Fallout: New Vegas developer quotes round-up

[Zeronet]

Dragon Age managed to let you pick the personality of your character, for instance you can be nice to the King, kinda indifferent or risk being just plain rude. Thoughout that first conversation you can shape you're character just through his attitude.

Can't quite remember if New Vegas lets you do that at all, but Josh Sawyers statement indicates he wouldn't let writers do that. I know it lets you do it macro-style though you're overall choices.

 

[Bad_Karma]

@C2B

Well it's normal that a CRPG or any game can't have real natural dialogs, because they are bound to pre-defined outcomes. But they can still feel somewhat natural.

I mean you say they have to 'focus' - and that's true to some extent.
But twisting your example some "Press Button C to get next Information"-'Dialog' is also not good writting.
And when he says there must be a short-cut to information, he advises against writting natural dialog. Because in natural dialogs you have 'mandatory' routes. To be able to get some personal information from somebody it might be mandatory to first become 'friend' with this person - so there isn't exactly a short-cut.
And don't get me wrong, i don't say F:NVs writting is too bad or something like that.
I really miss games where people ask me for my name - because it feels natural.

And for being able to feel like the PC i'm playing i need the possibility to have some emotional sentences for my character.
And he seems to advise at least somewhat against it, while somebody else from his own company thought that it would make Alpha Protocol a good game.
I mean sure you can't cater all tastes, but from his answers, and the ones i remember he gave about NWN2's story and dialogs (if my memory isn't mixing his answers with that of some other Obsidian employee), he seems to be afraid of 'delivering' any true emotions in a RPG, because he might 'Alienate' peoples.

But as said before, i shouldn't judge him by some short answers. The games he did write for weren't written too bad, often even somewhat good - so it's more likely that i interpret his answers wrong and take them to 'harsh'.

 

[Anarchosyn]

@C2B

Well it's normal that a CRPG or any game can't have real natural dialogs, because they are bound to pre-defined outcomes. But they can still feel somewhat natural.

I mean you say they have to 'focus' - and that's true to some extent.
But twisting your example some "Press Button C to get next Information"-'Dialog' is also not good writting.
And when he says there must be a short-cut to information, he advises against writting natural dialog. Because in natural dialogs you have 'mandatory' routes. To be able to get some personal information from somebody it might be mandatory to first become 'friend' with this person - so there isn't exactly a short-cut.
And don't get me wrong, i don't say F:NVs writting is too bad or something like that.
I really miss games where people ask me for my name - because it feels natural.

And for being able to feel like the PC i'm playing i need the possibility to have some emotional sentences for my character.
And he seems to advise at least somewhat against it, while somebody else from his own company thought that it would make Alpha Protocol a good game.
I mean sure you can't cater all tastes, but from his answers, and the ones i remember he gave about NWN2's story and dialogs (if my memory isn't mixing his answers with that of some other Obsidian employee), he seems to be afraid of 'delivering' any true emotions in a RPG, because he might 'Alienate' peoples.

But as said before, i shouldn't judge him by some short answers. The games he did write for weren't written too bad, often even somewhat good - so it's more likely that i interpret his answers wrong and take them to 'harsh'.

Bad Karma, very well written post.

Not to shift the emphasis to another title entirely, especially with this being both a Fallout forum and Fallout centric thread, but does anybody know if Deus Ex 3 will be a return to our roots in this respect? I had originally written the title off but after hearing the devs say that they were under a mandate to incorporate multiple paths through almost every obstacle in the game (and specifically reference dialog/social engineering as one of the core paths they'd offer) I began to perk up my ears (and expectations).

If my memory is correct they might even be doing it the most intelligent way: allow the options to lack indication of which is the "win" button but allow those explicit features to be added through augmentations (I've yet to read specific details on what these social mods will entail but, in general, they've spoken to them allowing you to read your mark better and I presume this will be reflect in game with explicit hints in dialog trees or whatever).

Bringing this back around to Fallout, a better approach may have been to introduce an optional method for the player to see explicit indicators if they wanted to invest the energy into acquiring them (though it's tempting to make it a new social skill I'd probably have erred on the side of caution and suggest it be a cybernetic enhancement purchasable by the player). It's a logical way to appease both camps and adds to the in-game sense of character growth (albeit through the cheap tactic of allowing features to be unlock which could have come stock with the game; e.g. unlocking a radar or the ability to run, etc).

Ultimately, though, they're saying they want to appeal to people that normally wouldn't want to be bothered with playing a game like this (and why they'd want to take speech skills in the first place if they didn't like dialog is beyond me). That, in and of itself, is sickening.

 

[C2B]

I mean sure you can't cater all tastes, but from his answers, and the ones i remember he gave about NWN2's story and dialogs (if my memory isn't mixing his answers with that of some other Obsidian employee), he seems to be afraid of 'delivering' any true emotions in a RPG, because he might 'Alienate' peoples.

But as said before, i shouldn't judge him by some short answers. The games he did write for weren't written too bad, often even somewhat good - so it's more likely that i interpret his answers wrong and take them to 'harsh'.

Yeah, I can agree.

 

[Crni Vuk]

My main argument wasn't to insult Cri or even say that complex dialouges aren't allowed. In fact what I'm trying to say is that Sawyer does have a point.

He didn't say. Hurdur I don't want complex dialouges (like many here seem to assume). He said "focus" which is just as a valid viewpoint in writing and creating believable dialouges. (The topic is pointed on already). There are quite a few bits of more complex dialouge in New Vegas (quality is really over the place though. Nothing really bad but you realize that the lead writer isn't really on Obsidians best)

Dont worry none taken. We are merely discussing opinions here I guess

Thing is just that while saywer might have a point to many times RPG designers go over board with this and exagerate it. Or do you really want to say the kind of "dialogues" you have in Oblivion (more like monologues really) is simply focused ? Or that the rather short answers in Fallout 3 ? I know those games are rather extrem. But it is not so much about long or very long or short dialogues but dialogues which feel "natural" for the player character and NPCs. If the ingeligent dialogue is as short and feeling similiar in the end with other checks like with spech then why having it at all ? A dialogue should somewhat represent the role you play giving you a chance to not so much simply solve a quest but use the skill you have at hand. I never liked the idea that a dialogue should be seen as a tool to solve. It should be a part of the game for entertaiment. If some decide to use guns for solving everything that should be just as viable like dialogues. Thing is in most games with dialogues they feel rather forced, artifical then like a conversation inside a game. Making those is rather hard I guess. But I think both Fallout 1, Planescape and even Baldurs Gate did those rather well. Hence why I loved those games. While you knew they have been games it didnt feelt like someone forced dialogues on you.

* I also think its very sad tha dragon age doesnt offer you some kind of skill for dialogues, like inteligence, wisdom or something like that.

 

[C2B]

Thing is just that while saywer might have a point to many times RPG designers go over board with this and exagerate it. Or do you really want to say the kind of "dialogues" you have in Oblivion (more like monologues really) is simply focused ?

The thing here is though Oblivion, aside from the limit, was written by a bunch of retarded monkeys. Both in narrative as in dialouge.

But even there are positive examples to find. Mainly 1-2 dark brotherhood quests and a big chunk of the dialog in Shivering Isles.

God, in terms of writing there are worlds between Shivering Isles and Oblivion.




Anyway too short dialog hurts naturally. But it doesn't mean that you can't write it well despite how short it has to be.


I agree with what you said.

 

[Crni Vuk]

yeah well I guess there the oppinions go in different directions. For me Dragonage just feelt to much "Bioware". Something I had with Kotor already. The NPCs feelt very similar. Interesting at the first look but very shallow when you think about. But as said thats my oppinion. There are many which like Dragonage for what Bioware offers. And I guess they are doing a good job for their fans.

But I think personaly Obsidian is much better in prodividing different NPCs and most particularly NPCs that dont feel "alike" or something you know or have seen already. Just compare Alphaprotocol to Kotor 2, or to Vegas. I cant say that there is much which feelt similar with the dialogues and NPCs. The companions in Dragon Age feelt to me like clones from Kotor 1. And very artificaly written. Almost "forced". But well. Different oppinions I guess. Dragonage was shallow and boring in my eyes, as it simly feelt just about combat, blood, gore, combat, blood, cliche dialogues, oh and sometimes bloody combat even !

 

[Bad_Karma]

Actually when thinking about it...
This one 'Romance-option' from Alpha Protocol felt pretty much like Veronica to me but well, as you said it's somewhat a matter of taste and also how you interpret the characters.

I really liked the Alpha Protocol Characters though (even though there was nearly no development of the characters).

 

[Ausdoerrt]

While I think the dialogue system in Dragon Age could have used a little more fleshing out, it's still pretty decent and makes you sacrifice valuable combat skills early on in exchange for access to diplomatic options (which are often very useful as well).

Well, it certainly wasn't abysmal or anything, it was decently written and all, but some of the NPC reactions were unnatural from time to time. It's mediocre, maybe even above average when it comes to dialogue writing, it was more the easy availability of romance, and the cliche repetitiveness of the story that ruined it for me.

BioWare actually took advantage of their non-voice-acted PC choice by giving much more expressive and diverse options.

Isn't a non-voice-acted PC a common thing/standard? (Setting aside some RPGs that have you play a specific character like Witcher). Or have I been playing too many Japanese games lately?

 

[Tagaziel]

Too many Japanese games, fren.

 

[generalissimofurioso]

Yeah, why bother giving your character a personality that affects the world when you can have a CINEMATIC experience and have them say the opposite of what you wanted.