Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neonivek]

I don't think the gameplay of Fallout was particularly deep

and YET it is practically a tower of depth relative to the put of simplicity today.

Just the fact that Fallout tried to put in multiple ways to do a single quest that didn't boil down to one "moral choice" was something.

[alexandertnt]

You are mixing up what I want. I could care less about the technical abilities and coding required. I am not talking about graphics, physics, or anything like that. I am talking about the sort of complexities you could get from a classical game, the hard edge gameplay, or just how games often felt like they had to do more.

Could you elaborate on what is "hard edge" gameplay (im assuming not this), or what makes a game feel like they "had to do more", they are a bit vague (to me, writing a software engine from scratch feels like they had to do a hell of alot more. From a game perspective managing a real time simulation and keeping it running fairly and fun is harder than managing a turn-based one.

I just don't see the complexities inherent to a classical game that does not exist in a modern game.

Vision isn't something anyone lacks in modern day. It is a statement that "Even if they wanted to pull it off they would need to have a good idea of what they want. Something unlikely to happen"

But you said "Yet it won't happen, not even in the indie sphere, simply because of one thing: It takes effort and more then that it takes vision" (It will not happen, the cause of which is a lack of effort or vision) implying that no developer either has no desire to put effort into anything, or that they have no vision. Since you are stating that vision is not lacking, I am assuming that you mean to say "no developer will put effort into anything".

Also exactly no one wants complex games. They want games that pretend they are complex but are simple at heart.

I wan't more complex games. Not just ones that are "simple at heart". As a counterexample to your statement (none of x is y), your statement is false.

Why? I have played modern games that require thought.

Now are we going into niche titles? Is this Dark Souls (not a niche title)?

and after you bring up your example, can we bring up any sequel that shows the opposite trend?

I want a taste that gaming may expand into complexity and hard thinking games.

Never played Dark Souls.

I was thinking DF...

I liked FO3. Does that make me a "casual idiot". Diddn't like the game? Thats fine, doesn't mean the people who did are idiots  . The "nude japanese schoolgirl mods" part doesn't even make sense. Was that really a significant market factor in making an FPS?

Arguments like these are worth nothing.

Then why reply to it.

And it wasn't a HORRIBLE game, just not a good one...

And as for the "nude japanese schoolgirl mods" part... Go to the Nexus.

To point out it's meaningless. Where did I say those mods diddn't exist? I said I doubt they were a significant market factor, as you implied when you said they had to be "pandered" to.

Exception, not the rule.

Always has been.

Oh, it evokes emotion for me. Mostly contempt, some disgust, and a good deal of disappointment.

Why not put them in the Louvre, if alot of people are appreciating it as art?

Lets be honest, contemporary art tends to boil down to 4 categories of people, the circle jerking art snobs, the people who don't get it but pretend they do to look hip, the befuddled masses, and the people who question the validity of calling three buckets of paint thrown on a canvas high art.

Its fine that invokes those emotions for you. People like it as art and it seems that being in the Louvre is still appropriate.

We all know strawmen can't produce art, they don't have a heart after all

[fqllve]

and YET it is practically a tower of depth relative to the put of simplicity today.

Just the fact that Fallout tried to put in multiple ways to do a single quest that didn't boil down to one "moral choice" was something.

And that's about the only thing Fallout had going for it. And Obsidian actually released a rather mediocre game that took that to the next level, Alpha Protocol. Nobody played it because the rest of the game was bad to unremarkable, but that doesn't mean it didn't exist. I'd actually say it's a lot more advanced in that regard than Fallout ever was.

[Neonivek]

I was thinking DF...

REALLY doesn't count but even if it isn't, Dwarf Fortress is really far to the side.

Add in that DF isn't done and will likely never be done (and by done I mean hit version 1) and things become REALLY sad.

Obsidian actually released a rather mediocre game that took that to the next level, Alpha Protocol.

No, they released Fallout 2. Which was an improvement in everyway. To the extent where some players even say if you didn't like Fallout you could like Fallout 2.

Alpha Protocol really wasn't the "Improved Fallout" in anyway. What it featured, if I remember correctly, was a deep dialog system.

Alpha Protocol was a dirrect improvement on the Mass Effect Dialog System. Actually it felt like they were trying to improve upon Mass Effect.

implying that no developer either has no desire to put effort into anything, or that they have no vision. Since you are stating that vision is not lacking, I am assuming that you mean to say "no developer will put effort into anything".

It means they either have the effort but not the vision. Or they have the vision or not the effort.

A two door system that stops it.

I'd actually say it's a lot more advanced in that regard than Fallout ever was

Fallout had a lot of things you had to keep track of in order to get the most out of it. You could be braindead and still play Alpha Protocol correctly.

[fqllve]

Alpha Protocol really wasn't the "Improved Fallout" in anyway. What it featured, if I remember correctly, was a deep dialog system.

Where did I say it was "Improved Fallout?" Neonivek, seriously, I know you aren't doing it maliciously but you really do read too much into statements. You said "multiple ways to do a single quest that didn't involve a moral choice." I said Alpha Protocol "took that too the next level." THAT. It took THAT to the next level. Not everything else about Fallout.

Yes. It was Mass Effect +. In more ways than just the dialogue system.

Fallout had a lot of things you had to keep track of in order to get the most out of it. You could be braindead and still play Alpha Protocol correctly.

I'm not sure we even played the same game. You definitely have to pay attention to the characters and how you talk to them if you want to get the most out of that game. The other parts were, yes, lackluster at best, but the dialogue trees were really involved. Just like in Fallout.

[alexandertnt]

I was thinking DF...

REALLY doesn't count but even if it isn't, Dwarf Fortress is really far to the side.

Add in that DF isn't done and will likely never be done (and by done I mean hit version 1) and things become REALLY sad.

I do not see how DF doesn't count. It is a game that requires thought, regardless of its completion status and relative obscurity.

It means they either have the effort but not the vision. Or they have the vision or not the effort.

A two door system that stops it.

Okay. Now you have to explain why having one implies the negation of the other. Which is required to show that what you were talking about "won't happen".

[Neonivek]

You definitely have to pay attention to the characters and how you talk to them if you want to get the most out of that game

Which was the best part of the game. I know there are people out there who kinda wished that, THAT part of Alpha Protocol caught on.

The part that made Alpha Protocol Mediocre was everything else.

That aspect though is completely unrelated to Fallout.

I do not see how DF doesn't count. It is a game that requires thought, regardless of its completion status and relative obscurity

Because if it isn't complete it isn't a complete game. It is an alpha of a game that has yet to exist in full.

How common it is also counts because this is about trends and Dwarf fortress is such a outlier that it is completely unaffected and uncaring of these trends.

It isn't "In the market"

It is the same reason I didn't mention Aurora as an exception either. In fact I was expecting more exceptions but I am surprised I didn't get any. I mean I can think of a few games that approach complex or that are complex. Yet I know just as many that had complexity but had ways to ignore that.

Okay. Now you have to explain why having one implies the negation of the other. Which is required to show that what you were talking about "won't happen".

Hyperbole

[Psyckosama]

Like I said, say what you will about the quality of the games, they aren't Call of Duty clones. Just because they're on platforms you don't use or of genres you won't play doesn't change the fact that there are games being released that aren't mindless COD clones.

True. Sounded like a recomendation list.

That said, they're not all GOOD games and several of them are GTA Clones rather than COD clones.

You are mixing up what I want. I could care less about the technical abilities and coding required. I am not talking about graphics, physics, or anything like that. I am talking about the sort of complexities you could get from a classical game, the hard edge gameplay, or just how games often felt like they had to do more.

I don't think the gameplay of Fallout was particularly deep. It was just obtuse. What complexities were there in it? What variables were there you had to juggle? It was really just yet another case of better stats + better equipment = victory. Don't get me wrong, I didn't really like Fallout 3, and preferred the original games, but that doesn't mean their gameplay was complex. It was just slow.

Fallout 1/2 was all about plot line, personal decision, and sheer scope in a way few games today can manage. I'm never going to defend it as the perfect game, but the universe it built was massive...

It was shades of grey and personal decision that actually mattered rather than, to use the Mass Effect example, getting from Point A to pretty much the same Point B via either the "Nice Guy" or "Asshole" path.

Honestly, prerecorded dialogue killed the modern RPG. You could do a LOT more when you didn't have to worry about the price of Voice Acting and the space it took.

IMHO that's why older BW games were better than the new (they always had the simlish speaking minor NPCs to free up space and dollars for the major ones) and why Dragon Age Origins was so much better than Dragonage II.

[Neonivek]

I don't think the gameplay of Fallout was particularly deep

I don't either and yet it still holds up as extremely complex simply by comparison.

use the Mass Effect example, getting from Point A to pretty much the same Point B via either the "Nice Guy" or "Asshole" path

It is kinda the crutch that games that came after Fallout had. Dungeons and dragons games tended to do this too (and whether or not they were worse is up to debate).

The key is that the games needed to give you the illusion of choice without really making anything you do significant. If there is a significance the moral choice becomes even sillier.

It is just lazy storytelling.

IMHO that's why older BW games were better than the new

Some of them. After a while I kinda learned the Bioware formula and you kinda learn that the above isn't anything new. It is indicative of a bigger problem with Bioware. They arn't very good story tellers in a few major respects.

They need to drop the "Mission - Pointless moral choice based off of broken crazy logic - Mission complete - every character gives their introspective on the mission and what it means to them". Honestly I think Persona actually did what bioware tries to do... Better.

The most painful Bioware game I ever played? Jade Empire.

It probably had the most potential but was bogged down with its poor gameplay, poor story, and terrible characters... and probably just as bad main character. Yet a Jade Empire game that had good gameplay, good story, and good characters would probably have surpassed anything they done until that point.

[Psyckosama]

I don't think the gameplay of Fallout was particularly deep

I don't either and yet it still holds up as extremely complex simply by comparison.

Wasn't me, was a misquote that... :p

It is kinda the crutch that games that came after Fallout had. Dungeons and dragons games tended to do this too (and whether or not they were worse is up to debate).

Not all... but most.

The key is that the games needed to give you the illusion of choice without really making anything you do significant. If there is a significance the moral choice becomes even sillier.

It is just lazy storytelling.

Agreed.

Some of them. After a while I kinda learned the Bioware formula and you kinda learn that the above isn't anything new. It is indicative of a bigger problem with Bioware. They arn't very good story tellers in a few major respects.

I know. Origins though was still IMHO their strongest game of the past 10 years.

They need to drop the "Mission - Pointless moral choice based off of broken crazy logic - Mission complete - every character gives their introspective on the mission and what it means to them". Honestly I think Persona actually did what bioware tries to do... Better.

AKA: the Mass effect model.

The most painful Bioware game I ever played? Jade Empire.

Oh god yes. The game that forced them to sell out to EA.

It probably had the most potential but was bogged down with its poor gameplay, poor story, and terrible characters... and probably just as bad main character. Yet a Jade Empire game that had good gameplay, good story, and good characters would probably have surpassed anything they done until that point.

Good writing, horrible everything else...

Though it does kinda exemplify the whole "Nice Guy"/"Asshole" factor.

Your decisions should NEVER be easily gauged as "Light/Darkside point" "Open Palm/Closed Fist" or "Renegade/Paragon".

Fallouts Karama meter for example was done correctly as it was more a measure of your REPUTATION. In fallout it was possible to be a massive thundering douche but still have high Karma, why? Because GOOD ISN'T NECESSARILY NICE... you could also be the most polite mass murdering psychopath in the whole wasteland.

[alexandertnt]

I do not see how DF doesn't count. It is a game that requires thought, regardless of its completion status and relative obscurity

Because if it isn't complete it isn't a complete game. It is an alpha of a game that has yet to exist in full.

How common it is also counts because this is about trends and Dwarf fortress is such a outlier that it is completely unaffected and uncaring of these trends.

It isn't "In the market"

Your criteria was not a complete game, nor a game that is in the market. Just gaming in general. That being said, my next statement applies here too.

It is the same reason I didn't mention Aurora as an exception either. In fact I was expecting more exceptions but I am surprised I didn't get any. I mean I can think of a few games that approach complex or that are complex. Yet I know just as many that had complexity but had ways to ignore that.

Okay. Now you have to explain why having one implies the negation of the other. Which is required to show that what you were talking about "won't happen".

Hyperbole

It would have been clearer to use works like "rarely" or "unlikely" instead of "won't", but ok. Its just that there are a seemingly non-insignificant number of people on the internet who genuinely beliebe modern gaming is entirely X and traditional/classical gaming is entirely Y. Sometimes it is difficult to tell the difference between Hyperbole and a literal statement.

Fallout 1/2 was all about plot line, personal decision, and sheer scope in a way few games today can manage.

One of the reasons I did not like the earlier fallouts was because while the plot was interesting, the gameplay was boring and made up a noninsignifant portion of play time. Earlier RPG's were always dead to me because of this reason (they were largely derived from tabletop RPG's, which are designed for humans to process, yet the computer can process so much more), modern RPG's, I find, have much more engaging gameplay. It is a personal preference, of course.

[Neonivek]

Your criteria was not a complete game, nor a game that is in the market. Just gaming in general. That being said, my next statement applies here too.

Because if you prove me wrong in an insignificant way, then nothing is really said.

All proving dwarf fortress as the one shining exception would prove is that the heart of my arguement is correct and that only people outside the market can do anything of real complexity.

Fallouts Karama meter for example was done correctly as it was more a measure of your REPUTATION

Not to mention that Fallout kept track of your deeds. It was quite easy to be considered a nice guy but have someone hate you for another reason such as Graverobbing or child killing (and this was definately a game where you were tempted to kill children)

Which made sense.

[fqllve]

Which was the best part of the game. I know there are people out there who kinda wished that, THAT part of Alpha Protocol caught on.

The part that made Alpha Protocol Mediocre was everything else.

The storytelling mechanic is very similar, it just happens to use Mass Effect's dialogue system rather than the older style. It certainly isn't exactly similar, with it's emphasis on being streamlined and typecasting the character, but it was written by the same guy as Fallout 2 and the depth of story and character interaction are certainly closer to Fallout than they are to anything Bioware has ever done, especially Mass Effect.

All proving dwarf fortress as the one shining exception would prove is that the heart of my arguement is correct and that only people outside the market can do anything of real complexity.

And how many games that have similar storytelling depth can you name that aren't Fallout? Any game, any era. Hard Mode: you can't include any other Black Isle/Obsidian games. Ultra Hard Mode: No Troika games either (since they basically branched off Black Isle).

I can't think of any. So is that a problem with modern gaming or is it a problem with storytelling in games in general?

True. Sounded like a recomendation list.

Oh god no. The only one of those games I'd even consider recommending is Ni no Kuni.

IMHO that's why older BW games were better than the new (they always had the simlish speaking minor NPCs to free up space and dollars for the major ones) and why Dragon Age Origins was so much better than Dragonage II.

I didn't like DAO or DA2. I didn't see any depth in DAO's story. It was just Song of Ice and Fire meets Wheel of Time meets Every Bioware Game Ever. I agree that in the short term voiced dialogue has had some poor effects on the scope of characterization in games. But I also think a lot of older RPGs had terrible writing particularly because they didn't know when to shut up and because every single character spoke in the same vernacular as the guy who wrote the script. They might have had good stories, but they didn't have good dialogue. (Planescape: Torment, huge exception)

I also tend to think Bioware's old games are overrated in general. It might just be because I'm an Obsidian fanboy (to the extent that I'm a fanboy at all) but I would rate almost all their games as firmly average in the story department.

[Neonivek]

And how many games that have similar storytelling depth can you name that aren't Fallout? Any game, any era

You mean other then just about any classical RPG that features depth?

[freeformschooler]

Are Paradox-published games "inside the market?" Because, if we're asking for examples of complexity in modern games, all their published global strategy games are way above my head in terms of complexity. Except MAYBE CK1. Maybe.