I was brilliant today. On the Bob And Tom show they were talking about how people don't go to Confessions much anymore because its a hassle. Well what if the Catholic Church set up a twitter hashtag for confessions and a priest sent you back your penance? Great or Awesome?
I think a better word is needed but I like the idea.
Dude got it backwards. FO3 was significantly more open. It had less details, but it didn't dictate how you went where. When I got to Megaton, I talked to Moriarty and found out where my dad was. I then found out that my dad was an asshole who abandoned the wasteland (IMHO) and didn't give a fuck about him anymore. So instead of doing whatever it was I was supposed to do, I went to Moira, and she said she had a quest for me. Fast forward about 10-15 hours of gameplay later. I'm still playing that side mission (though I had done many other side missions in addition) and Moira wants me to go to Rivet City to find out things about stuff. So, I do. It's here that I meet Dr Li (that was her name, right?) who says "Oh, shit, I'm a plot NPC. We need to skip past those two missions you didn't do because they won't make any sense now that you've met me." So then I ignore her too, and keep doing side missions that lead me to ends of the map that I would never have gone to had I not been on those missions.
When I played New Vegas, I tried the same tactics, but found that all the missions lead me on the same road. When I tried to deviate, something massive would kill me (i.e., want to take the short road to New Vegas? Too bad, there be Deathclaws there! Want to go east of Goodsprings? Too bad, there be Cazadors and Radscorpions there! And badass Mercs after them!) New Vegas did include more Shandification, but it did it's best to keep the player on a linear track.
Dude got it backwards. FO3 was significantly more open. It had less details, but it didn't dictate how you went where. When I got to Megaton, I talked to Moriarty and found out where my dad was. I then found out that my dad was an asshole who abandoned the wasteland (IMHO) and didn't give a fuck about him anymore. So instead of doing whatever it was I was supposed to do, I went to Moira, and she said she had a quest for me. Fast forward about 10-15 hours of gameplay later. I'm still playing that side mission (though I had done many other side missions in addition) and Moira wants me to go to Rivet City to find out things about stuff. So, I do. It's here that I meet Dr Li (that was her name, right?) who says "Oh, shit, I'm a plot NPC. We need to skip past those two missions you didn't do because they won't make any sense now that you've met me." So then I ignore her too, and keep doing side missions that lead me to ends of the map that I would never have gone to had I not been on those missions.
When I played New Vegas, I tried the same tactics, but found that all the missions lead me on the same road. When I tried to deviate, something massive would kill me (i.e., want to take the short road to New Vegas? Too bad, there be Deathclaws there! Want to go east of Goodsprings? Too bad, there be Cazadors and Radscorpions there! And badass Mercs after them!) New Vegas did include more Shandification, but it did it's best to keep the player on a linear track.
Yes and no. FO3 is definitely a more open world, but FO:NV isn't exactly linear either. You have lots of options as to what to do after the first town, and especially after you get to Vegas the first time. The video guy didn't really go into it enough but I don't think FO3 should be taken as an example of no/bad shadification, but rather an example where the shandification is incomplete in a way that makes the gaps obvious. His video is not the best, but I think the point he's trying to make is solid.
Also on the last bit everywhere but the story path to Vegas being very dangerous makes a bit of sense. Why else would they tell you to go that way? It's not the shortest path, and it's certainly not super safe. The issue must be that the other routes are simply that much more dangerous to warrant avoiding those areas.
Edit: Scratch that argument really, it's beyond the point and nitpicking. He's not really talking about their linearity at all, despite that fact he tries to frame it that way. The issue is world building and contextualization. I could even argue that a linear game can have strong shadification (Like y'know Mass Effect) and that linearity is almost a separate point. Really with the example FO3 does a mediocre job contextualizing the world and leaves gaps (people don't have food sources, just shelter and water) whereas NV does a better job of giving noticeable reasons why things are there. NV people congregate in places you would expect people to congregate (old towns and forts and other complexes) and have all the things you would expect. Such that if you were to ask a stupid simple question like "What do they eat?" you could find an explanation that is not contrived.
Also on the last bit everywhere but the story path to Vegas being very dangerous makes a bit of sense. Why else would they tell you to go that way? It's not the shortest path, and it's certainly not super safe. The issue must be that the other routes are simply that much more dangerous to warrant avoiding those areas.
My problem isn't that it doesn't make sense, it's that it makes for bad game design. If you want to avoid the story and go straight to New Vegas, you should be able to. There should be supplies along the way so that with a good mix of skill and luck, you can get there. In FO3, if you want to go straight from Vault 101 (Oh! It's called Vault 101 because it's the intro course to the game. I feel stupid for having not gotten that before) to Rivet City, you can. You have to fight Super Mutants on your way there, but looting raider camps give you enough ammo and weaponry that you can do it. Not so with NV.
Completely agree with your first paragraph, though.
My problem isn't that it doesn't make sense, it's that it makes for bad game design. If you want to avoid the story and go straight to New Vegas, you should be able to. There should be supplies along the way so that with a good mix of skill and luck, you can get there. In FO3, if you want to go straight from Vault 101 (Oh! It's called Vault 101 because it's the intro course to the game. I feel stupid for having not gotten that before) to Rivet City, you can. You have to fight Super Mutants on your way there, but looting raider camps give you enough ammo and weaponry that you can do it. Not so with NV.
I don't think that's entirely bad game design. With the correct character build and doing a few quests on the way, I was able to get into New Vegas at level 6, and that was with me messing around. Just because there's a place with some mean ass enemies in the way doesn't really matter all that much.
My problem isn't that it doesn't make sense, it's that it makes for bad game design. If you want to avoid the story and go straight to New Vegas, you should be able to. There should be supplies along the way so that with a good mix of skill and luck, you can get there. In FO3, if you want to go straight from Vault 101 (Oh! It's called Vault 101 because it's the intro course to the game. I feel stupid for having not gotten that before) to Rivet City, you can. You have to fight Super Mutants on your way there, but looting raider camps give you enough ammo and weaponry that you can do it. Not so with NV.
It's not bad game design. It's a different game, NV is not FO3, and chooses deliberately to go in a different direction (playing to Obsidians strengths not Bethesdas). NV is a much more focused game, they want you to not just experience their world but do so in the lens of their story. This is evidenced in the first 30 min of the game. In fallout 3 you, start from the beginning (very literally), experience a "sudden" catastrophic event, and are thrown into the world at large with few supplies, a vague goal, and a large world. In New Vegas you start in the middle, you are shot, recover, defend your benefactors and are sent out for revenge. You are given a clear goal, a path to get there and a reason to do so. FO3 is a game about exploring a post apocalytic wasteland and in the process becoming it's here. New Vegas is a game about going to Vegas, solving your own murder, and acting on the information you gain.
Could NV have benefited from softer railroading in places? Yes. Does that make it's choice to railroad bad? No. It's simply not an open world game in the same way FO3 is. Different Yes, bad no.
But you can ignore the story and go straight to Vegas, you just need to be sneaky and clever enough to get past the deathclaws (it's not as hard as you think it will be). It's not impossible, just dangerous.
Could NV have benefited from softer railroading in places? Yes. Does that make it's choice to railroad bad? No. It's simply not an open world game in the same way FO3 is. Different Yes, bad no.
Fair enough. I have infamously narrow taste in games, and don't have the skills to separate "I don't like it" from "it's bad" that I do in other media.
EDIT: Ninja'd by VHDBlood. I never tried going that indirectly. I still think my point stands even though that example doesn't, but I really should have thought of that.
Ninja'd by VHDBlood. I never tried going that indirectly. I still think my point stands even though that example doesn't, but I really should have thought of that.
While I do agree it does feel linear somewhat, if your goal is to get to New Vegas, why are you trying to get there? In that world, as that character, you would be trying to go there for the story. If you're exploring, everything that's happening to you is in relation to your character. I would argue that it's better than what you're proposing, because it's better adapted to the character you are, instead of who you're trying to make yourself be. If you don't care about Vegas, than you don't have to go there, if you do go there, the only stuff there really is main story stuff, because that's a lot of who/what your character is.
While I do agree it does feel linear somewhat, if your goal is to get to New Vegas, why are you trying to get there? In that world, as that character, you would be trying to go there for the story. If you're exploring, everything that's happening to you is in relation to your character. I would argue that it's better than what you're proposing, because it's better adapted to the character you are, instead of who you're trying to make yourself be. If you don't care about Vegas, than you don't have to go there, if you do go there, the only stuff there really is main story stuff, because that's a lot of who/what your character is.
Yeah, and I didn't like how your character was predefined. Good or evil, NCR or Legion, you spend the first half of the game doing the same story quest -- even if you're trying to avoid it. My two favorite missions from NV were when I was working for the King and Return to Sender (not because of the Elvis references, though). They sent me all over the map, and I didn't really see what they had to do with my character. I prefer my character to be a blank slate that I project whatever I want onto, rather than a definite being.
At first glance it looked pretty cool to me too. Then I suspected they have a grand total of two robot rigs, and the different teams simply mount different exteriors on the same two rigs. Which means that the contestants are not, like in the more traditional robot wars/battle bots shows, the creators of the machines, but actors/cast members. Which is why they found remarkably good looking team members, rather than the typical nerd families or tech students.
Comments
http://www.collegehumor.com/embed/6872425/kittens-chase-tiny-humans
I think a better word is needed but I like the idea.
When I played New Vegas, I tried the same tactics, but found that all the missions lead me on the same road. When I tried to deviate, something massive would kill me (i.e., want to take the short road to New Vegas? Too bad, there be Deathclaws there! Want to go east of Goodsprings? Too bad, there be Cazadors and Radscorpions there! And badass Mercs after them!) New Vegas did include more Shandification, but it did it's best to keep the player on a linear track.
Also on the last bit everywhere but the story path to Vegas being very dangerous makes a bit of sense. Why else would they tell you to go that way? It's not the shortest path, and it's certainly not super safe. The issue must be that the other routes are simply that much more dangerous to warrant avoiding those areas.
Edit: Scratch that argument really, it's beyond the point and nitpicking. He's not really talking about their linearity at all, despite that fact he tries to frame it that way. The issue is world building and contextualization. I could even argue that a linear game can have strong shadification (Like y'know Mass Effect) and that linearity is almost a separate point. Really with the example FO3 does a mediocre job contextualizing the world and leaves gaps (people don't have food sources, just shelter and water) whereas NV does a better job of giving noticeable reasons why things are there. NV people congregate in places you would expect people to congregate (old towns and forts and other complexes) and have all the things you would expect. Such that if you were to ask a stupid simple question like "What do they eat?" you could find an explanation that is not contrived.
Completely agree with your first paragraph, though.
Could NV have benefited from softer railroading in places? Yes. Does that make it's choice to railroad bad? No. It's simply not an open world game in the same way FO3 is. Different Yes, bad no.
EDIT: Ninja'd by VHDBlood. I never tried going that indirectly. I still think my point stands even though that example doesn't, but I really should have thought of that.
I've not done further research.