Chatting with Vault Dwellers from PAX

[Black]

Companies create games to cash in. As much as they can. If someone thinks otherwise, they're being delusional and are lying to themselves.

They've been doing that for a long time now and that's the case even with Fallout. But it didn't stop Tim & buddies to earn money and make a good, innovative game instead of mainstream piece of shit.

 

[taag]

But even if we did go into the motives debate, I would argue that the decision to buy the franchise was most likely business-driven, to diversify their IPs.

Is there a reason other than a business-one when a company buys an IP? An IP fetish reason?

They've been doing that for a long time now and that's the case even with Fallout. But it didn't stop Tim & buddies to earn money and make a good, innovative game instead of mainstream piece of shit.

I have highest respect for all developers who are fighting among the corporate ranks for us, little people. Sadly but true, when the shit hits the fan, they're usually first in line.

 

[Moester]

I think you've misinterpreted my statement.

Nah, it's just my wording that was a bit off. I meant "I don't see how PoS was any different from Fallout 3 in the 'cashing in' department". Sorry about that.

Are you saying you see no difference in the motives behind POS and Fallout 3?

Motive and intention are absolutely meaningless to me in this case, especially because they are impossible to determine. Both companies did the exact same thing (only, as I stated, to different degrees), and it matters not if Bethesda uses the lovey-dovey "golly, we are such huge fans" approach, their actions speak louder - and they don't show me an inkling of care for the original vision, neither with gameplay nor any other element. You know what they say about good intentions.

But even if we did go into the motives debate, I would argue that the decision to buy the franchise was most likely business-driven, to diversify their IPs. Turning down an offer to work with some of the originals' creators doesn't sound to me like something a fan of anything would do, ever. Bethesda did.

If I were to use your line of reasoning, then Fallout 2 was an attempt to cash in on the first, hence its motives are flawed. Fallout tried to cash in on Wasteland by calling itself the spiritual successor, hence its motives are also flawed. And Wasteland was trying to cash in movies like the Road Warrior...and you can go on and on until the original creative concept of the post-appocaliptic genre which in of itself was an offshoot of sci-fi and horror.

If Bethesda is trying to make an entertaining game, and are trying to keep alive the spirit of Fallout then its good enough for me. While I'm a big fan of the previous games, I don't have enough of a relationship to them to feel betrayed by a genuine attempt at keeping an idea alive.

P.S. Those vault dweller guys are awesome! Definitely some of the best fan-made costumes ever!

 

[Seymour the spore plant]

If I were to use your line of reasoning, then Fallout 2 was an attempt to cash in on the first, hence its motives are flawed. Fallout tried to cash in on Wasteland by calling itself the spiritual successor, hence its motives are also flawed.

Huh? I explicitly said motives don't matter to me, actions do. Fallout 2 kept most everything from the first game intact, from core gameplay to setting, and even built upon it - hence it was a "true" sequel in every aspect, even if they did go overboard on the pop references. Fallout was to Wasteland just that, a spiritual successor - it never claimed to be a sequel or part of the same franchise, just inspired by it. Do you see anyone from Bethesda claiming their game isn't a sequel?

You are misconstructing my argument there. My definition of "cashing in" does not include any sequel or inspiration whatsoever, but this one is clearly making something wildly different from the rest of the series (akin to PoS, in this regard) while claiming to be faithful to it.

a genuine attempt at keeping an idea alive.

What idea is that, exaclty? Fallout as an emulation of the pen and paper RPG mechanics was the first thing to fly out of the window once the franchise was in Bethesda's hands. Setting and lore followed suit every time that they conflicted with their idea of fun - be it through nuclear catapults/cars, lawful good Brotherhood of Steel, magical clothing and most all their additions, actually. What exactly are they keeping that is so essential to Fallout that single-handedly makes up for all of these elements?

They may be keeping the brand alive, but the idea of Fallout is precisely what Bethesda is burying with their iteration.

 

[sai | GLYPH]

If I were to use your line of reasoning, then Fallout 2 was an attempt to cash in on the first etc

Literalism for semantics. The sure-fire argument winner.

If you really want to go by that reasoning, everything that makes money is a hollow attempt to cash in on an idea.

I think there's room to feel as if a genuine interest in the game took more of a backseat. Maybe the developers were really just attached to the imagery. Maybe it was the mood. Maybe it was the humor. Maybe it was the money. And depending on how you genuinely feel about games as a creative medium, any one of those things might be all a game genuinely has to be.

 

[Moester]

If I were to use your line of reasoning, then Fallout 2 was an attempt to cash in on the first, hence its motives are flawed. Fallout tried to cash in on Wasteland by calling itself the spiritual successor, hence its motives are also flawed.

Huh? I explicitly said motives don't matter to me, actions do. Fallout 2 kept most everything from the first game intact, from core gameplay to setting, and even built upon it - hence it was a "true" sequel in every aspect, even if they did go overboard on the pop references. Fallout was to Wasteland just that, a spiritual successor - it never claimed to be a sequel or part of the same franchise, just inspired by it. Do you see anyone from Bethesda claiming their game isn't a sequel?

You are misconstructing my argument there. My definition of "cashing in" does not include any sequel or inspiration whatsoever, but this one is clearly making something wildly different from the rest of the series (akin to PoS, in this regard) while claiming to be faithful to it.

a genuine attempt at keeping an idea alive.

What idea is that, exaclty? Fallout as an emulation of the pen and paper RPG mechanics was the first thing to fly out of the window once the franchise was in Bethesda's hands. Setting and lore followed suit every time that they conflicted with their idea of fun - be it through nuclear catapults/cars, lawful good Brotherhood of Steel, magical clothing and most all their additions, actually. What exactly are they keeping that is so essential to Fallout that single-handedly makes up for all of these elements?

They may be keeping the brand alive, but the idea of Fallout is precisely what Bethesda is burying with their iteration.

Ok, I'll concede all the points you've made about F3...I also have reservations about the game. But if you honestly look at F1 vs. F2, you'll see that F2 had many departures from the original.

1. Brotherhood of steel went from a xenophobic bunch of isolationists to an inclusionary society who accpet the chosen one with open arms.

2. The addition of aliens into the game. Even worse these aliens are definitely Ridley Scott Aliens rather than 50's style aliens. In my opinion MUCH worse than a mini-nuke launcher.

3. F2 was geared more towards a "super character" than the original. Essentially the original was an RPG and the second was a sandbox game.

4. Fallout let you create any type of character you wanted and gave you clear cut ways to beat the game. In F1 you didn't even have to kill anyone to finish the game. F2 was definitely combat oriented giving you bonuses to using skills to help beat Horrigan...but overall combat characters had a much easier time with the game.

I haven't heard of "magical clothing" just certain items of clothing that give "stats boost" rather than wearing armor. But if you don't like that how can you excuse the fact that fallout 2 had armor implants, let you increase your stats permanently with a cookie, & computer chips?

Sure, the pen and paper RPG engine has been replaced, but skills and "rolls" are effectively in use.

If you try hard enough you can knock any game no matter how close to the original it is.

I think you should try to give it at least a chance rather than knocking it just because you hate the corporate line.

 

[Ausir]

The addition of aliens into the game. Even worse these aliens are definitely Ridley Scott Aliens rather than 50's style aliens. In my opinion MUCH worse than a mini-nuke launcher

They're not actual aliens. They were genetically engineered by the military and are only called "aliens" by the people because they resemble ones.

 

[FeelTheRads]

But if you don't like that how can you excuse the fact that fallout 2 had armor implants, let you increase your stats permanently with a cookie, & computer chips?

Uhm... because... you know, they're implants or surgeries and not magical clothes? And what cookie?

 

[Jim Cojones]

1. Brotherhood of steel went from a xenophobic bunch of isolationists to an inclusionary society who accpet the chosen one with open arms.

Access to a small bunkers with good weapon and an armour (not really special) and possibility of using computer isn't a bad exchange for Vertibird plans.

2. The addition of aliens into the game. Even worse these aliens are definitely Ridley Scott Aliens rather than 50's style aliens. In my opinion MUCH worse than a mini-nuke launcher.

There were no aliens in Fallout 2 except two grey one's bodies in SAD - as big deal as UFO encounter in first game. Wannamingos were mistaken by people from Fallout world but were abominations created with FEV like centaurs and floaters.

I haven't heard of "magical clothing" just certain items of clothing that give "stats boost" rather than wearing armor. But if you don't like that how can you excuse the fact that fallout 2 had armor implants, let you increase your stats permanently with a cookie, & computer chips?

1. Cookies were a joke (not really a good one) and not a big part of the game because effect wasn't permanent.
2. Chips were installed in ACE to get the same kind of operations like in first game.
3. Why there couldn't be armor implants in the world that has FEV, Power Armors and laser weapons?

Fallout 1/2 - using lockpick, medikit or tools helps you open doors, heal wounds and repair items.
Fallout 3 - wearing doctor clothes helps you heal wounds. Yeah...

 

[alec]

There were no aliens in Fallout 2 except two grey one's bodies in SAD

No. Not alien. You can read the story behind that skeleton on one of the holodisks. It's actually something of an intelligence experiment gone wrong.

The other one (the one behind the tank) is an unimplemented reference to The X-Files (unless I'm messing things up here, I'm not sure anymore).

 

[ookami]

1. Brotherhood of steel went from a xenophobic bunch of isolationists to an inclusionary society who accpet the chosen one with open arms.

A few guys stuck at some outposts accept the Chosen One after you go on what could be a very risky but very beneficial mission for them. I don't recall the Chosen One being made a member of the BoS, though.

2. The addition of aliens into the game.

Which aren't actually aliens but genetically engineered creatures. They're all wanamingos, some are just mistakenly called aliens.

In my opinion MUCH worse than a mini-nuke launcher.

Of course, because 'aliens' trivialize the impetus of Fallout's setting. Yes, much worse than just being able to lob nukes around as you please.

3. F2 was geared more towards a "super character" than the original.

This one I'll give you. That's 1 out of 4.

4. In F1 you didn't even have to kill anyone to finish the game.

Gee, you're right. The massive explosions of those bases must have just made everyone inside them fall asleep. They couldn't possibly have been killed.

F2 was definitely combat oriented giving you bonuses to using skills to help beat Horrigan...

Not sure if you're aware of this, but you don't even have to directly fight Horrigan.

but overall combat characters had a much easier time with the game.

That can hold true for both games.

I haven't heard of "magical clothing" just certain items of clothing that give "stats boost" rather than wearing armor.

Well, that would be magical clothing. And don't give me any of that 'nanobot' bullshit. This isn't Deus Ex or Anarchy Online.

But if you don't like that how can you excuse the fact that fallout 2 had armor implants

The same way I can excuse the fact that Fallout 1 had operations that increased your stats. Makes more sense than clothing that somehow magically imbues the wearer with knowledge they didn't have before.

let you increase your stats permanently with a cookie

It increased AP for 15 minutes. So, Bethesda wants to turn silly easter egg items into full-fledged common game mechanics? Well, I'll be damned, and after they stated that they didn't want that silly stuff.

& computer chips?

One stat increase per computer chip, one computer chip for each stat. This is quite different from the magical skill-increasing dress-up doll aspect of FO3.

I think you should try to give it at least a chance rather than knocking it just because you hate the corporate line.

Give it a chance how exactly? There isn't going to be a demo for it.

 

[UncannyGarlic]

I'd like to hear Chad's view as to how VATS equates in any way to turn-based, I don't think the facts are in his favour but hearing what he has to say about this and VATS in general would be interesting.

It's probably not too likely that Chad's going to come comment here, but I'll take a crack at interpreting his comment since I've known him for a while. He said: "I was surprised how much I liked VATS, which did a lot to soothe my irrational longing for turn-based combat."

...Not exactly "VATS = Turn-based." I think what he was trying to say was that he was of a mind that Fallout couldn't work without turn-based combat, but after he tried VATS he found it wasn't as bad an alternative as he was expecting. That's as far as I'll interpret.

That's fair enough. I think his wording (saying that wanting TB is irrational) came off as a bit pointed.

Do you have some more specific things that made it feel like Fallout when wandering around? You liked being able to get yourself killed in dialogue and the look of the lasers but if you have more specifics that'd be great (this stuff isn't always easy to put into words, just fishing for more info).

It's difficult to put into words. I like the way the raiders looked, very slap-dash and dirty, but with that 80's S&M Road Warrior vibe. Gone is the insane bloom of Oblivion and the wasteland is very washed-out and desolate. I expected to hear the booming peals of their orchestral soundtrack but for the most part I don't remember the music, it was mostly minimal and nestled in the background. I liked the way the walls of Megaton looked, they reminded me of Junktown. I enjoyed the number of dialogue options I had with most NPCs and the ability to run the gamut between boy scout and jackass when speaking to them. I almost forgot one of the things I liked most: ammo was scarce. In the version we played, we usually had enough 10mm ammo, but anything else seemed quite hard to come by. I feel this is likely to change in the final version however, as the demo was played with a hacked character who had a lot of weapons and items he shouldn't have.

Thanks! I've been both ways on how NPCs look, I think that some of their aesthetics are spot on (the tire armor for example) while others seemed off (the guy in the welding mask for example).

You mention that there isn't excessive amounts of bloom; in the gameplay video when Todd talks to the Sheriff, the bloom of the environment was blinding. Did you notice this when you played?

When you say that you feel it's likely to change in the final version (in reference to ammo scarcity), do you mean you think they're be more ammo, that they'll be less 10mm ammo, or something else?

If I remember right you said that you liked VATS better than you were expecting, do you think that it has long term appeal? Do you think that the cutscenes will get boring after dozens of hours of play?

I did like VATS better than I was expecting, but then again I was expecting to hate it. I do think the cutscenes would begin to wear on one after a while, and I asked someone if they could be skipped or turned off in the options, but he didn't know (Todd and Pete weren't present for our play time) though the cutscenes were certainly entertaining, and they're also a lot more gratifying when you're the one playing the game instead of just watching

Cool. What did you think of VATS power comparatively? Was it unbalanced? Too powerful, too weak, or about right?

Also, if you don't mind, what do you and your friends think about Oblivion (if you've played it)? I ask not so that you can be assaulted for loving or hating it but simply to get an idea of what types of gameplay you guys like.

We've all played Oblivion. I've actually played all the Elder Scrolls games since Arena in 1994. When I first got Oblivion I hated it for pretty much every reason you can come up with. About a year later I came back to it armed with the Oscuro's Oblivion Overhaul mod, which in my opinion made it playable. It removed level scaling, changed the economy and a ton of other things in the game. I regarded them as "fixes" and was thankful that an SDK existed. There was still the problem of the crummy story, repetitive Oblivion gates, AI bugs, the fact that your character could be everything to everyone and the world didn't change a bit based on your character's actions. But I still logged considerable time with the game, and particularly enjoyed the Dark Brotherhood quest line, which was a little gem of storytelling, dialogue and intrigue nestled in an otherwise unremarkable game. When I heard they'd taken the guy that wrote that storyline and put him in a position of importance in Fallout 3, I was cautiously optimistic.

I'm not going to carry on the Troika/Arcanum/VTM: Bloodlines debate, as de gustibus non est disputandum and all that

Thanks.

What did you think of the minigames (lockpicking and hacking)?

 

[Roffler]

In my opinion MUCH worse than a mini-nuke launcher.

Of course, because 'aliens' trivialize the impetus of Fallout's setting. Yes, much worse than just being able to lob nukes around as you please.

Scientifically speaking a miniaturized nuke is much more likely to exist compared to a completely engineered creature. So who are you to say what Fallout's setting entails?

I haven't heard of "magical clothing" just certain items of clothing that give "stats boost" rather than wearing armor.

Well, that would be magical clothing. And don't give me any of that 'nanobot' bullshit. This isn't Deus Ex or Anarchy Online.

I don't get why this is such a hard sell for people. On a 300% system clothing gives you a 5% boost; that's practically nothing. Additionally tools in the original games gave larger boosts, and last time I killed someone and took their mechanic overalls I found a wrench in the pocket.

But if you don't like that how can you excuse the fact that fallout 2 had armor implants

The same way I can excuse the fact that Fallout 1 had operations that increased your stats. Makes more sense than clothing that somehow magically imbues the wearer with knowledge they didn't have before.

Clothing doesn't permanently boost your stats. I don't see how these two things are comparable.

let you increase your stats permanently with a cookie

It increased AP for 15 minutes. So, Bethesda wants to turn silly easter egg items into full-fledged common game mechanics? Well, I'll be damned, and after they stated that they didn't want that silly stuff.

You're really hung up on a temporary ~2% boost to skills that also lowers armor. That's a pretty terrible reason to shit all over a game you've never played. I mean there's tons of flaws out there and you choose to bitch about a rather (imo) stylish mechanic to replace tools?

I think you should try to give it at least a chance rather than knocking it just because you hate the corporate line.

Give it a chance how exactly? There isn't going to be a demo for it.

Well then maybe you should stop posting about a video game on the internet that you have already resigned yourself to hating for some rather trivial reasons.

 

[zbond]

You mention that there isn't excessive amounts of bloom; in the gameplay video when Todd talks to the Sheriff, the bloom of the environment was blinding. Did you notice this when you played?

Didn't notice much bloom from the environment when I was talking to the Sherriff, or in general.

When you say that you feel it's likely to change in the final version (in reference to ammo scarcity), do you mean you think they're be more ammo, that they'll be less 10mm ammo, or something else?

I think that in the version we played, we had a lot of 10mm ammo because that's the only gun you're likely to have when you leave the vault. Since we were playing a hacked character, he had a lot of weapons he "shouldn't" have had, and ammo for these was scarce, but mostly because I believe that the raiders in that area weren't high-level enough to be having those weapons and dropping ammo for them (although one raider had a flamer)... so to clarify I think there will probably be plenty of all kinds of ammo in the final version (although ammo wasn't exactly scarce in Fallout 1... a little harder to come by the good stuff in Fallout 2 as I recall)

Cool. What did you think of VATS power comparatively? Was it unbalanced? Too powerful, too weak, or about right?

It did seem easier to kill enemies in VATS than in regular combat, but we were playing a hacked character whose APs we were told regenerated way faster than normal, so it's hard to say anything about balance.

What did you think of the minigames (lockpicking and hacking)?

Didn't get a chance to lockpick or hack, unfortunately, though I am a firm believer that such tasks should be handled by character skill and not player dexterity.

 

[ookami]

So who are you to say what Fallout's setting entails?

Oh, just someone who paid enough attention to it to know that nukes are an important part of the setting as the 'big bad thing' instead of some trivial BFG replacement.

On a 300% system clothing gives you a 5% boost

Doesn't matter how much, clothing giving that kind of skill boost is magical nonsense and doesn't fit in the world of Fallout.

Additionally tools in the original games gave larger boosts

Because they're tools. It is sensible that tools facilitate things like that. You don't fix something with clothes, you don't hack a computer with clothes, you don't pick a lock with clothes.

and last time I killed someone and took their mechanic overalls I found a wrench in the pocket.

That doesn't make the overalls themselves help you fix anything. The wrench makes sense because it means you're not trying to fix something with your bare hands. That's a bonus. The most that overalls should give is a bonus towards not getting your regular clothes greasy and dirty. That might be a CH bonus at best.

Clothing doesn't permanently boost your stats. I don't see how these two things are comparable.

It does as long as you wear them. They aren't comparable. The operations which boosted only stats and not skills have some believable verisimilitude, the clothes don't.

You're really hung up on a temporary ~2% boost to skills that also lowers armor.

I am? Oh, let me guess... caring about it at all is 'really hung up' on it. You may see this as making a mountain out of a molehill, but to me it's yet another molehill contributing to the size of Mt. Stupid.

That's a pretty terrible reason to shit all over a game you've never played.

I really do wish it was the only reason.

I mean there's tons of flaws out there and you choose to bitch about a rather (imo) stylish mechanic to replace tools?

I chose to respond to a post which was discussing that issue.

Well then maybe you should stop posting about a video game on the internet that you have already resigned yourself to hating for some rather trivial reasons.

Oh, should I? And who exactly are you to tell me what I should do? What I'm posting about is not just Fallout 3, but the series and what I think are the negative ramifications of it on the series when the 3rd sequel has a bunch of changes that make it more like a FPS.

 

[UncannyGarlic]

When you say that you feel it's likely to change in the final version (in reference to ammo scarcity), do you mean you think they're be more ammo, that they'll be less 10mm ammo, or something else?

I think that in the version we played, we had a lot of 10mm ammo because that's the only gun you're likely to have when you leave the vault. Since we were playing a hacked character, he had a lot of weapons he "shouldn't" have had, and ammo for these was scarce, but mostly because I believe that the raiders in that area weren't high-level enough to be having those weapons and dropping ammo for them (although one raider had a flamer)... so to clarify I think there will probably be plenty of all kinds of ammo in the final version (although ammo wasn't exactly scarce in Fallout 1... a little harder to come by the good stuff in Fallout 2 as I recall)

Cool. I think that there is a good balance to be reached and I never had ammo problems in the original games except with the exotic stuff. If it's about as common and easy to come by I'd be satisfied but I'd kinda prefer it if the more common ammo was a little more scarce. Still, this is one of those things that is both player dependant (different play styles use different amounts of ammo) and not something that can be judged until playing the final version.

Cool. What did you think of VATS power comparatively? Was it unbalanced? Too powerful, too weak, or about right?

It did seem easier to kill enemies in VATS than in regular combat, but we were playing a hacked character whose APs we were told regenerated way faster than normal, so it's hard to say anything about balance.

Gotcha, it's a bummer that's the case though.

What did you think of the minigames (lockpicking and hacking)?

Didn't get a chance to lockpick or hack, unfortunately, though I am a firm believer that such tasks should be handled by character skill and not player dexterity.

Understandable. I personally hate games that force you to play the same minigame repeatedly and don't really see the point of having skills have any influence in most of them. If an SDK is released then this can hopefully be changed to a simple skill check.

Thanks for answering my questions, and cheers to you and your buddies representing Oregon at PAX .

 

[PaladinHeart]

I'm of the opinion that when you don't like something, then you should provide an idea for an alternative. Why? Well..

Take the skills off the clothing. Now what do you have? Useless clothing! We all know how useful that is. (about as useful as a box of noodles without a quest attached to it)

Yes, skills on them are a bad idea. You might want your character to look a certain way though without sacrificing defense. Allow the clothing then, to be worn over certain armor types.

What about the skills? Well there should be a special slot added for wearing skill boosting packs! Things like a doctor's bag, a scientific guide in a strapon.. thingy, etc..

This fixes everything. (that's wrong with the skills on clothing anyway) It also keeps the clothing in the game for NPC's to have so they look more different (and also lets you look like that, should you choose to kill them and then wear their outfit).

I think if you blow someone's arm or leg off though, that that part of the outfit should also be missing...

 

[thefalloutfan]

I think if you blow someone's arm or leg off though, that that part of the outfit should also be missing...

Nah too complicated and wouldn't be fun for someone like me who uses Bloody Mess.

 

[PaladinHeart]

It goes along with the original idea of power armor. If you killed someone who was wearing it then it was pretty much destroyed. If I'm not mistaken, in Fallout Tactics you couldn't loot ANY armor and it worked very well.

I mean.. seriously, after you put a few holes through someone's equipment I don't think you're going to want it for anything other than salvage parts and materials to sell.

Bloody Mess or not, I think a headshot should be just that, a headshot. Course then you have to decide whether you want to destroy the outfit or the headgear. I doubt many people in an actual fight would even bother considering being careful where they hit the enemy to avoid damaging the salvage goodies.

Then again, this is Fallout and everything is scarce.

 

[thefalloutfan]

Yes but I can shoot his head and he loses half his body, not much left to loot.