now which is it? You assume to know whom I was talking about, when I was in fact discussing Bethesda's modus (in this case, noting that it was EXACTLY like Bethesda's unspecific song and dance, and you've been here shorter than Emil). Now you're not sure. Your previous statement is therefore put in doubt due to your rather insufficient mental ability to read in context. Context would have told you precisely whom I was talking about and replying to - I was replying to the phrase based upon Emil's validation of "You've just described everything I look for in a game, certainly*", that you're going to hear something like it as a press release as an excuse as to why they didn't include any of the SPECIFIC items that not even you listed, that have been listed at DAC since Fallout 3 was announced.

Maybe if you'd look at some of Emil's other comments, you'd find that yours are simply a sloppy rephrased blowjob in text form about eight pages later:

We have a vision of the game we want to make, and that's the one we're making; staying true to the "essence" of Fallout (which can be defined a thousand ways, I know) is incredibly important to us.

Did I forget to mention I regularly think six moves ahead in Chess, so that simple forum debate comes easily? Thank you for playing.

Emil also forgot to note the important points of what the original designers said and did themselves, as well as the million or so examples of Fallout currently floating around - all exact. While there are a number of different fan interpretations, including by those who only have played through the game using the same combat and barter tagged skills so they have a great chance of missing background information, Fallout was made the same numerous times over.

Only if Bethesda ignores all this, can they believe their own lies as they have done for years. They've been doing that to TES for a good portion of a decade.

Subject, finito. I'd rather not go on with this conversation. I extend the hand of "let's make up and kiss":

It's not so easily for you to squeak out of it like that. You should know that if you had been indeed reading DAC since Fallout 3 was released.

And just for future reference, I have been following DAC since Fallout 3 was originally annouced by Interplay. So... I do know my history thank you.

So has Bethesda claimed, too. Care to explain or echo their spin-doctoring some more?

* - So if that is what he's going to look for in a game, in particular the "ignoring specifics", and MAEKS GMAES!!, I think we now know what we can expect from him.

Killzig · Post by **Killzig** » Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:39 am

this thread wasn't for you two to titty fight over a misunderstanding. Telemach stop being such an oversensitive twat. Rosh is just being Rosh, he doesn't talk to anyone, he talks at everyone. It's not a personal attack, it's a general spewing of vitriol. Just like Provvie. Get with the times, mang.

Locke · Post by **Locke** » Sat Nov 11, 2006 2:33 am

Rosh wrote:Did I forget to mention I regularly think six moves ahead in Chess, so that simple forum debate comes easily? Thank you for playing.

hey, I regularly think twelve moves ahead, but nevetheless I still cannot manage to beat my companion.

thank you for reading

Emil wrote:What, to you, constitutes Elder Scrolls "flavor"? Are you referring to "swords and sorcery," "first-person," "topic lists," or something else entirely (or all of the above)? I'm really curious to know where YOU guys draw the distinction.

dude, it may be a matter of taste, because sure there are persons who do not mind to wank off on some jolly fantasy stuff, but for me personally the distinction lies solely in the authenticity of the world you are act in. and I can't satisfactorily explain here what makes fallout world so believable, at least not in english.

what constitutes Elder Scrolls "flavor"? I think it's harder to say what distinguish ES flavor from any other FRPG's. heck actually there was one dyed-in-the-wool englishman who made its putt good with elves and tall trees, but we all know the score. the book has its charm and thoroughness, but today it comes as no surprise that the movie/game only provides you with tons of visual shit and intellectual bleakness. no interior, no emphaty for anyone. they sure think they filmed the book wery well, but I guess if you tell uwe boll that his products are uttermost crap he probably won't believe you. he'll most likely advise you to start practicising in judo.

and like Rosh pointed out already, it's not about immersion, 'cuz immersion is a piece of horseshit when you don't give a damn about playing a character. sure doom3 had its share of immersion, especially when you needed to fucking run outside the hatch on the surface bare-assed as a scared racoon. such amazing colors of cliffs and stuff. the point is that the game's not that utterly bad, you just gradually die off by straight continuous boredom, unable to push the escape button thanks to total immersion in pitch-dark corridor slaughtering.

Redeye · Post by **Redeye** » Sat Nov 11, 2006 5:40 am

Locke wrote:
Emil wrote:What, to you, constitutes Elder Scrolls "flavor"? Are you referring to "swords and sorcery," "first-person," "topic lists," or something else entirely (or all of the above)? I'm really curious to know where YOU guys draw the distinction.
dude, it may be a matter of taste, because sure there are persons who do not mind to wank off on some jolly fantasy stuff, but for me personally the distinction lies solely in the authenticity of the world you are act in. and I can't satisfactorily explain here what makes fallout world so believable, at least not in english.

what constitutes Elder Scrolls "flavor"? I think it's harder to say what distinguish ES flavor from any other FRPG's. heck actually there was one dyed-in-the-wool englishman who made its putt good with elves and tall trees, but we all know the score. the book has its charm and thoroughness, but today it comes as no surprise that the movie/game only provides you with tons of visual shit and intellectual bleakness. no interior, no emphaty for anyone. they sure think they filmed the book wery well, but I guess if you tell uwe boll that his products are uttermost crap he probably won't believe you. he'll most likely advise you to start practicising in judo.

and like Rosh pointed out already, it's not about immersion, 'cuz immersion is a piece of horseshit when you don't give a damn about playing a character. sure doom3 had its share of immersion, especially when you needed to fucking run outside the hatch on the surface bare-assed as a scared racoon. such amazing colors of cliffs and stuff. the point is that the game's not that utterly bad, you just gradually die off by straight continuous boredom, unable to push the escape button thanks to total immersion in pitch-dark corridor slaughtering.

I thought the ES world was quite well fleshed out and believable.

Moreso than Fallout.

That is, in terms of the backstory, details, etc. (ES books... nuff said)

The actual game world that you interact with is another matter.

In art theres a saying that its not so much what you put in as what you leave/take out. (Both are important.)

Maybe there are thresholds governing the amount people will automatically fill in for themselves/gloss over/accept as missing and the amount at which people will feel/think something is missing/want more( because there was too much there and it created a tantalizing itch. .)

The trick is to find a sweet spot between those thresholds. Thresholds which are different for different people. Good luck!

example (me-relative):

I see somebody walking aroung seeming all alive and breathing and realistic. I don't have to fill anything in or gloss over anything or accept anything as missing.
So I talk to this guy and he has the IQ of a lima bean and the same voice as ten other people.
By "putting too much in"- making it seem like AI, I was led to expect more.

If I kill this guy either nobody notices or there's a telepathic signal.

Damn, I know this reads very strangely.

By the "thresholds" I DO NOT mean too little vs too much in the "standard" sense.
Or maybe I sorta do.

There has to be enough so people can accrete their own auto-filler and not so much as to create an inadvertent Potemkin-effect.

Yeah, that's a better way to put it.

As to the question of "Flavor"... damn. For me the Fallout vs. ES distinction is that FO was so limited that it was accepted like some little self-contained sculpture and ES is like that 1300-foot painting John Banvard made of the Mississippi.

FO seemed "alive" to me because it was just enough to trigger my auto-filler so it all seemed good to me, ES seemed "dead" to me because those animated first person characters ended up seeming like a bunch of shuffling, muttering zombies.

If there was a oilpaint-filter effect that might actually be a cool thing to turn into an afterlife game.

But thats a different subject. (Like COC meets Grim Fandango in a world that looks like the Icewind Dale character portraits.)

mmmm...

Oh yeah...

I forgot to bitch and whine about turn based and character development and all that crap.

Instead I'll make a suggestion about how to deal with a little bit of the above stuff. (not the directly above, further up

)

In Thief I loved when the guards would find corpses and say "murder!"
It made me giggle. Nobody reacted to corpses and missing items in
MWind/Oblivion. They didn't notice in FO either- but being tiles and prerendered figurines and chit I didn't expect them to. If they look like people they should have some personality and presence of mind.

It would be cool if the Karma/Rep thing (including town-by-town rep from Fallout2) could go along with something like the evidence trail/etc. idea.
Maybe have information travel at varying speeds and with varying distortion to allow town reps to be linked/bleed over into each other.

So: corpse-hiding, disguises/witnesses(not scripted- sandbox implementation), Karma/Rep/etc.

PS:
Someone else pointed out the small vs. big thing.
(credit and all)

blh blah blah

Rambly post.

PiP · Post by **PiP** » Sat Nov 11, 2006 10:18 am

be more vague please

Redeye wrote:ES seemed "dead" to me because those animated first person characters ended up seeming like a bunch of shuffling, muttering zombies.

OK this is a good bit

Redeye wrote:If there was a oilpaint-filter effect that might actually be a cool thing to turn into an afterlife game.

But thats a different subject. (Like COC meets Grim Fandango in a world that looks like the Icewind Dale character portraits.)

Grim Fandango characters were actually probably one of the most lively characters to be seen in a game.
What's COC? KoC's republican alter ego?

Nobody reacted to corpses and missing items in
MWind/Oblivion. They didn't notice in FO either- but being tiles and prerendered figurines and chit I didn't expect them to.

I didn't expect people to react to bodies in Fallout because it was one tough world. They still reacted to the killing itself - by running/fighting you - which was just what I'd expect. (it could be made better tho - like defenceless hoz shouldn't throw themselves at you esp when you're in powerarmour, but that's a separate story and probably discussed more than once)

So: corpse-hiding, disguises/witnesses(not scripted- sandbox implementation), Karma/Rep/etc.

welcome Fallout:Thief, Fallout:Splinter Cell, Fallout:hitman

Locke · Post by **Locke** » Sat Nov 11, 2006 10:30 am

Redeye wrote:I thought the ES world was quite well fleshed out and believable.

I believe so. and I also believe that I was retardly trying to compose an unquestioned answer: what actually makes one fantasy - in the broad sense of the word - game (/book/movie, whatever) more "authentic" than other? well excuse mua if it looked like a load of owlshit; because, frankly speaking, I don't have an idea. and moreover I actually believe that it's pretty senseless to reflect on where I particularly draw the distinction between ES and Fallout. I mean they are two different games, 'twill only create additional tiresome mindfuck, if you'll kindly excuse my french.

Redeye · Post by **Redeye** » Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:15 pm

PiP wrote:be more vague please

Its taste and impressions, language fails...

Redeye wrote:ES seemed "dead" to me because those animated first person characters ended up seeming like a bunch of shuffling, muttering zombies.

OK this is a good bit

Redeye wrote:If there was a oilpaint-filter effect that might actually be a cool thing to turn into an afterlife game.

But thats a different subject. (Like COC meets Grim Fandango in a world that looks like the Icewind Dale character portraits.)

Grim Fandango characters were actually probably one of the most lively characters to be seen in a game.
What's COC? KoC's republican alter ego?

COC= Call of Cthulhu. I was joking about the GF characters.

Redeye wrote: Nobody reacted to corpses and missing items in
MWind/Oblivion. They didn't notice in FO either- but being tiles and prerendered figurines and chit I didn't expect them to.

I didn't expect people to react to bodies in Fallout because it was one tough world. They still reacted to the killing itself - by running/fighting you - which was just what I'd expect. (it could be made better tho - like defenceless hoz shouldn't throw themselves at you esp when you're in powerarmour, but that's a separate story and probably discussed more than once)

I meant that as they appeared on the screen in FO I didn't expect much from them. If you make people look real-ish then they can't be lima beans.

Redeye wrote:So: corpse-hiding, disguises/witnesses(not scripted- sandbox implementation), Karma/Rep/etc.

welcome Fallout:Thief, Fallout:Splinter Cell, Fallout:hitman

Fallout:Thief might be sort of entertaining, for a little while.

Fallout:Hitman.... Say a huge vault like in THX1138 or Paranoia.
Be an enforcer, a troubleshooter, a thief, a rebel...
Not fallouty, but at least PA.

non-sequitor time

I wouldn't mind being able to climb around in Fallout-land.
Crouch, crawl, creep, sprint. (Screw jumping because that would lead to someone putting in jumping puzzles.)
Kill wasteland peasants with a sniper rifle and see lovingly detailed animations of their exploding heads through a rust-encrusted round window. Then burn their children alive with molotovs.
Lovely.
For melee there would definitely have to be TB combat.
I want to enjoy carving people up, not just be stuck with twitch-combo button mashing.
Oh- stealth kills ala V:TM-B. I loved the neck snap and the impales.
And there should be a really good flamethrower available.
With both TB and RT modes.
I want to hear the terrified shrieking!

box · Post by **box** » Sat Nov 11, 2006 1:46 pm

Yeah, real-time slaughter in the post-apoc daycare center will rock. That is...

Anyhow, personally, I find all of this fun but mostly futile because, in the end, I'll be waiting for the HUGE MEGA PC GAMER SPREAD, and how it's worded, what it harps on, to make any solid judgements about FO3.

Maximous · Post by **Maximous** » Sat Nov 11, 2006 8:10 pm

DirectX 10 will allow different views other then 1st person, I won't worry about that.

Comparing Elders Scrolls to NeverWinter Nights 2 would be a good place to start.

Feargus Urquhart did the original Wasteland with EA, BG, IWD, etcÃ¢â‚¬Â¦.with BI. His games stand out because the characters are Ã¢â‚¬Å“immersion,Ã¢â‚¬Â� I FELT that the Outcome of my Characters-Decision-Making Mattered!

NWN2 was superior to ES because of the dialog, I was the characterÃ¢â‚¬Â¦also the absolute twists in the plot that could NOT be anticipated by the player. (I have to admit the cut-aways, made NWN2 feel like a fucking MOVIEÃ¢â‚¬Â¦I was blown away around the end of Chapter 2-Chapter3 by how well NWN2 fluidly moved, and made me want to play NWN2 MORE).

FO1 and FO2 were great for the same reasonÃ¢â‚¬Â¦a master piece of story-telling by Feargus, that forced me to always think about Ã¢â‚¬Å“what was I doing to my Character.Ã¢â‚¬Â�

NWN2 Story to Chapter 3:
1. Bad Guy 1 appears
2. Bad guy 2 appears
3. Then Bad Guy 1 hooks up with Good Guy to fight Bad Guy 2

The good guy has to make MORAL decisions to fight with Bad Guy 1 against Bad Guy 2.

NWN2 ALWAYS made me think about How is this going to Effect MY CharacterÃ¢â‚¬Â¦personally. I never felt that passionate about my character in ES.

The Greeks knew about the 2 types of storyÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s (1) Tragedy, (2) Comedy. Mary Shelly wrote the first Horror Novel 1880Ã¢â‚¬â„¢s; Chandler and Hemet wrote the first detective novels 1920Ã¢â‚¬â„¢s. So Story-wise, FO3 will be one of these. Humphrey Bogart movies are great because we feel like the character. That is why Feargus Urquhart is so Successful, he makes us Want to be the characterÃ¢â‚¬Â¦and I do put Feargus in that group of people.

atoga · Post by **atoga** » Sat Nov 11, 2006 8:14 pm

wait, so NWN2 is good?

Rosh · Post by **Rosh** » Sat Nov 11, 2006 9:09 pm

Maximous wrote: Feargus Urquhart did the original Wasteland with EA, BG, IWD, etcÃ¢â‚¬Â¦.with BI. His games stand out because the characters are Ã¢â‚¬Å“immersion,Ã¢â‚¬Â� I FELT that the Outcome of my Characters-Decision-Making Mattered!

Take a moment to crawl back out of Feargus' cavernous, well-crawled ass, please. The man hasn't done anything of what you claim, and in fact, does the opposite.

"SLAM DUNK!" says enough, and this mentality naturally bit them in the ass when LucasArts expected Obsidian to follow within their "preferred" development time, as naturally LucasArts thought that Obsidian could make a complete game in Fear-Gut's recommended time, so you CAN thank Feargus for how badly KOTOR 2: The Shit Lords turned out.

Feargus doesn't have a clue, and is a far worse designer than a manager. Considering he's never managed worth dick even when he was a QA monkey in the early 90's...yeah, it surprised me how Chuck Cuevas and Feargus both got to be managers at Interplay, when they were previously "level designers" and QA monkeys. Survey Says: Too much of the REAL talent was already leaving Interplay. It was the people like Alan Pavlish (who DID work on Wasteland) and Tim Cain (who was one of the programmers of the game Feargus was first credited as testing - Bard's Tale Construction Set), among others, that were the real talent at Interplay. Fallout was Feargus' first finished product as a "manager", and frankly he had to have his hand held when people weren't doing his job for him, and he was then too clueless to interrupt or destroy good work.

Fallout 2 and Descent to Undermountain were his first real managerial projects, and the direction shows. Avellone was also involved. I also remember the Usenet admission was that they were trying to shovel DtU out for the planned release date - forever setting the tone for Interplay with half-ass releases - it was released in January, like F:POS. Oh, and hastily shoveled Fallout 2 for Christmas sales.

Feargus did NOT have anything to do with Wasteland, was basically a figurehead for Fo1 (and did some basic, incomplete design on Fo1's Boneyards), almost made Fo2 into a failure due to his poor management (by having it so that when the ONLY PERSON WHO KNEW THE FO2 ENGINE CODE LEFT AT BIS LEAVES, Fo2 support dies after a token patch), made many false starts on Fo3 (some deserved to be axed for their near DtU quality early on), helped BioWare bastardize the Fallout speech system into an RTS game so BIS could make crappy dungeon crawlers (Ass-wind Dale) instead of good CRPGs - and why does everyone seem to like ignoring Descent to Undermountain? About the only thing Feargus didn't manage to mess up at BIS, was Planescape: Torment, but that's probably because he was just as clueless as the marketing department and so couldn't insert any of his "expertise".

So, yes, it's funny that you give a verbal blowjob to Feargus when he hasn't done ANYTHING that you praise him for, and instead he's in many cases the reason why those games are hardly as good as they should have been. He's more interested in the "cool minigun particle effects", as he's said and proven over about the last decade.

As for joining up with an enemy to join against another enemy...not particularly new, nor that imaginative. Geneforge 1 has something similar, and they don't have to be "the enemy" depending upon how you play. But it doesn't have those "cool minigun particle effects", so many people may not like the Spiderweb games despite how well you can actually play a character NOT involving character class.

PiP · Post by **PiP** » Sat Nov 11, 2006 9:17 pm

Kharn wrote:
Maximous wrote:DFO1 and FO2 were great for the same reasonÃ¢â‚¬Â¦a master piece of story-telling by Feargus, that forced me to always think about Ã¢â‚¬Å“what was I doing to my Character.Ã¢â‚¬Â�
Ignorance alert!

just stop paying attention to some some. or perhaps don't stop, somebody should make it clear for them that they're idea of getting certain things right is wrong