Fallout 76. Worried? Excited? Both?

[Driderman]

Fallout 3 is still the 'most like Fallout'. I don't understand why people don't like it.

Because it seemed like fanfiction written by a 13-year old, compared to the previous one. By all means, maybe a promising 13-year old fanfic writer, he's definitely one to watch if he publishes something when he's older and more experienced but that doesn't really change the fact that his current stuff is pretty juvenile.

[Mikemical]

Considering that Vault 76 was a "control" vault (as in, they didn't screw with the dwellers or went Joey "SOCIAL EXPERIMENT!" Salads) meant to retake the wasteland after the bombs dropped, it's likely to be an MMO a la TESO.

Just saying that Vault 77 consisted of a single schizoid dude with a vault-full of puppets, Bethesda really missed that bulls eye, given how popular "SpOoKy" walking simulators have been as of late.

Also, expect the lore to be butchered. Again.

[Triaxx]

I am not as joined to the hip as most people are to the lore. But some bits just didn't make sense.

[The_Jackal]

With fallout being a juggernaught of single player RPG action, the idea of it going multiplayer is horrifying. It would be so easy to ruin it by making it another “survival” game where you just run around and farm specific enemies or try to break the game to get more kills. But it has the potential to be a super fun game with cooperative story options and building a great base with your friends. Are you worried about the game or excited and what are your hopes and concerns?

Where is it written that a game can't do any other style of game? There wouldn't be a World of Warcraft if Warcraft had to always be an RTS title, or no Hearthstone, for that matter, if WoW was going to be exclusively a MMORPG property. I totally agree that making a 'me-too' pvp survival shooter would be beyond disappointing, but mostly because it's trite, not because I think that Bethesda needs to be nailed to a RPG sandbox cross for all time. That said, I'm definitely holding off on preorders until I see a lot more details on what the product will be.

Because it seemed like fanfiction written by a 13-year old, compared to the previous one. By all means, maybe a promising 13-year old fanfic writer, he's definitely one to watch if he publishes something when he's older and more experienced but that doesn't really change the fact that his current stuff is pretty juvenile.

This is just me, but if you're looking for good writing in a computer game, you're barking up the wrong tree. It's not a coincidence that many of the most celebrated computer game protagonists are notoriously taciturn. In fact, Vox correctly points out the exact nature of how the protagonist is a vessel for our own personality, and thus gives license to a greater level of escapism. My point is that if you think you're a writing snob because you prefer New Vegas to Fallout 3, I'd love to introduce you to the New Yorker book review.

[Triaxx]

I disagree, one of the strengths of New Vegas was in the general nature of their phrasing. It conveyed a feeling, rather than a this is what they said. So while the protagonist was a blank slate, you had a variety of potential responses to select from.

3 was also pretty good at that. Not as good as New Vegas, but they also had to completely tweak the engine to allow for Deathclaws, and guns, and other features you just couldn't do directly in Oblivion's engine.

But then again, Obsidian got handed a completed engine and basically a lisence to go all out with it. I have high hopes for 76 because they had such a finished product to start with.

[Driderman]

This is just me, but if you're looking for good writing in a computer game, you're barking up the wrong tree. It's not a coincidence that many of the most celebrated computer game protagonists are notoriously taciturn. In fact, Vox correctly points out the exact nature of how the protagonist is a vessel for our own personality, and thus gives license to a greater level of escapism. My point is that if you think you're a writing snob because you prefer New Vegas to Fallout 3, I'd love to introduce you to the New Yorker book review.

I'm totally fine with mediocre writing in games, I've been gaming since the early 90's after all, some of my fondest gaming memories involve mediocre writing
My point was more that Fallout 3 was a step backwards. Fallout 2 did some pretty impressive work in terms setting building and making the world come alive, as well as with causality in the game world.
The game world of Fallout 2, though far from perfect and pretty silly at times, did a pretty good job of depicting complicated relations between settlements and less-than-obvious, non-binary consequences of actions. Fallout 3 on the other hand seemed like it was made by someone who was told just that, tried to emulate it and didn't "get it" at all, so to speak. Partly because of lack of skill I suppose, but I suspect very much also because there's something lost in the creative process when an unrelated team tries to create a sequel for an IP they bought with the express purpose to make money off somebody elses setting as opposed to a smaller studio creating a sequel in their own setting. Although I'm sure Black Isle liked to get paid as much as the next developer, I'm also pretty sure Fallout 2 was very much a labour of love as opposed to a labour of profit.

Kinda strawmanning it there a bit, we're talking about the Fallout games not literature but if it helps I have both Dostojevskij, Dumas and Wilde on my bookshelf. I've even read some of it, although I prefer Gaiman and Cornwell for the most part

[The_Jackal]

I'm totally fine with mediocre writing in games, I've been gaming since the early 90's after all, some of my fondest gaming memories involve mediocre writing
My point was more that Fallout 3 was a step backwards. Fallout 2 did some pretty impressive work in terms setting building and making the world come alive, as well as with causality in the game world.

Well, of course it was a step backwards, it's a completely different style of game. Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 were isometric traditional RPGs, turn based combat, text dialogue, low production values, etc. Fallout 3 is a sandbox action/rpg. The trade-offs it's making in terms of the game engine and production values come directly at the expense of the old-school 'choose your own adventure' text RPG components.

The game world of Fallout 2, though far from perfect and pretty silly at times, did a pretty good job of depicting complicated relations between settlements and less-than-obvious, non-binary consequences of actions. Fallout 3 on the other hand seemed like it was made by someone who was told just that, tried to emulate it and didn't "get it" at all, so to speak. Partly because of lack of skill I suppose, but I suspect very much also because there's something lost in the creative process when an unrelated team tries to create a sequel for an IP they bought with the express purpose to make money off somebody elses setting as opposed to a smaller studio creating a sequel in their own setting.

I really think you're lowballing the level of effort it takes to make a game with a detailed 3d engine, compared with what it takes to make a sprite-based 2-D game. Now I'm not saying that Fallout 3 was a revelation of graphics and sound, but it was orders of magnitude more technologically sophisticated than its predecessors, and those upgrades had costs. Money is fungible.

Although I'm sure Black Isle liked to get paid as much as the next developer, I'm also pretty sure Fallout 2 was very much a labour of love as opposed to a labour of profit.

If you look at the skill set it takes to be a game developer, and compare what you can make with that skillset in non-game-related programming, I think the notion that any game programming isn't done, on some level, out of a love of the medium, is pretty ludicrous. In addition to making less money than related work, you'll also work long hours of uncompensated overtime. The industry is rife with stories of the industry ruthlessly exploiting the wild-eyed dreamers who come into the field.

Kinda strawmanning it there a bit, we're talking about the Fallout games not literature but if it helps I have both Dostojevskij, Dumas and Wilde on my bookshelf. I've even read some of it, although I prefer Gaiman and Cornwell for the most part

It was never my intent to impugn your literary credentials, I have no patience for snobbery of any kind. I don't care if your favorite books are the Goosebumps series, you've got as much right to your opinion as anyone else. I'm merely pointing out that story is a value-add in video games, it's not crucial to the product.

[GloatingSwine]

Well, of course it was a step backwards, it's a completely different style of game. Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 were isometric traditional RPGs, turn based combat, text dialogue, low production values, etc. Fallout 3 is a sandbox action/rpg. The trade-offs it's making in terms of the game engine and production values come directly at the expense of the old-school 'choose your own adventure' text RPG components.

I mean they clearly don't, because The Witcher 3 is a thing which exists. And its narrative RPG components are not conditional on the higher capabilities of modern computers than were available to Fallout 3.

Bethesda simply were not interested in including strong narrative or mechanical RPG components because it's contrary to their design structure and philosophy which is to produce an open world full of Stuff for the player to fondle where no matter what order the player chooses to do things they feel validated in their choice being "correct" (see also: aggressively level scaled content everywhere).

[gooddragon1]

If it's online only, I'm not interested.

[Cheesegear]

Bethesda simply were not interested in including strong narrative or mechanical RPG components because it's contrary to their design structure and philosophy which is to produce an open world full of Stuff for the player to fondle where no matter what order the player chooses to do things they feel validated in their choice being "correct" (see also: aggressively level scaled content everywhere).

What? Fallout 3 doesn't use level scaling except during the Main Quest. This is why once you hit Level 15+, anywhere that isn't the main quest, or Old Olney becomes easy mode.
This is a significant complaint, because Exploration eventually became 'too easy', and the enemies you encountered didn't give enough XP. So, after you've explored, found a few Bobbleheads and some powerful Unique weapons, the game essentially says "You can stop now." and railroads you back to the Main Quest.

Which is why when you play Fallout 3, a lot of Guides suggest avoiding the Main Quest (generally in favour of Wasteland Survival Guide) for as long as possible...That is, until you get those Bobbleheads and Unique items and killing random enemies no longer rewards the player.

[GloatingSwine]

What? Fallout 3 doesn't use level scaling except during the Main Quest. This is why once you hit Level 15+, anywhere that isn't the main quest, or Old Olney becomes easy mode.

Yes it does.

It doesn't scale the stats of individual enemies, it just uses new enemy types as you get higher levels.

Do somewhere like Dunwich at low level and it will be basic ghouls and roamers, do it at 18+ (when Broken Steel enemies start appearing) and it will be glowing ones and reavers.

The only things that don't scale are Yao Guai and Deathclaws. Even Raiders have three scaled versions with different levels of HP.

[Spore]

Welcome to the internet Sporeegg, this must be your first visit.

It just BLOWS my mind when people try to project insanely advanced story telling techniques to a - at times overly - silly shooter RPG.

There is a vague idea of how to build suspense, story writing seems to employ decent writers but the stories are often hit or miss, and the character's motivation to get out into the wasteland is usually trumped by any decently written D&D character backstory.

I mean come on: We grew up in a vault is the Fallout equivalent of "we met in a tavern" and "we need item or person xy from the wasteland" is usually the "my parents were killed by orc raiders/undead/undead orc raiders and now I want revenge".

You fall into a trap composed of self-awarded writing degrees, nostalgia and heavy opinions. Combined with the average age of a poster on this forum, you get a very conservative view towards new things. (As you get older it needs time to convince yourself of new things, esp. when you were fine with old stuff. But as you repeat, you were NOT fine with FO 3 and 4. So why not try new things?)

[Wraith]

It just BLOWS my mind when people try to project insanely advanced story telling techniques to a - at times overly - silly shooter RPG.

I'm with you, Sporeegg.

In Fallout, you wander around a desert with your dog punching giant green people and occasionally tripping over a TARDIS.

In Fallout 2 you star in the world's worst porno film and then have a conversation with Audrey-II; a sentient carnivorous plant last seen in a 1990's musical movie.

Fallout 3 gave us Liberty Prime, the walking meme generator, after running errands for a woman whose primary motivation is to make giant rats explode by poking them with a stick.

Fallout: New Vegas.... Jesus H. Christ guys, did anyone ever just LOOK at what was happening in that game!?

Not to mention have the series completely shifted genres about halfway through, and went through multiple platforms aside. So tell me again how ANYTHING could possibly "ruin" Fallout, let alone the potential unconfirmed inclusion of being able to enjoy it with friends?
Be reserved about it, by all means, but also don't pretend that Fallout is some sacred cow, immaculate and perfect and must not diverge from the One True Path.

[gooddragon1]

So tell me again how ANYTHING could possibly "ruin" Fallout, let alone the potential unconfirmed inclusion of being able to enjoy it with friends?

The inability to play it with a spotty internet connection. Possibly the inability to mod it.

[Spore]

The inability to play it with a spotty internet connection. Possibly the inability to mod it.

That is a valid reason, as would "always online mode" be. Just because I was with it during my playtime of Diablo 3 doesn't mean it is good or an improvement.

[Anteros]

I'm with you, Sporeegg.

In Fallout, you wander around a desert with your dog punching giant green people and occasionally tripping over a TARDIS.

In Fallout 2 you star in the world's worst porno film and then have a conversation with Audrey-II; a sentient carnivorous plant last seen in a 1990's musical movie.

Fallout 3 gave us Liberty Prime, the walking meme generator, after running errands for a woman whose primary motivation is to make giant rats explode by poking them with a stick.

Fallout: New Vegas.... Jesus H. Christ guys, did anyone ever just LOOK at what was happening in that game!?

Not to mention have the series completely shifted genres about halfway through, and went through multiple platforms aside. So tell me again how ANYTHING could possibly "ruin" Fallout, let alone the potential unconfirmed inclusion of being able to enjoy it with friends?
Be reserved about it, by all means, but also don't pretend that Fallout is some sacred cow, immaculate and perfect and must not diverge from the One True Path.

It's entirely possible to tell a good story with a silly premise or silly components. This is a complete non-argument.

[Spore]

The fallout games do not have compelling main quests,

Also sharpen your pitchforks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eu5IQzP-bvo

[Brookshw]

The fallout games do not have compelling main quests,

Eh, I felt the did a good job drawing you into the larger world and giving flexibility in determining the ultimate shape of it,.....usually.

Also sharpen your pitchforks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eu5IQzP-bvo

Well,....that's disappointing but not too surprising.

[The_Jackal]

I mean they clearly don't, because The Witcher 3 is a thing which exists. And its narrative RPG components are not conditional on the higher capabilities of modern computers than were available to Fallout 3.

Except Witcher III is a RPG with a fixed protagonist, and mostly linear plot. Sure, it's got some sidequests and sandbox elements, but it is, at day's end, one story about one character. No disrespect inteded to CD Projekt Red, it's a great offering, but your options when that game starts are 'Be Geralt of Rivia', that's it. You get character class: Witcher. Want to play a stealth sniper/archer? Too bad, you get Witcher.

Bethesda simply were not interested in including strong narrative or mechanical RPG components because it's contrary to their design structure and philosophy which is to produce an open world full of Stuff for the player to fondle where no matter what order the player chooses to do things they feel validated in their choice being "correct" (see also: aggressively level scaled content everywhere).

Eh, that's partly true. Yes, they're more committed to making the sandbox than telling a story, and IMO, that's the right decision. I've always maintained they need less story, not more. Fallout is a game that works much better with a premise and some initial tutorials, and then let you do your thing. And Fallout has zone-based scaling, not level-scaling, for the most part. You're not going to find a Deathclaw Alpha prowling outside of Sanctuary Hills.

It just BLOWS my mind when people try to project insanely advanced story telling techniques to a - at times overly - silly shooter RPG.

Agree, but this is why Baskin Robbins' has 31 flavors. Everyone values different things in their games. Me, I like the parts where I'm playing the game, not choosing which line of pre-recorded dialogue I'm going to utter.

I mean come on: We grew up in a vault is the Fallout equivalent of "we met in a tavern" and "we need item or person xy from the wasteland" is usually the "my parents were killed by orc raiders/undead/undead orc raiders and now I want revenge".

Eh, every story has a premise, and as I keep saying, the premise must necessarily be vague if you're going to accommodate a player's own conception of their character. This is why I bemoan the trend of games being more film school project and less game.

You fall into a trap composed of self-awarded writing degrees, nostalgia and heavy opinions. Combined with the average age of a poster on this forum, you get a very conservative view towards new things. (As you get older it needs time to convince yourself of new things, esp. when you were fine with old stuff. But as you repeat, you were NOT fine with FO 3 and 4. So why not try new things?)

I don't think this is an age thing. I'll be 46 in August, so I suspect I'm among the older posters here. I think it's a predisposition to be a roleplayer, on account of OOTS's D&D link. But I also had a really early affinity with regular action titles. My father ran an arcade machine rental side business when I was growing up, so I had regular access to arcade machines in my basement, so when early shooter titles started dropping for the PC, I had years of practice in the arcades, and transitioned quite smoothly into Doom and Quake and beyond. My suspicion is that most of the old-school Fallout crowd aren't the sorts of fellows who have prestiged 9 times in Modern Warfare II. Which is fine. Baskin Robbins'.

[Cheesegear]

Because it seemed like fanfiction written by a 13-year old, compared to the previous one. By all means, maybe a promising 13-year old fanfic writer, he's definitely one to watch if he publishes something when he's older and more experienced but that doesn't really change the fact that his current stuff is pretty juvenile.

That only matters if you value story over gameplay. Which I, don't.
Then, ultimately, we hit the Skinner Box, that is all games, everywhere.

What do you have to do? What is the reward for doing so? Is, what you have to do, worth the reward?
Are you playing the game for the story? Well, here's news; Both YouTube and Wikias exist. You can have an entire game's story within weeks, and you don't even have to buy it. I think this, here, is what destroys my interest in games with multiple endings. It is not worth me playing the entire game again, just to get a different cue card. It is worth me playing the game again, because last time I didn't go for a Melee build, which plays vastly differently to a Sneak/Small Guns build. This becomes a little bit of a problem, with Expansions adding extra Levels to the game, which means that eventually, you can have a character than can do everything fairly effectively. So, if you want a new experience, you just switch weapons.

Why does knowing how your actions affect the Mojave after the game is finished, matter? You're not playing anymore. Is looking at the screen and saying "Oh, that's nice." really something that is valued? Do people get warm fuzzy feelings in their stomachs because they helped out scripted fictional characters? Is that a thing? Or am I just dead inside?

No, I have to play the game for another 10-20 hours because I got the wrong cue card!
...Really?

[GloatingSwine]

Except Witcher III is a RPG with a fixed protagonist, and mostly linear plot. Sure, it's got some sidequests and sandbox elements, but it is, at day's end, one story about one character. No disrespect inteded to CD Projekt Red, it's a great offering, but your options when that game starts are 'Be Geralt of Rivia', that's it. You get character class: Witcher. Want to play a stealth sniper/archer? Too bad, you get Witcher.

And Fallout: New Vegas isn't.

The point of bringing up Witcher 3 is to demonstrate that making a high quality 3D game is not mutually exclusive with a well written game with lots of narrative roleplaying.

(Note also: Witcher 3 is an actual new engine and Fallout 3 was the same one Bethesda have been using since Morrowind, so it required a lot more technical development.)

Eh, that's partly true. Yes, they're more committed to making the sandbox than telling a story, and IMO, that's the right decision. I've always maintained they need less story, not more. Fallout is a game that works much better with a premise and some initial tutorials, and then let you do your thing. And Fallout has zone-based scaling, not level-scaling, for the most part. You're not going to find a Deathclaw Alpha prowling outside of Sanctuary Hills.

No. Fallout does not work better with a premise and some initial tutorials and a blank slate otherwise. The original Fallout games were not like that at all, they were expressions of mechanical and narrative roleplaying which were inextricably tied to a narrative progression. (Also only one of the west coast Fallout protags grew up in a vault, that's another artifact of Bethesda's limited imagination, just like every Elder Scrolls game bar Daggerfall starts with the player in prison.)

Bethesda's sandboxes aren't even good by modern sandbox standards for god's sake because they keep making ever more basic versions of Morrowind, using the same damn engine with all the same structural flaws.

Fallout 3 and 4 have level scaling within zones. A zone which is tagged as containing Ghouls will have progressively stronger Ghouls in it as the player levels, a zone which contains animals will start off with mole rats and end up with albino radscorpions, a zone which contains super mutants will start with ordinary ones and end up with overlords with tri-beams.

It's not as aggressive as Oblivion because it doesn't apply it to levelled enemy gear and characters (Except some. The last boss of Operation Anchorage scales super aggressively, he's always 10x the player's level.) but it is absolutely 100% there.

The fact that each zone has a limited spawn list is one of those artifacts of clinging onto Gamebryo for 20 years.

[Anteros]

The fallout games do not have compelling main quests,

Also sharpen your pitchforks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eu5IQzP-bvo

I don't understand why people make statements like this. As if your personal opinion is objectively true, and thus a worthy argument. Especially when it's blindingly obvious that lots of people disagree with that opinion.

Is there any actual news in that video? It seems like a bunch of supposition based on leaks we already knew about. I only watched the first 3 minutes or so before I got bored though.

[Brookshw]

Why does knowing how your actions affect the Mojave after the game is finished, matter? You're not playing anymore. Is looking at the screen and saying "Oh, that's nice." really something that is valued? Do people get warm fuzzy feelings in their stomachs because they helped out scripted fictional characters? Is that a thing? Or am I just dead inside?

Well, yes. It gives a sense of closure and completes the story you just played through while rewarding your investment. Consider in contrast the original ending of Mass Effect 3, people were livid that their choices had negligible impact and that they lacked the sense of closure that would have come with. Enough people were annoyed that BioWare/EA put out an updated ending to assuage the fan base.

There isn't some mystery here, the journey and its conclusion go hand in hand and people do get invested in the whole thing. Why read Moby ****? Here, it's a story about a guy who hates a fish. The fish ends up killing him. Done, now you don't need to read the book.

No, I have to play the game for another 10-20 hours because I got the wrong cue card!
...Really?

Try instead that was a really great game that I wouldn't mind playing again. Oh, now I can go through it entirely differently, using different weapons and playstyles, make different decisions, AND it will give me a different outcome. Cool, more bang for my buck.

[Cheesegear]

Consider in contrast the original ending of Mass Effect 3, people were livid that their choices had negligible impact...

The game was over. It was fun. I spent a lot of hours over three games having a fun time. The last five minutes sucked. But that doesn't negate the other hundred hours, does it? The Skinner Box 'reward' isn't the ending. The 'reward' is the hundreds of hours you've spent entertained. Unless it isn't. Unless you, personally, have some sort of issue where five minutes can negate hundreds of other hours, basically for a plotline that you'll never get to experience in the game anyway. I don't understand why people were mad.

Fallout 76 looks like a base-building survival game...
Cool. Don't buy it. Problem solved. What are you mad for?

There isn't some mystery here, the journey and its conclusion go hand in hand

Unless they don't.

Why read Moby ****? Here, it's a story about a guy who hates a fish. The fish ends up killing him. Done, now you don't need to read the book.

If all's I cared about was the ending. Unfortunately, you skipped a whole lot of stuff that is way more important than the ending of the story. The ending is probably the least important part of that particular story. I'm sure there is a story you could've picked, where the ending does negate everything that just happened (e.g; "...and it was all a dream."). But, Moby D. isn't one of those stories.

[Brookshw]

The game was over. It was fun. I spent a lot of hours over three games having a fun time. The last five minutes sucked. But that doesn't negate the other hundred hours, does it? The Skinner Box 'reward' isn't the ending. The 'reward' is the hundreds of hours you've spent entertained. Unless it isn't. Unless you, personally, have some sort of issue where five minutes can negate hundreds of other hours, basically for a plotline that you'll never get to experience in the game anyway. I don't understand why people were mad.

And no one's saying it did negate the time spent enjoying the game, but that also doesn't negate that a satisfactory conclusion on top of that enjoyment can, and does, give people a better reward.

Fallout 76 looks like a base-building survival game...
Cool. Don't buy it. Problem solved. What are you mad for?

Who's mad? I hope you don't think I'm mad.

Unless they don't.

Pretty sure you just said the last 5 minutes of ME sucked, seems they do go hand in hand.

If all's I cared about was the ending. Unfortunately, you skipped a whole lot of stuff that is way more important than the ending of the story. The ending is probably the least important part of that particular story. I'm sure there is a story you could've picked, where the ending does negate everything that just happened (e.g; "...and it was all a dream."). But, Moby D. isn't one of those stories.

You were talking about the ending as if that was all people were interested in, remember "No, I have to play the game for another 10-20 hours because I got the wrong cue card!"? I don't know who said anything on that point. The whole thing goes together. If we disagree about the ending going hand in hand with the story and gives the satisfying conclusion, sense of closure, and I suppose a bit more ownership of your individual journey, - then we disagree, but I don't think anyone's tossing out the importance of actual game content in favor of just the ending.

[Anteros]

The game was over. It was fun. I spent a lot of hours over three games having a fun time. The last five minutes sucked. But that doesn't negate the other hundred hours, does it? The Skinner Box 'reward' isn't the ending. The 'reward' is the hundreds of hours you've spent entertained. Unless it isn't. Unless you, personally, have some sort of issue where five minutes can negate hundreds of other hours, basically for a plotline that you'll never get to experience in the game anyway. I don't understand why people were mad.

Isn't it quite obvious at this point that the ending does matter to a lot of people? I'd go so far as to say it matters to the majority. In fact, I'd say your viewpoint is shared by an ridiculously low number of people. How many people do you know who stop reading a book at the last chapter and say "I don't care how this ends, I enjoyed reading the book itself!" Not all games try to tell a meaningful story, but quite a few do. There's obviously a large number of people who enjoy these stories and consider the endings important. I really don't understand this position of "I don't care about this, so it doesn't matter". Especially when there are obviously tons of people who do care.

[The_Jackal]

Isn't it quite obvious at this point that the ending does matter to a lot of people? I'd go so far as to say it matters to the majority. In fact, I'd say your viewpoint is shared by an ridiculously low number of people. How many people do you know who stop reading a book at the last chapter and say "I don't care how this ends, I enjoyed reading the book itself!" Not all games try to tell a meaningful story, but quite a few do. There's obviously a large number of people who enjoy these stories and consider the endings important. I really don't understand this position of "I don't care about this, so it doesn't matter". Especially when there are obviously tons of people who do care.

I think you'll find that the flaw in this appeal to majority argument is that you can't make the argument that the opinion of the majority should matter when it comes to Mass Effect's controversial ending, but should not matter when it comes to Fallout 4's massive popular and commercial success.

[Anteros]

I think you'll find that the flaw in this appeal to majority argument is that you can't make the argument that the opinion of the majority should matter when it comes to Mass Effect's controversial ending, but should not matter when it comes to Fallout 4's massive popular and commercial success.

I think you misunderstood my point. Cheese was saying that people shouldn't care if the ending of a story is bad since you still can enjoy the other bits. The fact of the matter is that whether you or I think someone should care about something or not, it doesn't change the fact that they do actually care. No amount of saying "people shouldn't care about this" is going to change anything, because the very fact that you're having the debate in the first place proves that people do care. My comments about popularity were less about appealing to a majority than they were an attempt to highlight how absurd it is to say "people shouldn't care about this" when people very clearly do care.

As an aside, just because you vaguely link someone's argument to a fallacy doesn't automatically undermine the argument itself. For example, sometimes appealing to popularity can be used to make a perfectly valid point. If we wanted to debate whether the next Fallout would be successful, you'd be perfectly justified in appealing to the majority to point out that it will make a lot of sales. If we wanted to debate whether the next Fallout will be have a good story or not, then the appeal is obviously less useful since people will buy it even if it's not good based off brand loyalty and because they fill a certain niche that no one else does. (Also the reasons EA can remain incredibly profitable despite the majority agreeing that they make crap).

[Rynjin]

Why does knowing how your actions affect the Mojave after the game is finished, matter? You're not playing anymore. Is looking at the screen and saying "Oh, that's nice." really something that is valued? Do people get warm fuzzy feelings in their stomachs because they helped out scripted fictional characters? Is that a thing? Or am I just dead inside?

Yes, narratives are important to people. This is not news. People have always enjoyed a story.

Do you not enjoy books? Films? Serialized television series? Have you never been emotionally invested in a plot or character in any of the above?

None of those are different in that aspect than a video game. People get attached to characters, because they are enjoyable, or relatable, or just well written enough to feel real within the context of the fiction. That is the purpose of a narrative in a game, or character writing in any OTHER medium, really.

If you've not felt that before...I'm sorry for you, I guess. Maybe go see a psychologist?

[The_Jackal]

I think you misunderstood my point. Cheese was saying that people shouldn't care if the ending of a story is bad since you still can enjoy the other bits. The fact of the matter is that whether you or I think someone should care about something or not, it doesn't change the fact that they do actually care. No amount of saying "people shouldn't care about this" is going to change anything, because the very fact that you're having the debate in the first place proves that people do care. My comments about popularity were less about appealing to a majority than they were an attempt to highlight how absurd it is to say "people shouldn't care about this" when people very clearly do care.

Well, my point is that slavish devotion to what the peanut-gallery commentariat chooses to post about won't get you any closer to making a great game, because you're never going to get a clear vision, and nobody has infinite money and time with which to develop a game. At day's end, you need to make triage decisions as to where your development dollars go, and by any objective measure, Bethesda's decisions have produced a successful game. While maybe some of those decisions have displeased a vocal percentage of the franchise's original following, it's pretty clear that Bethesda have gained far more than they have lost, in terms of overall audience.

And I agree with Cheesegear: Why let the story bother you? If bad writing is going to keep you from enjoying a game, you're going to find a lot less joy in gaming than you otherwise might. Ultimately, the older you get, the less uncritical reception you're going to give to anything; movies, TV, people, anything.

As an aside, just because you vaguely link someone's argument to a fallacy doesn't automatically undermine the argument itself. For example, sometimes appealing to popularity can be used to make a perfectly valid point. If we wanted to debate whether the next Fallout would be successful, you'd be perfectly justified in appealing to the majority to point out that it will make a lot of sales. If we wanted to debate whether the next Fallout will be have a good story or not, then the appeal is obviously less useful since people will buy it even if it's not good based off brand loyalty and because they fill a certain niche that no one else does. (Also the reasons EA can remain incredibly profitable despite the majority agreeing that they make crap).

Sure, but I don't think the fallacy isn't applicable in this case. Lots of people watch reality TV. That doesn't make it good. Few people go to see Shakespeare plays. That doesn't make them bad. Now I'll concede that popularity is more pertinent in evaluating the merit of art than, say, science, economics, or politics, but I still would rather operating on the undertaking that nobody has the right to tell someone else what they ought to enjoy. If you really like watching The Bachelorette, who am I to tell you that it's utter tripe?

Yes, narratives are important to people. This is not news. People have always enjoyed a story.

Do you not enjoy books? Films? Serialized television series? Have you never been emotionally invested in a plot or character in any of the above?

None of those are different in that aspect than a video game. People get attached to characters, because they are enjoyable, or relatable, or just well written enough to feel real within the context of the fiction. That is the purpose of a narrative in a game, or character writing in any OTHER medium, really.

If you've not felt that before...I'm sorry for you, I guess. Maybe go see a psychologist?

Just because someone prioritizes other features in a game above the narrative does not mean that person is suffering from some kind of mental illness. Did you ever play Space Ace or Dragon's Lair? They had great visual effects, but I can't say they were great games, because the gameplay in them was crap. In my opinion, the dialogue tree navigation and story in RPGs is a lot like Space Ace: It's not gameplay, it's just a series of inputs to get to the end, and see what happens. If that's what you want out of a game, I really do recommend picking up Obsidian Entertainment's back-catalog.