[QUOTE="ianuilliam"][QUOTE="inoperativeRS"]"We went back and forth with the impact of dialogue on the character, and ultimately decided we didn't want to penalize or reward the player for carrying on a conversation. What you say and how you say it will certainly affect how NPCs react to you, and whether or not they'll give you quests, but not the ending of the game. That really depends on some of the big decisions you make during the course of the game, as well as your karma. And your karma changes based on your actions. So if you destroy Megaton a city built around a supposedly inert atomic bomb, your karma plummets, so that will certainly affect the ending. But there are other moments too, key moments during the game, that greatly determine which ending you get."
The fact that conversations actually mattered was one of the defining features of Fallout. I'm okay with changing the POV, even the combat system, that's totally understandable considering the age of the original fallouts, but this is just a clear step backwards in every way possible. This probably confirms it isn't possible to play the game as a strictly diplomatic character either. And what do we get in return?
"In Fallout 3, the player will come across schematics for different custom-made weapons. These might be found in different places in the world, or obtained as quest rewards. Each set of schematics lets you build a certain, pre-determined weapon, as long as you've got all the components, and most of the components are junk objects you'll find in the world."
Sounds familiar? That's probably because MMORPG's have done this since the dawn of... MMORPG's? Is bethesda feature by feature trying to turn this game into a single player MMO? Seriously, he goes on saying how you build guns out of bicycle parts and surgical tubes. WTF? I mean, fallout always had its wierd moments of absurd humour but this isn't a joke. You could as well name the game "MacGyver and the angry supermutants" and no one would notice the differance.
Yep, I've now officially joined the Bethesda haters. Fallout is as dead as it was before the announcement of "fallout" 3.
inoperativeRS
I can't recall a single conversation I had in the original Fallouts that changed the ending of the game. Yeah, you could talk a guy into not fighting you... or you could sneak past him... or you could go in guns blazing. There were multiple ways to solve any one encounter. But the ending of the game wasn't different depending on whether you used stealth or diplomacy or a disguise or anything else to get through a situation. The things that made for different ending were the major things, like whether you completed major (but not necesary) side quests and such. Isn't that the exact same thing he's saying in this interview,
"What you say and how you say it will certainly affect how NPCs react to you, and whether they'll give you quests, but not the ending of the game. That really depends on some of the big decisions you make..."
Sounds like the originals to me. Talk nice to that mutie and he will react favorably to you, ie won't attack, talk trash to that npc and he will react unfavorably, ie wont give you that important quest or even turn hostile.
Ehm, read his quote again. "we didn't want to penalize or reward the player for carrying on a conversation."
Now, he does say a NPC might not give you a quest if you're rude to him, and that's great IMO, but you could really change a whole lot by talking in fallout. How many times have you played through the original fallouts? Do you know you actually can convince the last boss in fallout 1 to commit suicide simply by talking to him? Ok, so that doesn't change the ending, but for example in fallout 2 you can decide how NCR and the other town (can't remember it's name) relate to each, you can even agitate them into war simply by talking to the leaders. Or how you can decide over what happens with the drug production in New Reno. That IS changing the ending as those both are really big parts of the game world. Really, you can change so much simply by talking there's no idea to even try to list it all.
This system he describes sounds a lot like Oblivions, in which it really doesn't matter what you tell people, there still won't be any real consequences in the actual gameworld.
Well I havent played Fallout regrettably but i hear great things, but it seems that it all boils down to the semantics. granted the dialogue may not be as good as the originals, but thats why they are originals. but it sounds like instigating wars through dialogue ties into key moments during the game, that greatly determine which ending you get.
- "we didn't want to penalize or reward the player for carrying on a conversation."
well, yes thats lame but, sounds like that would be in terms of minor NPC's, of course telling a key person would affect the outcome.
im not taking sides or targeting the above posters, but it sounds like the interview was taken out of context. and i can sympathize with not wanting an old beloved game to be ruined. take it as you will in the end it will probably never be as good to the die hard fans because its not the "original". Furthermore those die hard fans will probably end up modding it and it may become what they had anticipated. in the end its all speculation
Log in to comment