Editorial Bethesda: Interesting and Imaginative = Inaccessible

[gc051360]

One wonders how the world coped before Tolkein. Can you imagine? "Holy shit. This Tolkein stuff with Elves is totally out there and weird!" How :very inaccessible:

I think if people can watch 2001: A Space Odyssey, I'm pretty certain they can handle things that are "a little out there".

Like Brother None said, I'm not sure 2001 is up the alley of Bethesda's audience. I think that movie would be considered very boring by Bethesda's audience.

You are correct. I am absolutely certain that Fallout 3 will use archetypes and stereotypes solely for ironic juxtaposition.

lmao.

 

[Castanova]

WTF WHY DON'T THE SPACESHIPZ MAKE NE SOUNDZ WHEN THERE FLYING?????????????? GHEY

 

[MetalCraze]

well why are you so surprised? didn't we see it from the start?
with all those very dumb but only evil mutants and a noble brotherhood of steel that extremely wants to save the world. your father - a kind man. bah - I won't be surprised if he will be kidnapped by dumb evil mutants and you will go on a quest to save him and the world. cliche on cliche on cliche on cliche.

that's the only way beth games work.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

I think if people can watch 2001: A Space Odyssey, I'm pretty certain they can handle things that are "a little out there".

Like Brother None said, I'm not sure 2001 is up the alley of Bethesda's audience. I think that movie would be considered very boring by Bethesda's audience.

For the record, I used it as an example because (as I understand it) the movie producer's financing the film saw an initial screening and basically wrote their money off there and then, convinced it would be a box office flop. On release though, the audiences loved it and the film made a decent return for 1968 (I think it made about $60M on its $12M budget).

I personally think there's The Real World™, where people are actually interested in new and maybe even slightly weird experiences (assuming they are "done well" ala 2001), and then there's the Big Producer's World™ where "if it's not a carbon copy of that thing those other guys did which just made millions, then people won't understand it". The real reason, of course, is they don't want a failure that might end their career. They want to point and say "well, it worked for them so maybe too many people pirated it". As a result, we get stuck being fed the same food because nobody wants to take a risk. If they do, they usually don't back it fully and so it flops "because it was too out there", rather than because it was simply done poorly and not given the resources or belief it needed. 2001 is a great example of a film "being done well" and given a chance to succeed, despite what Big Producer Man™ who's afraid of taking any risk thinks.

 

[DraQ]

WTF WHY DON'T THE SPACESHIPZ MAKE NE SOUNDZ WHEN THERE FLYING?????????????? GHEY

This quote would make the coolest motive to clobber someone to death with their own limbs ever.

that's the only way new beth games work.

Fix'd.

 

[obediah]

I think if people can watch 2001: A Space Odyssey.

I'm pretty sure Bethesda's target audience can't.

You'd be lucky to get 10% of people under 30 to watch it.

I think the SF pinnacle for Bethesda's audience is AvP on their iPod.

 

[Top Hat]

AvP

Anus v Penis?

 

[Sovy Kurosei]

AvP

Anus v Penis?

Whoever wins we lose?

 

[Shoelip]

I think if people can watch 2001: A Space Odyssey.

I'm pretty sure Bethesda's target audience can't.

You'd be lucky to get 10% of people under 30 to watch it.

I think the SF pinnacle for Bethesda's audience is AvP on their iPod.

My parents made me watch it when I was a kid. I didn't get it. It was cool though. I really liked HAL.

 

[Shoelip]

I think if people can watch 2001: A Space Odyssey.

I'm pretty sure Bethesda's target audience can't.

You'd be lucky to get 10% of people under 30 to watch it.

I think the SF pinnacle for Bethesda's audience is AvP on their iPod.

My parents made me watch it when I was a kid. I didn't get it. It was cool though. I really liked HAL and the circular ship.

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

You can say that again.

I love doing the pleasantly devious HAL voice throughout the day.
"I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that."

 

[afewhours]

If we accept that all video game characters fall under one of three literary classifications — prototype, archetype, and stereotype — it’s easy to see the appeal of the archetype. This is the established, easily-understandable character model. The badass space marine or seductive sorceress. The prototype, while imaginative and interesting, is too easily viewed as ‘weird,’ and that means inaccessible. The stereotype? Overused, oversimplified, and more often than naught, offensive.

Meh. I fail to see the problem here. If you're going for a big ensemble cast, which I'm guessing FO3 will, then archetypes are a perfectly acceptable way to go. You could aim for a couple of radical characters, but if you go too far out then you run the risk of drowning in exposition, which is never good. Like, the original FO games had a ton of archetypes, you had Brave New World style bureaucrats, you had thuggish mutants, bad-boy rebels, shamanistic tribesmen... all stuff we've seen before.

It goes with other games as well. The Ultima series? Lord British? The Quest for the Avatar? Straight out of King Arthur and the quest for the Holy Grail. Did that make Ultima IV rubbish? No, because its strengths and focus were elsewhere. Arcanum? Equal parts Jules Verne and HG Wells. Still rocked.

In fact, the only game I can really think of that bucks the archetype rule was PS:T, and that needed 800,000 words of text to do it. That did put a lot of people off, even if it was my idea of HEAVAN.

And even the planes have their roots in Platonic ideals. 'tis nothing new. In fact, I'd guess a better scholar than me could go further back into the history.

You can get a lot of joy out of implementing archetypes effectively, and you can cause a lot of grief by mindlessly bucking the trend. Like, you really want characters that aren't stereotypes? I've got a great series of novels for you. They're about this Drow? This Chaotic Good Drow? You should check them out some day. :wink:

Of course this is no guarantee that FO3 will be any good. It's just like that Gromnir fella said. Bethesda speak enough fail. There's no need to lay into this guy here. I'd be less impressed if he was spewing PR drivel about 'innovation'.

EDIT: I can't use the italics function properly. GHULAGUHLAUGLHUALGUHLLUAGG

 

[MetalCraze]

You can say that again.

I love doing the pleasantly devious HAL voice throughout the day.
"I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that."

"how did you learn this?!"
"I read it from your lip movements"
or something - HAL is a badass son of a bitch

 

[JarlFrank]

@afewhours:

Well, actually every character would be some kind of archetype then. And do I care? Not at all. Instead of keeping to certain archetypes and prototypes and whatevershittypes they should just try to create realistic and believable characters. No problem at all with the old wise wizard as long as he's believable and not just incluced because he's cool.

 

[crufty]

Nethack terms:

Prototype - Tourist
Archetype - Barbarian
Stereotype - Cave Woman

???

The issue I have is prototype = inaccessible.

I think the problem with stereotypes and archetypes are, in American society, they are so cut and dry there is no interest for those who have seen them before, which is basically anyone over the age of six. Darth Vader = bad, Luke Skywalker= good, yawn. Han Solo shooting first = prototype (to some degree). Han Solo shooting second = archetype, yawn. Eastwood's Man With No Name was a prototype character (for film), that made the series good. Eastwood's character in Bonanaza was stereotype, yawn.

I don't think prototype characters are inaccessible, I think they ARE HARD TO DO, which is what he really meant to say--its very easy to do them badly, and thus make them inaccessible...

 

[Lumpy]

prototype, archetype, and stereotype blah blah

Where the fuck did they come up with this? Basically, what they're saying is that when you make a character, it is either a crazy insane weird guy, or a copypasta from somewhere else. Since having a whole crew of nutjobs is bad, you're going to have to plagiarize some other characters.
So, what? Is he such a lame writer that he can't make new characters that are interesting without being excessively weird?
Why the fuck separate characters into archetypes and prototypes (I don't even know what stereotypes are doing there)? An archetype is a type of character, basically. A foundation for his personality, from which all his other traits derive. A prototype would be a never before done character type - an original archetype. Creating a prototype can be hard, since most archetypes have already been used. But original-ish and interesting characters are not only possible, but absolutely necessary for a good story. An archetype is only a foundation, that can be built upon in various ways. Take Avellone's Gannayev-of-Dreams - basically the Dyonisian archetype, but with several unique traits that make him stand out.

PS: Is Avellone read "Ah-veh-lon-neh"?

 

[JarlFrank]

PS: Is Avellone read "Ah-veh-lon-neh"?

I usually pronounce him like the mythical island of Avalon.

 

[Lumpy]

PS: Is Avellone read "Ah-veh-lon-neh"?

I usually pronounce him like the mythical island of Avalon.

Yeah but that's like Pat Geary saying "core-lee-own" in GF2.

 

[Mefi]

Wow, that's pretty damn cynical. What next, Beth? A lengthly diatribe on how mediocrity prevents disappointment?

Save us from the evils of interesting gameplay and original design!

Genius at work.

 

[Chefe]

hello world

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

Fallout 3* : Now Handicapped Accessible

*contains only 5% actual Fallout.

 

[Direwolf]

It goes with other games as well. The Ultima series? Lord British? The Quest for the Avatar? Straight out of King Arthur and the quest for the Holy Grail. Did that make Ultima IV rubbish? No, because its strengths and focus were elsewhere. Arcanum? Equal parts Jules Verne and HG Wells. Still rocked.

It is good and all when this stuff is based on good books and stories. What is Bethesda basing their characters on?

 

[JarlFrank]

It goes with other games as well. The Ultima series? Lord British? The Quest for the Avatar? Straight out of King Arthur and the quest for the Holy Grail. Did that make Ultima IV rubbish? No, because its strengths and focus were elsewhere. Arcanum? Equal parts Jules Verne and HG Wells. Still rocked.

It is good and all when this stuff is based on good books and stories. What is Bethesda basing their characters on?

Popular culture and pulp novels, I'd say. Stuff that is "easily accessible" to their target audience, and stuff that feels "cool". Seen the screenshot of the very Chuck Norris like sherriff? That sort of cool and accessible. Which probably means either one-dimensional characters or characters with a deep disturbing secret [you know things like that sell, like the most badass wasteland amazon just became that badass because her father always beat her when she was little. Stuff like that]. Which means absolutely predictable and boring characters.

We can also be lucky and get some characters that have been written by less retarded devs, and there could be a decent questline like the Dark Brotherhood's in Oblivion. But the rest will be shit.

 

[Chefe]

hello world

 

[Lurkar]

Which probably means either one-dimensional characters or characters with a deep disturbing secret [you know things like that sell, like the most badass wasteland amazon just became that badass because her father always beat her when she was little. Stuff like that].

I never understood that. I'm still waiting for the pained and tormented character to actually act pained and tormented, not treat their traumatic past as something they can just switch on and off like a light switch.