Review Fallout Opening Analysis at No Mutants Allowed

[DragoFireheart]

it's like we're the harry potters of puter gamins

slytherine codex

We do have a giant snake as a mod. Jaesun, can you turn people to stone with just a mere glance?

Does DU already have a horcrux or two hiding somewhere?

 

[Stinger]

Does DU already have a horcrux or two hiding somewhere?

How else does Brian Mitsoda lead the development of both AoD and Dead State?

 

[DragoFireheart]

Does DU already have a horcrux or two hiding somewhere?

How else does Brian Mitsoda lead the development of both AoD and Dead State?

Because *PLOTTWIST* AoD source code is DU's horcrux?!

DUN DUN DUN!

 

[hiver]

Fucking Codexers, aren't you all so fucking edgy?

They try to be.

If you actually read the article instead of quickly glancing at Hiver's rant and missing the point you'd realize it was a rebut to all the popamolers complaining that Fallout doesn't explain anything and is "unintuitive" and shit and "outdated". Sea was basically pointing out that if you had half a brain and didn't need some stupid prompts in your face every 10 seconds you'd find out that even without the manual the game explains everything really well.

And so was my post. Directed much more on popamoles then Sea himself.
That may not be understandable because i didnt relate that angle properly at several places.

And wow, not everyone agrees with the time limit. Tim Cain himself thought it gave a fall sense of urgency and in hindsight would've removed it. Personally I thought travelling around costs too much time which then in a way discourages exploration for what is supposed to be a wide open sandbox. Getting from Necropolis with the Water Chip to Vault 13 directly takes about 30 days so if you got to the Chip with 20 days to spare you'd be fucked and that kind of thing is just bullshit.

I know thats what Tim.. err, mr Cain said.
I wouldnt agree on that, most respectfully, but i fully understand why he thinks so. Apart from everything else he, as a designer, tends to keep all of his audience in view. And there certainly was a lot of them complaining about that.
It probably isnt the only or hole of the reason he thinks so, though.
It is true that it wasnt implemented in the perfectly best way, especially when you consider that you need "additional" 30 days to travel back.

My issue with the timer isn't that it exists. My suggestion was that to introduce a finite amount of time during a game's learning phase is arguably a mistake. I don't think it's anything to get too worked up about (especially in a game like Fallout), but most players dislike timers in general and to put what feels like a strict limit on them (especially before they even understand how much time they need to complete their goal) is not the best way to ease someone into a game.

As for "you wasted 5 hours, reload", that's not exactly fun, even for someone who's an experienced RPG player. I don't think that's a reasonable solution to that problem (although again, whether it's a problem might be a bit subjective).

I dont think all of that section is the learning phase. That phase ended in Shady Sands by my account.

The entire point of that article was to deconstruct how Fallout's interface and gameplay scenarios effectively teach the player the necessary core concepts and mechanics for enjoying the game. The game doesn't need a tutorial or manual because the early game stages are so effectively designed, without actually doing any hand-holding or requiring a lot of reading to understand.

That was very nicely done.

But either the choice of words or comparisons at some places were... less than optimal.
It really felt like you need to take a second dip.

I mean, one can see it has been a while for you.

Interface like what's seen in Fallout or the Infinity Engine games is more complicated than most modern titles' because there are more ways to interact with the world, more skills and abilities, more equipment, etc. You've got more buttons, more hotkeys, more icons, more pages to go through, and so on. What is suspect about that claim?

Well, what ISNT more complicated than "most modern titles"?
Nothing is "suspect". The issue is: comparing a full RPG game (which had all those buttons, items, skills, equipment etc - for a reason, not just to be more complicated), to an action RPG and mass effect of all games.
Like you couldn't find a worst one to juxtapose even if your tried. Especially if you consider the second and third part of that mess.

And why would anyone choose specifically mass effect there? Its not like youre talking to the audience that like both of those genres....? (edit- yeah NMA....Spinoff3 fans and ugh...)
My comment was more like a joke really because i didnt take that really seriously.

Thats what the whole game is supposed to tech the player, step by step. As appropriate. Not the opening, NOT the freaking tutorial.

Really? Because the opening does just about all of those things, and I'd say most of them are necessary to understanding how to fully play the game.

Yes, and you explained it much better - as i acknowledged by quoting parts of it - after saying that.
So take that as reaction to phrasing that sentence or two before explaining how it went and how good it was in that sense.

-edit-
It was basically me, reading that article and reacting as i saw each line. I didnt read it all then think about choosing which stuff to quote.
I only tried to avoid quoting too much and select lines that were precise for what i was saying.

Sarcasm aside, I have heard a lot of complaints about how players felt that sudden "you need X object to proceed" with no indication on where to get it, both at Vault 15 and later at The Glow, was frustrating and felt arbitrary. I never said I necessarily agreed with that - my point in bringing it up is that it's a necessary gate in teaching players how to interact with the game - by using items and not just by shooting things.

Yeah, and there, im commenting such players, not you.

I mean, the first time i saw a rope... probably in some trading screen with someone - i immediately bought it, although i had no idea where or when or if im going to use it. I mean its cheap, its a rope, doesn't way much... i dont see it very often...
Why the hell wouldn't i buy it and have it in inventory in case i need it? I was only sorry it couldn't be used in even more places, or that you couldn't attach a hook on it and make a grappling hook.

-edit-

And if i went to the vault 15 without the rope i didnt go crying about how game sucks.
I said to myself "well duh, dont be so stupid...go and get a freaking rope dumbass."

Sure, probably there could have been more ropes around, or you could hook up different shorter parts you find. If there were any.

But that again is the fault iof publisher - Interplay and the fact that Fallout was almost a progenitor of such games even if based on Wasteland. Which i didnt play so i dont know how exactly deep that went with use of items and such stuff.

Regardless, both games surely just clearly point to what should be improved and expanded.

And thats a pretty self explanatory example there. You have a shaft and you need a rope. Whats not to understand?
The game even tells you so if you try to go down without it.... bloody handholding :p
If it was me the player would just drop down and break his legs and then the molerats would come.
Without any text explanation.

And the Glow is pretty announced well advance to the player. Its all relating to the whole setting and gameworld of the game. It isnt like you suddenly had something totally out of everything and totally unconnected to anything else that required something youve never seen in the game or even heard before. Even NPCs tell you about it. The map shows a warning illustration.

How many times i have heard players saying: "And then i came out and tried to travel... and Died! Because i didnt have extra radaways and rad-x`s anymore! i spent all getting there and inside! FUUUUccckkkk ... IT WAS AWESOME!"
Or the same thing about entering it and going through that first level that was also irradiated without enough anti rad medicine.
Or about the rope. Or shovels. It is a fact that people that are satisfied with it all and would only wish even more of it dont feel the need to post about it online.

Of course "some players" will moan and bitch about it. So what?
Should those really be taken into account as a measure of merit of the whole thing?
What kind of game will it be if you design it according to those?
Mass effect?

btw... i didnt even pay attention to that part where some "character" called thane is fighting that ninja something guy.... in bookends of destruction.
Was that all a cut scene?
i mean...

Not a bad article, only it seems youve been playing too many modern vomits and take what worse of the players express as a measure of great games

Thanks, but again - the point of the article wasn't to say FALLOUT IS THE GREATEST GAME OF ALL TIME etc., it's to examine how its introduction works to teach the player necessary game concepts without hand-holding. Fallout has a strong reputation for being impenetrable and difficult to get into (not necessarily deserved) and it was a fun (for me) intellectual exercise to examine how and why the opening works so well. I love Fallout and I think it's masterfully built - but I also think it's wrong to say it can't be improved upon in a few ways as well.

For all i love the games i never once claimed they could not be improved.
Both of them.
Just not by removing stuff, in my opinion. Nor unused skills, time limits where appropriate, nor consequences - especially bad ones. Or requirements of specific items to proceed at someplace, which totally made sense in the place where it was in the game.

In my opinion the absolutely best thing about Fallout games as we see them today, their design and everything else included, is that they not only show what was great but what could be or should be improved to make it even greater.
Everything in fallout teaches you and points forward to that. Its great stuff, its not so great stuff, its somewhat rushed or undeveloped parts and even its bugs. And everything in between.

And i didnt expect the article to say it was the greatest game of all time.
I read the title.

As for some of my comments i guess all this explains where i was aiming in a better way.

 

[RK47]

Now wipe that semen off your face, hiver.

 

[hiver]

its not my face. thats a mirror youre looking at.


Also, there is no problems with tutorials as such.
If they are kept to what they should be doing. Showing the basic controls, not the gameplay. The game is supposed to show you gameplay, not tutorials.

 

[Rivmusique]

teaching the player

Yes bros I know it's 19 minutes watch the first couple minutes and give it a chance

bit of subjective reaching here and there but good stuff overall

Yeah that guys sequelitis stuff is pretty good. Too bad he:

That jumper

 

[Oriebam]

its not my face. thats a mirror youre looking at.

No, I'm p. sure that's a fucking monitor, are you on jenkem again

 

[Carrion]

I can agree with most of the stuff in the article, altough I do think that it's maybe a bit too humble towards the aRPG crowd. There's no need to apologize for Fallout just because newer games are so unbelieveably dumb. Still, I think sea's definitely fighting the good fight here with his words. Fallout's opening is indeed pretty damn good and other games should learn from it. Too bad Fallout 2 kind of fucked it up with the Temple of Trials.

I think the time limit in FO actually encouraged exploration, maybe not on the world map but in the major locations. Travelling and resting are the two main activities that waste your time, but otherwise you probably won't spend more than a few in-game hours in each location because time flows so slowly. When pointless travelling is discouraged and you can't be certain about where the water chip is, there's more incentive to talk to everyone and search every place before moving on to the next location. Even though Fallout gives you a sense of urgency, in no way did I ever feel like you had to hurry through the game even on my first playthrough. The time limit itself is pretty generous and lets you visit pretty much every main location worth visiting at that point of the game Of course it sucks if you run out of time and don't even realize it until many hours later, but on the other hand Fallout's replay value is so good that it's alright if the player can't win the game every time.

 

[Infinitron]

When pointless travelling is discouraged and you can't be certain about where the water chip is, there's more incentive to talk to everyone and search every place before moving on to the next location

This is a great point.

 

[Stinger]

Does DU already have a horcrux or two hiding somewhere?

How else does Brian Mitsoda lead the development of both AoD and Dead State?

Because *PLOTTWIST* AoD source code is DU's horcrux?!

DUN DUN DUN!

Actually I was implying that Vault Dweller was Brian Mitsoda's horcrux.

 

[hiver]

No, you are wrong on this one, and on article in general.

Oh, really? Well, its a shame you cannot prove that in any meaningful way.
You know what the rest of that post reads like?

"grrubble..blah..ddrrmmb..blah..brrggh...grrhh brrgb.blah.rrghbbbrbrgrgbgbgrggr..."

There's no need to apologize for Fallout just because newer games are so unbelieveably dumb. Still, I think sea's definitely fighting the good fight here with his words. Fallout's opening is indeed pretty damn good and other games should learn from it. Too bad Fallout 2 kind of fucked it up with the Temple of Trials.

I think the time limit in FO actually encouraged exploration, maybe not on the world map but in the major locations. Travelling and resting are the two main activities that waste your time, but otherwise you probably won't spend more than a few in-game hours in each location because time flows so slowly. When pointless travelling is discouraged and you can't be certain about where the water chip is, there's more incentive to talk to everyone and search every place before moving on to the next location. Even though Fallout gives you a sense of urgency, in no way did I ever feel like you had to hurry through the game even on my first playthrough. The time limit itself is pretty generous and lets you visit pretty much every main location worth visiting at that point of the game Of course it sucks if you run out of time and don't even realize it until many hours later, but on the other hand Fallout's replay value is so good that it's alright if the player can't win the game every time.

Pretty much - yes.

I would add that the game simply allowing the player to sleep any time he wants and as many times as he wants, even consequently in addition of sleep "curing wounds" (not critical injuries of course), or lost HP is very damaging mechanic even without time limit.

With time limit its even worse.

Ill just repeat because this needs repeating.

The solution to having some or few or even "many" underused skills in the game - is to create and extend additional gameplay situations supporting those skills. Not removing skills.

The solution to time limit mechanic (applied only where appropriate) is in improving the whole deal in several different ways. Through clearer representation to the player, or info he gives about it, either that lore relied or that you hear from NPCs or how game itself presents that to the player visually, through adjustment of other mechanics like sleeping and other big time wasters, by having an option to extend the limit in appropriate ways, etc,
- not by removing it.

This of course can only be done with additional time, people and money assigned to the project.

Or by independence from parasitic publishers business model.

Fallout itself, or the devs that created it - have nothing to do with these issues.
Interplay does.

 

[RK47]

Hey sometimes hiver makes sense after all. Here's a brofist.

 

[hiver]

Like... duh!

 

[Roguey]

The solution to having some or few or even "many" underused skills in the game - is to create and extend additional gameplay situations supporting those skills. Not removing skills.
...
This of course can only be done with additional time, people and money assigned to the project.

Or by independence from parasitic publishers business model.

Fallout itself, or the devs that created it - have nothing to do with these issues.
Interplay does.

And then it's released and it bombs because they spent too much on it. Developers are responsible for cutting down on scope/feature creep and creating just enough skills that can be used consistently in the time frame they're given. You wouldn't even miss some of those skills if they never existed in the first place.

 

[hiver]

And then it's released and it bombs because they spent too much on it. Developers are responsible for cutting down on scope/feature creep and creating just enough skills that can be used consistently in the time frame they're given. You wouldn't even miss some of those skills if they never existed in the first place.

How do you know it bombs? Why would it "bomb"?

Developers are responsible for what?
In what business arrangement is that a developer main feature? Yeah, you didnt say its the main feature but it sure looks like it. Really bad wording there.
Oh i see... a proponent of "cut away" angle and blame everything on developers angle, eh?

Did you not see Tim Cain interviews about how development of Fallouts actually went?

No, they are responsible for creating gameplay for skills they want to have first and foremost.
Not introducing skills that wont be represented with gameplay is secondary stuff and should be part of preparation process. Not game design.
As inXile is doing it right now.

Cutting away should be done only under pressures making it completely unavoidable. Same as cutting away your hand or a foot or any other part you "could do without".

 

[Roguey]

How do you know it bombs? Why would it "bomb"?

You don't know until it's out, that's what risk assessment is for. They have to guess ahead of time whether or not spending more money to fix a certain aspect will result in an increase in sales or just vanity.

Developers are responsible for what?
In what business arrangement is that a developer main feature? Yeah, you didnt say its the main feature but it sure looks like it. Really bad wording there.
Oh i see... a proponent of "cut away" angle and blame everything on developers angle, eh?

I'm saying it's their responsibility to have a reasonable idea of what they can implement and support before they start instead of throwing a bunch of skills at the figurative wall and seeing what sticks.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Hold on bros, what's wrong with tutorials (the concept)? I mean, there are shitty ones (Fallout 3, Oblivion), but it seems like there is some serious hostility to tutorials in this topic. Is there something wrong with showing the player basic control schemes?

It's usually a bunch boring lessons until you get to the actual game. Leave the "press X to talk to people" stuff in the manual or the Options -> Controls screen and go relatively easy on the player in the first moments of the game so he can try things for himself or zip past it all in case it doesn't interest him. Oh yeah, it also ruins MY IMMERSION.

 

[Luzur]

People that can handle Fallout and operate doorknobs = go and play it.

People that cant handle Fallout and cant open doors = go and play Mass Effect.

/thread.

 

[Johannes]

Time limit mostly serves to set the tone for the game. It's laughable to think someone would actually reach the limit, or if they do they deserve every buttfucking and restarting imaginable.

It's not supposed to be an "open sandbox world" as someone here put it, it's a world where you must find a water chip instead of just a playground. I have a goal to strive toward, instead of just being free to muck about. Even if I today know that you can easily complete all the games content and still be nowhere near the limit, it did make my decisions have more weight when I played it, or at least feel like it. I was disappointed in the end at how fast and easy it turned out to be to find a chip.

 

[hiver]

How do you know it bombs? Why would it "bomb"?

You don't know until it's out, that's what risk assessment is for. They have to guess ahead of time whether or not spending more money to fix a certain aspect will result in an increase in sales or just vanity.

Risk assessment.... sounds like they should all role-play being some obscure section of some zaibatsu or something, instead of making the best game they can.

Vanity?
Was vanity a guy going home and creating talking heads mapping them point by point on actual models he would make by his hands?

I'm saying it's their responsibility to have a reasonable idea of what they can implement and support before they start instead of throwing a bunch of skills at the figurative wall and seeing what sticks.

As i said, pre-production phase.

Which, for Fallout, was Tim Cain sitting alone in his office and dreaming it up by himself.
Before it got rolling and more people started coming in.
It was a pretty organic process where it just grew.

And then it was stifled, almost cancelled and undercut at almost every turn by their bosses.

I mean, is it really reasonable to presume they really wanted to throw in additional skills and not develop any gameplay for them? Really?
Or is that just faulty backward view and reasoning in a very limited manner?

 

[Menckenstein]

It all boils down to what Roberta Williams had said about the PC ubermenschen of yesteryear, which can be applied to this type of situation. Poor uneducated people didn't own PCs up until the turn of the century, so games could allow for some "figure it out your own damn self, fucko" but now every retard in the world has a cheap home computer hooked into their tv (console) and so game companies have to cater to people whose biggest challenge in setting up their device is matching 3 fucking color coded plugs.

God help us all.

 

[hiver]

No, we are at the other end of that singularity hole now.
That happened/started years ago.

 

[ironyuri]

What lies at the bottom of the mainstream? Mediocrity.

 

[Monk]

The opening of a game does not have to teach what is listed in the bullet points except the backstory, which includes references to some characters and the main goal (or the first goal).

The rest of the items should be explained through a tutorial (preferably given in parts throughout the first quest) or the manual.

Tutorial pop-ups do not have to "[kill] the flow of the game" if they are shown only once.