Oh yeah, complicated mechanics. Like running into a random encounter and starting 10 feet away from the fucking enemy. No cover. No manoeuvring. Just shoot the enemy and if your gear is good enough you win and they don't. And scum-saving the shit out of the game if the battle doesn't go your way. What astounding depth the original Fallout games had. Please. Games had more tactical depth back in 1984 with Ultima IV Fallout 1+2 had depth in conversation choice and the way attributes interacted with quests, but it was terribly lacking in many other ways.
+Arena1999 What depth was there in Fallout 1 and 2 combat? Please tell me, would love to know. I'm particularly fond of one encounter in Fallout 2 where I went into a vault of gangers and, get this, everyone has ranged weapons and the gang rather than you know, shooting a pistol from range. Instead swarmed around me in all 8 spaces and shot me from point blank. GREAT tactics for pistols. Loved it. Really hit me with a dose of immersion that fight. Another time, hit up some mission. Got murdered by an SMG which would do tons of damage. then I went and bought a vest and hey suddenly, that SMG only does a handful of damage. Mission went from impossible to easy with one purchase. Wow. Great design. A+ Sorry but combat in Fallout 1 + 2 is piss poor. Maybe less so in 1, but 2? Pretty weak. And yes there is cover in Fallout 3 + NV. Ever shoot at a guy and have a 0% chance on a body part because it's behind a desk? That's called cover. Just because it doesn't have a cover mechanic, like Gears or Uncharted, doesn't mean there isn't cover. There's tons of ways to approach different missions, to be stealthy, sneak around. Use silenced weapons. VATs is great but you don't need it either. Finished the game again recently and barely ever use any Jet. I'd use VATs and then fight normally and still get the job done.
I suspect most people are just seeing these games through a heavy dose of nostalgia glasses. When's that last time you played Fallout 1 + 2? Have you played it this millenium? Give it another go and I don't think your experience will live up to your memories of it.
koalabrownie I just admitted that Fallout 2 handled random encounters poorly, and even then, they become less of a design flaw once your Outdoorsman Skill is high enough. Depth in the first two games combat wasn't too high, but you can't tell me, with a straight face, 3 and NV had a deeper combat system, with its horrid FPS-styled gameplay. The original games *actually* had depth to their combat system because your stats were ultimately important for a combat-oriented character. It penalized you for using a minigun when you have only 1 point in strength. Do you know why? Because it would essentially mean that the game is holding your hand - no one should be able to handle a huge damn gun with ease until they're strong *and experience enough* to use it at its full advantage. Your two examples are shit: 1. Your first one immediately gets nullified once you start blaming Fallout 2's combat system because of its shitty encounter system. You didn't die because of the "piss-poor" TB combat, you died because of piss-poor placement and OP enemies in encounters early in the game. That's entirely all on the shitty encounter system. 2. Since you aren't giving me enough details, I'm just going to assume you had bad luck and was very close to the person that killed you with SMG. Leather Armor has a reasonably decent DR, so I don't see a flaw in that design; a critical burst with the SMG can still tear you to pieces, even with the "vest" on. Yeah, it's "piss-poor" because it doesn't hold your playable character on a pedestal or considers them to be special in anyway, and requires you to think before you roleplay. I never said that 3 and NV had no cover, there's just not much to take cover in, especially when you're in a desert. Cover hardly meant anything in those games; you'll be eating more bullets and chucking stimpaks in your system than taking cover. Fallout 3 was my introduction to the series, back in 2012, the same year I played Fallout 2, much later in the summer. I dropped the latter because I got tired of being target practice in random encounters. Towards the end of the year, I gave it another shot, and played Fallout 1 and Tactics, then I realize how much superior the first two were in every way. 6/30/2013 was the last time I played it until I brought NV: Ulti. Edition - as of now, it is the true Fallout 3 in my eyes. Once again, the nostalgia argument is bullshit, and will never, *ever* work as an argument; it just boils down to "hurr durr, people like an old game I don't like!! NOSTALGIA GOGGLEZZZ1!1!"
New Vegas is one of those very, very rare "eternal" games. I'm absolutely sure people will be playing it and discussing it in 2030, 2040, 2050 and so on, very much like people are still playing Fallou 1 and Fallout 2 to this day.
Yeah and new vegas is only half a game. Imagine if instead of 1 year of dev time it had 3 years like the fully fledged out game it should have been….. It had the potential of being one of the best games ever made. Unfortunately it was sabotaged akin to vtm bloodlines.
@@Rad-Dude63andathirdbro what are you saying they are definitely related lol it’s all Tech. You’d expect someone around computers all day like him to know
@@merellion "bro" I don't know you, creep. I'm not a guy either. Maybe I should give you a different example. It's like asking a mechanic to sell a car. I mean maybe they can, but those are two different vehicle related skillsets.
I remember picking up New Vegas back in 2013. Back then New Vegas was the black sheep of the series, some people liked it (I did) but the general consensus was that Fallout 3 was the better of the 3D games. Everyone was hyped for Fallout 4, I know I was. Fast forward how many years and it’s completely opposite. People hate new Bethesda Fallout, especially after 76, and everyone I know now regards New Vegas as the best Fallout game. Weird how times change...
@@newginslab6993 You kind of defined the problem right there. There are people who don't have their own opinion and just parrot whatever the majority says. The people who said they liked New Vegas meant it, and after the advertising and media blitz wore off the majority obsessed with FO3 moved on to their next majority obsession and then the New Vegas fans became the majority, and now 99% change 20% of the people who say they like new vegas best just say that because thats what everyone else says now.
Helps that the bugs have mostly been fixed, especially with the fan patches and such. Playing it on PS3 at launch was a doozy, but I still beat it and it quickly took its place as one of my favorite games. Now, 250+ hours in the PC version it's my absolute favorite game of all time, but even I can admit it's an inherently flawed game
Notes for me to remember: Give players choices where each one means something different to them: choice agony. Avoid extreme choices where one is realy benevolent and one is really malevolent Avoid choices where both are good or both are bad. Avoid outcomes that = failure, instead present different outcomes that give players new experiences for their choice. Think short term and long term reward. E.g gaining some coin and gaining an ally Seperaye critical and optional info
What is it with all these kids going around lying about Fallout 4 based on those completely bullshit pre-reviews, even years later? Are you really this salty over those pre-reviews that years later you still haven't played the game, and still feel the need to make bullshit posts that no one who ever played the game would believe?
Throttle Kitty I have played the game, and that's exactly how most of the dialogue in FO4 works. They aren't the ones who are lying... You are. Also, why do all your comments on this video have one and only one upvote? Are you upvoting your own comment? Kind of pathetic if that's the case...
??? Are you like 5? What is with dense kids these days who think saying "NU YU" auto-wins them the argument? It's 4 option based, but two of them change all the time. Similar to Mass Effect/Dragon Age. If you weren't lying out your ass, you'd know that. Also, I only have one other post here with 2 upvotes?? Lie more?
FNV dialogue: 1. Yes! 2. Okay. 3. Excuse me what? 4. I don't like it but I'll do it anyway. 5. No. 6. I'll do it only if you give me 100 caps. 7. Give me all your money. 8,9,10... Or you could just exit out of the conversation, lure a nearby death claw to the speaker, and run. This is why Fallout NV is always going to be my favorite fallout.
Josh Sawyer's point on choices that are the same thing: I think there is something to be said for making choices to roleplay and inform your own character even if these choices don't necessarily affect anything in the world.
And that isn't neceserily a good think for singleplayer RPGs. Your player character is meant to have an impact on the game's world by your actions, you aren't just a pawn like in MMOs. And that's why i got deeper into my FO3 character than the Courier. -In FO3 you see your birth, all the life stages up to your adulthood and you are pivotal to the outcome of your world. You screw up, everyone dies. You hold the lives of a town in your hands. You are the main lead character in every facet of the game. You experience the character as if it was you from birth to victory. -In FONV, you are thrust into the world without background, without purpose or beliefs. You are a pawn for greater powers, your background sprinkled in DLCs and dialogue. You are used by others to achieve what you BELIEVE its better, not what you CHOOSE what is better.
flyingspagetti No you can be a pawn or an important one depending on what the writers decide. I hate the idea that my character is supposed to be the "chosen one" who is the only savior of the universe. The world shouldn't revolve around me, I should revolve around the world.
@@flyingspaghetti Lone Wanderer is not the protagonist of FO3. During the main story line at no point you make any choice about what's going to happen. You father is the protagonist, because the entire story revolves around his choices and both of you following HIS dream. You can be the most detached, self-serving bastard in the universe and you still gonna end up activating the purifier, because that's what your daddy wanted. And even when the a sidequest gives you some kind of agency of outcome, it's 95% of the time a binary choice between objective good or objective evil with slightly better paycheck.
@@victorwagner2423 exactly! The point in the Courrier be blank is to you have no limits in the RP, the way flying spaghetti talks seems he prefer a movie than RPGs. Witch is not bad.
@Abel plus when Obsidian talk about your past, as revealed in Lonesome Road, they do in a vague way. They do enought to you have some shock but not in a way that break your RP till that point.
How? They have made two great RPGs in the last 3 years, Pillars of Eternity and Tyranny, which are actually RPGs unlike a lot of games that come out nowadays calling themselves such. They still have many of the same leads that have always been at Obsidian, only Avellone left to pursue his freelance writing/design career (besides, the team makes a game, not just a few, but many of the directors/project leads, and CEO are still the same that have always been).
the solution to the "winning" problem in a conversation is just to remove the squared parenthesis, you shouldn't know that a certain choice is only available for you because of your speech or intelligence, you should be able to figure out the best choice on the merits of the words. fallout 1 did this incredibly well for example, spoiler: * at the end of the game u can win the conversation against master by telling him that mutants cant reproduce and even that isn't enough u have to also tell him to ask his mutants and then female mutants*. you win this conversation because u deserve to and not because u put certain skill points.
Completely agree. There's a mod in NV for this, and it makes dialogue significantly better. The classic games made you actually think about what you were saying, whereas making the skill checks obvious also makes the 'correct' answer obvious. It's also a little immersion breaking I'd argue.
This is such a simple yet effective solution. When I first played New Vegas, I was immersed in the dialogue choices and I carefully read the ones when talking to important quest related NPCs. But as I progressed through the game with steady Speech leveling I start looking for the [Speech X/Y] marker and choosing that and just skipping past dialogue. Deus Ex Mankind Divided on the other hand without CASIE made me pay attention to what the NPC is saying and how they say it to get the "right" response.
Fallout 1 has a perk that outlines certain dialogues in red or blue to help you "win" conversations, but even so you're still right. A player had to choose that perk, in F:NV it's there outlined for you by default.
Replying 4 years later, but I'm not sure this is the right thing to do. If a person levels up their melee skill, they know that to utilise that investment they should use weapons that have 'melee' written next to them. Currently in FNV, levelling up speech gets you the same information, you know how to utilise your skill because it tells you, by highlighting the speech dialogue options. Removing that makes speech lesser than every other skill, because you have to rely on your IRL 'speech' to decide if you are using it, whereas if you are roleplaying a smooth-talking guy, they would always know the right thing to say, and so the game should tell you that. You shouldn't have to rely on your people skills outside of the game, the character you're playing can be totally different to you.
@@TheThundererVidz true, what I personally prefer to mod NV to - you have brackets with skill name, but no requirements, or [success]/[failure] wording, so you never REALLY know, was this how it were supposed to go, or is that your skill just isnt enough.
I listened to the Emil Pagliarulo (Fallout 3, 4 writer) video after this and ended up pretty depressed about the future of Fallout. Ah well, we'll always have the classics.
flyingspagetti I didn't like it all that much. Really, if you just play fallout 3's main quest, you're playing quite a shit game. Same with all bethesda games. Bethesda are great at environmental storytelling and worldspaces, but in the narrative department, with Emil in the lead, they flounder. Big time. Just look at fallout 4. Emil made the main quest and nuka world, I believe. Another guy, I think his name is Will, wrote far harbour. FH had branching paths, heaps of options, grey moral choices and interesting lore and dialogue, Fallout 4 main game was just plain boring, and nuka world was a shoot em up with hardly any storyline at all, the only decision was one that made the mistake of having a conflict of player and character goals. Kill the raiders, lose a bunch of content. Be a raider, be bad but get the content. edit: 2 years later, I think my opinion here was pretty misinformed and simplistic. i was speaking on game design, something I had no idea or experience with back then. games are collaborations between many people, saying things like "emil wrote this dlc" is just plain incorrect.
@Gr8Sc0tt I disagree with my original comment now tbh. keep it simple stupid is the way to go when it comes to writing, I've learned that with experience. even obsidian writers agree. it's about keeping projects manageable. i also think it's short-sighted to put blame on a single developer of a massive project. emil was lead writer on far harbor as well, the guy I was talking about was lead designer. it's not as simple as I make it out to be
@@jacksonelh Totally agree, the diffirence between Bethesda and Obsidian however is that Obsidian puts a focus on immersing you in their game and thus it doesn't really seem stupid simple
@@pings3356 I think both put that focus, but obsidian more so with the dialogue, while bethesda more so with the worldspace. at least in those days. but yeah obsidian works with the keep it simple stupid method. it's just the best way to get games done, and to keep the team healthy. i think they decided to use that after new vegas, after all not keeping it simple caused a ton of planned content to have to be scrapped.
I really want a game that has a dialogue system that is as robust as a general combat system these days. Like you can include specific names or objects in a sentence that would modify that sentence's effects. Or control the intensity of the voice, or choose certain parts to emphasize that would transfer a hidden meaning to a character without others in the conversation knowing. Or even where you're standing or looking would would affect the outcome of your speech.
FoNV is by far my favorite game of all time. The only thing that comes close is if you considered its DLC's its own game than that would be very a close 2nd..but it's literally just more of the same game.
flyingspagetti sure but that’s somewhat different. The Witcher series is based on a series of books. To “get” what the series means, you need only read the books. So every game should be looking to be the best adaptation of the books as possible. The Witcher 1 was a flawed game and did a decent job of trying to translate what made the books great at the time. Fallout has a greater onus on it to look back at what made he series so special and what makes it unique. There’s a more immediate need to look and play past releases to see exactly why they are so beloved. CD Projekt Red don’t really need to as much as they were always trying to beat bring the book world to life
Witcher 1 wasn't a flawed game, it was an unknown game. No one gave a dime for it, since in 2008 more important games were out there. Buried into obscurity until a flamboyant Witcher 2 showcased some graphics and your typical RPG mechanic. Here you have a messed up lore (Fallout Bible) that has NO CONTINUITY OR FUTURE. You can practically make anything happen for the future and the lore won't break at all. If you didn't like what Boston or DC was like in FO4 and FO3, then you should look at Fallout:BOS or Fallout:Tactics and laugh your ass off about fallout lore and setting.
Man, I had to double-check and make sure this talk was given before 2015 because a lot of the points he makes are eeriely relevant to Fallout 4's shortcomings. And in my opinion, a lot of this just seems like common sense for creating an enjoyable role-playing experience. And I don't think you really need to sacrifice any of it to also include good gunplay and combat mechanics, so when you compare the development period of New Vegas (about 18 months) to Fallout 4's (2 - 5 years: full-production took about 2, but pre-production, outlining, writing, etc started as early as 2009, and that stage is arguably the most important for what Josh is talking about for the most part), it really makes you scratch your head.
I just think Bethesda has a different perspective on fallout. they view it as an shooter with rpg mechanics. that kind of perspective informs the way they design dialogue
@@jacobodom8401 Cloning Mass Effect's wheel and failing at it is hardly an experiment. I hate these paraphrased dialogic choices. Sometimes they paraphrase them so bad, I instantly wanna F9. They should just let me see what I'm actually going to say. People actually made mods that do just that, because of how bad that paraphrasing was.
Hands down my favorite quest was the one with the rape victim. -It actually addressed a serious issue in a very realistic manner. - The NPC that was the victim had a very realistic reaction to it. -It touched on toxic masculinity with a female character, something I’ve never seen in all of fiction. -You get to kill a rapist.
Fallout New Vegas is by far the best true 3D open world Fallout game, and it will remain that way until some really dumb people grow a brain and let Obsidian make another Fallout game, then let them take the lead on making them.
I think the mechanics and NPC interactions in New Vegas are amazing but, for me, Fallout 3's world and story are better and easier for me to dive into.
I can understand that. It's a preference, the wasteland of a city or the wasteland of a desert. Fallout 3 has a very straight forward linear story whereas New Vegas has 4 different ways about doing the main quest.
True that. I always loved FONV for its story, and FO3 for its gameplay. FO3 had more exploration (off the beaten path areas with no quests) and had a buttload of enemies compared to FONV. Super mutants, ghouls, robots, humans, all roamed the Capital Wasteland. Mojave Wasteland had 90% people and 10% local fauna to kill, it became somewhat boring after a while.
Yeah, New Vegas rather than dotting every enemy type everywhere as a random encounter said, "Ghouls are located here, here, and here. Super Mutants are here, here and also here in this hidden town and Robots will here, there and also in this building". It's up to you to decide which way you prefer it.
And on top of that, FONV removed the random encounters of FO3. In FONV, the handful of encounters are scripted encounters and not a random encounter from a pool being initiated in predetermined spots in the Wasteland. That means no sudden spawns as you travel, but complete emptiness or the usual and boring "assassination attempt" from Legion/NCR. Which, in the long run made the game world utterly empty besides the quests and some fixed spawns.
John Black I don't hate RPGs, quite the opposite in fact. I hate that Fallout ceased to exist as an RPG franchise, to become a railroaded story which prevents you from role-playing other characters, and thinks imitating Minecraft is more important than choice and reactivity.
At this point I have to go with "You have got to be shitting me!". I'd understand if you defended it as a gameplay experience, really. But to say that its RPG choice aspect can "stand with the greats" is absolutely ludicrous. Next you'll be telling me Skyrim has the best reactivity... Go play real RPGs man, lose the "uh, 1990s" prejudice. There were some awesome RPGs made back then.
Unbelievable. For the record, I don't play CoD, I don't even play a multiplayer shooter anymore. I'd like choice to be more complex than "Yes" or "Sarcastic Yes". I Fallout New Vegas you can end the life of anyone, and it doesn't hold your hand, if you do it often you WILL be locked out of content, as intended. Fallout 4 has the same bullshit essential NPCs as every other Bethesda game nowadays. We obviously have VERY different concepts of what an RPG is or isn't.
New Vegas suffers from the same problems as Bioshock where it has four or so scripted endings that may or may not meet your expectations. I've only finished it once, but having chosen the "rule the place myself" option, thinking I would be better for the area than anyone else I was then told I was a shit dictator/mob boss and the land suffered because of it. This despite having saintly karma.
26:03 I think RPGs should give you these choices because they allow you to roleplay the way your character responds like you would in a pen & paper rpg.
Interesting that LISA uses the Sophie's Choice kind of decisions that he critiques in this talk, but applies it effectively and thoughtfully enough for it to work to the game's advantage
I’ve been re-watching these talks by Obsidian employees after The OuterWorlds has released and I can really respect the philosophy they’ve stuck to over the years. New Vegas they were on a tight leash; The Outer Worlds they’ve been kind of let loose but with a budget; I’m excited to see what comes next.
Outer Worlds was done on a very tight budget actually, They wouldn't be able to make something like that if it wasn't for T2 funding and the help of T2's studio Private Division.
More than ten years ago, Sawyer pointed out that players were frustrated with games that provide only the illusion of choice, where none of your dialogue options actually affect anything. In 2023, Bethesda continues to design its games around this outdated and unsatisfying narrative structure.
Years and years after the original talk, I gotta say that the opening quest in Fallout New Vegas is the reason I didn't play the game until this summer, and boy did I miss out. The problem was that after you get shot, I had no reason to do anything. My first thought was to return to my boss and tell them somebody stole my delivery, but you can't do that. Where did I come from? Do I have family in this world? What is my motivation? Well, I want to see New Vegas so I'll just head straight for that. No, can't do that either (well, you can but you know, Deathclaws). Lots of games have this problem with the character being just this random entity born into the world from nowhere, but I've never felt so disconnected from a game as I did when starting New Vegas that first time. And I promptly missed out on one of the greatest rpg games of all time. Until now.
@GreenTea funny enough I think FO:3 actually had an interesting take on that by having you quickly play through your adoloscence in the vault as part of the tutorial.
I find it weird how our opinions seem to be flipped. I felt the intro showing someone tried to kill me was a pretty good motivator, as well as New Vegas always looming in the distance no matter where you are. Collecting evidence of the man who killed you and where he went, trying to track down the delivery, was a pretty clear goal for me. Fallout 3 on the other hand had the sole goal of finding my dad. Why? Because... he's my dad. Later you find out he's the main character, but if anything that just makes me wanna ignore the storyline entirely. Also in terms of the player character, I much prefered New Vegas' blank slate to Fallout 3's prewritten character. In New Vegas I feel like I can roleplay anyone, from an NCR grunt doing deliveries as a side job to a slimy silver tongued weasel that's more cowardly crook than smooth criminal. In Fallout 3 I'm always the main character's child, always a vault dweller, always the one to get the purifier up and running. I'm not allowed to write my own character sheet, I'm always given a premade one with the option to be either Lawful Good, True Neutral or Chaotic Evil. I guess the problem is Fallout 3's intro is a novelty that wears off after the first playthrough, while New Vegas goes the "you start in a tavern" approach of letting you express your own character right from the get go, with the downside of no fancy intro.
@@kiwi3085 Your points are excellent! And my own preferences have shifted to something more in the middle of my previous stance and what you are saying here. You have a great point about replay-value and the opening of NV vs F3. I think a good compromise would be a game were you had the option to select broad categories regarding A: your childhood, B: your class/training and C: What got you started on this life. I remember I roleplayed a courier who was an old guy with that could take any amount of physical pain like it was nothing. But everyone he had ever loved had died from diseases and his sturdy constitution condemned him to outlive all of them. Mechanically that worked wonderfully, as I could easily kill my way heroically onward until I met the Legion who almost killed my character. it became a great arc about him facing his own mortality, and recruiting that Brotherhood follower as a de-facto new daughter. That story worked because the mechanics in the game worked alongside my personal narrative. That's what I'd like to see kicked up a notch. But maybe you can't bottle magic without turning into sparkling water, if you get what I'm saying?
@@voldlifilm I see what you're after, and I feel like Pillars of Eternity really allowed for that sort of player definition within character creation. Where they came from and what their job was determined what your gear was and what it looked like. A soldier from the far north looked like a barbarian in comparison to the very prim and proper brigandine wearing soldiers from castles nearby. Cyberpunk 2077 probably had the best idea for this (although the execution is lacking) where you have select starting backgrounds, each with their own intro. I'd love the idea for a synthesis of these two ideas; have you choose a background that informs what you wear, what gear you carry and stat influences, followed by choosing your own personal main quest separate from the big main quest ie. meeting your family again, being the ambassador for your country to foster peace, making a delivery, enlisting in an upcoming war etc. Each of these could have their own specific intro, a sort of personalised tutorial, before thrusting you into the main game via whatever means with your chosen main quest alongside the developer's main quest. That'd be a ton of work, but I'd 100% be here for it.
Isn't being a dummy who roleplays the absolute worst option in a dialogue exactly what roleplaying is about? If I am playing a snarky jackass that ends up not getting a thing because of it, then that is just what should happen. I guess I got to find another way to get that thing now. My point is that losing is fun, messing up is fun. That's why everybody loves Indiana Jones, he stumbles his way forwards blundering into victory through luck and gumption. And that's how I like to play as well.
not really. you had 4 questlines that didn't really pick up until the end, and at that point, you would just have to make a choice of who you'll keep alive and who you'll blow up/betray.
No, FO4 had those... just not in abundance. I think the main issue was in reactivity--when there was reactivity it was very minimal. I know he says to "keep it local" in this talk, but I feel FO4 took that notion too far and also prescribed far too much to the modern Bethesda notion of never closing off any paths ever and reduced almost all interaction to combat. FO4 had those 4 things, but the majority of the game was non-choices with little to no reactivity. The story only changed in the most minute ways possible (the gist remained entirely the same) and character agency was incredibly shallow.
No. It didn't. I swear, Fallout 4 has the biggest community of shit-talkers who haven't even bothered to play the game. It's like, you read 1 really negative bias pre-review 2 years ago and that's the only opinion of the game you ever absorbed.
Throttle Kitty Here's the thing. New vegas showed that you're choices matter in the end. Fallout 4 had a pre rendered scenes that didn't show what you did. All you had was a different group standing with you when you blew up Boston. Or the 1 institute ending. The problem is the cut down dialogue didn't allow for actual choice. It's not even because the mc is voiced because Mass Effect has tons of choice with a voiced character. You cannot be purely evil in 4. In NV you have plenty of choices just for evil characters. You could be an evil NCR ranger or a Legion member. You can move between factions and groups whenever you want, and in 4 it's like Bethesda looked at NV and they saw that people loved the faction and real player control you have in that game and they tried to copy off it. I've played through 4 3 times with a total of 120 hours in the game. I've looked at all of the factions, and really, none of them truly matter. You always have to make the teleporter, you always have to talk to Shawn, you always have to go to Fort Hagon, and you ALWAYS have to kill Kellogg. There are things that you technically always have to do in NV as well, such as meeting with all the factions representing you're main faction, but in that you can kill them, use stats to convince them to work with you or do lots of quests to gain they're trust. 4 is so linear because according to the story you are always a caring parent, you always want to find your son, and you the player has no choice in that. You always love your significant other and you always want revenge on at least the guy that killed your husband or wife and took your son. You also always have to kill opposite sides. In NV you can do a run and never ever kill anyone even if they oppose you. Or you can murder everyone. 4 has throw away bullet sponge human and humanoid enemy types that you HAVE to fight if you want experience and the skills to not immediately die later in the game. types like raiders and super mutants that you could have a conversation in New Vegas you either must shoot or run away from in 4. I don't hate 4, it's a pretty solid shooter, but that's it.
Bethesda excels at keyword dialogue systems, Straying from that was the problem. The open world where you can do anything plus the poorly written dialogue where you cant say jack.
I would like to sit down with Josh Sawyer, and probably John Gonzales and other key people behind New Vegas and the classic Fallout games, and talk about this stuff, because in this public setting, Joshua is being really polite and not bragging about how amazing their games are. I'd like to see him, or them, talk more openly about their goals, what they did to reach them, and what ended up at what level of awesome as a result, and what other games succeeds and fails at all this and in what ways.
The Sophie's Choice point really helped it click for me as to why I don't like the new Wolfenstein game's intro and partner decision. There's nothing gained. You're just making 1 of 2 shitty choices.
It's fundamentally wrong to think every possible character has to be able to experience every bit of code and story written as well. If you balance the amount of "bonuses" hidden behind dialogue between the available types of "conversation tones" evenly, there's no problem at all. If min-max and save scummers "destroy" their game by collecting everything by playing "multiple personality characters" then that's not something developers should spend a calorie worrying about.
Not all dialog choices should be valid. Sometimes you cannot get what you want by acting however you want. Most of the time, the sassy jackass does not get "the thing". To quote you, "Sometimes people complain about this, tough shit." I 100% disagree that speech skill is not gameplay. Especially, if refusing to use the speech check results in a medium reward and the skill can give you a Better or worse reward for success failure. Then it becomes a question of gambling, which is absolutely a game. You can absolutely "win" a negotiation.
You're only partially right. Sure you should be locked/softlocked out of specific scenarios, but there should be another why in order to solve a problem or newly created problem in a smart believable way. I don't think Josh was saying that there SHOULDN'T BE CONSEQUENCES for your actions. But there should be SOMETHING for ANY character made. If you created a character and because of how you built them you couldn't complete the game because you lack certain skills and your skills don't provide an alternative answer NOT VALID BUT ALTERNATIVE with their own consequences then what is it about the game that allows for something other than linearity?
The speech skill is fine, as long as there are other ways to get there for other builds, like intimidate, intelligence, or other more specific skills based on the situation, like doctor or repair, etc.
Great talk. I think a simple design fix to the question of the "evil" character rewards, it should simply align with real life. for example, fable 2 rewards evil with unimaginable amounts of wealth. you can still make a lot as a good guy but not as much. Also, i think they should leave it up to the player to know, if i punch this guy, he wont be friendly. i dont think thats punishing a player so much as a natural reaction to their choices. anyways i enjoyed listening to Josh and all of innovative ways they continue to separate themselves.
I love Obsidian and Sawyer and Urquhart and the other top brains at Obsidian are so awesome I hope they just move on from all this Fallout debate, and they develop their own IP's like Pillars and Tyranny, set post apocalyptic, and noone ever looks back at Fallout again.
Okay that's just a straight up Six-String Samurai reference at 30:27 I KNEW that movie was an inspiration for New Vegas! Also the Choice Agony comes up in a lot of NV reviews and stuff and is credited to be why the game is such a talking point this far down the line - because people have different values so they have different ideas on which side is the "best" and why.
I always appreciated iron man modes and usually play them because I have to think about how a character/faction would respond to someone fundamentally disagreeing with them
Obsidian is leagues ahead in Bethesda in RPG design
MandaloreGaming and yet Fallout 3 gets the higher Metacritic score
Oh yeah, complicated mechanics. Like running into a random encounter and starting 10 feet away from the fucking enemy. No cover. No manoeuvring. Just shoot the enemy and if your gear is good enough you win and they don't. And scum-saving the shit out of the game if the battle doesn't go your way. What astounding depth the original Fallout games had.
Please. Games had more tactical depth back in 1984 with Ultima IV
Fallout 1+2 had depth in conversation choice and the way attributes interacted with quests, but it was terribly lacking in many other ways.
+Arena1999 What depth was there in Fallout 1 and 2 combat? Please tell me, would love to know. I'm particularly fond of one encounter in Fallout 2 where I went into a vault of gangers and, get this, everyone has ranged weapons and the gang rather than you know, shooting a pistol from range. Instead swarmed around me in all 8 spaces and shot me from point blank. GREAT tactics for pistols. Loved it. Really hit me with a dose of immersion that fight.
Another time, hit up some mission. Got murdered by an SMG which would do tons of damage. then I went and bought a vest and hey suddenly, that SMG only does a handful of damage. Mission went from impossible to easy with one purchase. Wow. Great design. A+
Sorry but combat in Fallout 1 + 2 is piss poor. Maybe less so in 1, but 2? Pretty weak.
And yes there is cover in Fallout 3 + NV. Ever shoot at a guy and have a 0% chance on a body part because it's behind a desk? That's called cover. Just because it doesn't have a cover mechanic, like Gears or Uncharted, doesn't mean there isn't cover. There's tons of ways to approach different missions, to be stealthy, sneak around. Use silenced weapons. VATs is great but you don't need it either. Finished the game again recently and barely ever use any Jet. I'd use VATs and then fight normally and still get the job done.
I suspect most people are just seeing these games through a heavy dose of nostalgia glasses. When's that last time you played Fallout 1 + 2? Have you played it this millenium? Give it another go and I don't think your experience will live up to your memories of it.
koalabrownie I just admitted that Fallout 2 handled random encounters poorly, and even then, they become less of a design flaw once your Outdoorsman Skill is high enough. Depth in the first two games combat wasn't too high, but you can't tell me, with a straight face, 3 and NV had a deeper combat system, with its horrid FPS-styled gameplay.
The original games *actually* had depth to their combat system because your stats were ultimately important for a combat-oriented character. It penalized you for using a minigun when you have only 1 point in strength. Do you know why? Because it would essentially mean that the game is holding your hand - no one should be able to handle a huge damn gun with ease until they're strong *and experience enough* to use it at its full advantage.
Your two examples are shit:
1. Your first one immediately gets nullified once you start blaming Fallout 2's combat system because of its shitty encounter system. You didn't die because of the "piss-poor" TB combat, you died because of piss-poor placement and OP enemies in encounters early in the game. That's entirely all on the shitty encounter system.
2. Since you aren't giving me enough details, I'm just going to assume you had bad luck and was very close to the person that killed you with SMG. Leather Armor has a reasonably decent DR, so I don't see a flaw in that design; a critical burst with the SMG can still tear you to pieces, even with the "vest" on.
Yeah, it's "piss-poor" because it doesn't hold your playable character on a pedestal or considers them to be special in anyway, and requires you to think before you roleplay.
I never said that 3 and NV had no cover, there's just not much to take cover in, especially when you're in a desert. Cover hardly meant anything in those games; you'll be eating more bullets and chucking stimpaks in your system than taking cover.
Fallout 3 was my introduction to the series, back in 2012, the same year I played Fallout 2, much later in the summer. I dropped the latter because I got tired of being target practice in random encounters. Towards the end of the year, I gave it another shot, and played Fallout 1 and Tactics, then I realize how much superior the first two were in every way. 6/30/2013 was the last time I played it until I brought NV: Ulti. Edition - as of now, it is the true Fallout 3 in my eyes. Once again, the nostalgia argument is bullshit, and will never, *ever* work as an argument; it just boils down to "hurr durr, people like an old game I don't like!! NOSTALGIA GOGGLEZZZ1!1!"
New Vegas is one of those very, very rare "eternal" games. I'm absolutely sure people will be playing it and discussing it in 2030, 2040, 2050 and so on, very much like people are still playing Fallou 1 and Fallout 2 to this day.
Yeah and new vegas is only half a game. Imagine if instead of 1 year of dev time it had 3 years like the fully fledged out game it should have been….. It had the potential of being one of the best games ever made. Unfortunately it was sabotaged akin to vtm bloodlines.
Josh Sawyer: Designs one of the GOAT RPG Video Games.
Also Josh Sawyer: How do I use Powerpoint?
They're not even remotely related lol. It's like asking a firefighter to be a professional chef.
He is so wholesome
@@Rad-Dude63andathirdbro what are you saying they are definitely related lol it’s all Tech. You’d expect someone around computers all day like him to know
@@merellion
"bro"
I don't know you, creep. I'm not a guy either.
Maybe I should give you a different example. It's like asking a mechanic to sell a car. I mean maybe they can, but those are two different vehicle related skillsets.
if he were to do this talk in 2021 I'm sure the audience wouldn't run out of questions. new vegas has certainly grown in cult status since 2012
I remember picking up New Vegas back in 2013. Back then New Vegas was the black sheep of the series, some people liked it (I did) but the general consensus was that Fallout 3 was the better of the 3D games. Everyone was hyped for Fallout 4, I know I was. Fast forward how many years and it’s completely opposite. People hate new Bethesda Fallout, especially after 76, and everyone I know now regards New Vegas as the best Fallout game. Weird how times change...
Hindsight is 20/20, perhaps? Or maybe since the games have existed longer, people have had more time to think about the games?
@@newginslab6993 You kind of defined the problem right there. There are people who don't have their own opinion and just parrot whatever the majority says. The people who said they liked New Vegas meant it, and after the advertising and media blitz wore off the majority obsessed with FO3 moved on to their next majority obsession and then the New Vegas fans became the majority, and now 99% change 20% of the people who say they like new vegas best just say that because thats what everyone else says now.
new vegas was huge when it came out lmao. I'd say it's much less popular today than it used to be.
Helps that the bugs have mostly been fixed, especially with the fan patches and such. Playing it on PS3 at launch was a doozy, but I still beat it and it quickly took its place as one of my favorite games. Now, 250+ hours in the PC version it's my absolute favorite game of all time, but even I can admit it's an inherently flawed game
Notes for me to remember:
Give players choices where each one means something different to them: choice agony.
Avoid extreme choices where one is realy benevolent and one is really malevolent
Avoid choices where both are good or both are bad.
Avoid outcomes that = failure, instead present different outcomes that give players new experiences for their choice.
Think short term and long term reward. E.g gaining some coin and gaining an ally
Seperaye critical and optional info
Patrolling fo4 makes you wish for a new obsidian fallout
One day.....
ave, true to sawyer
ave, true to MC Ride
just ride
Degenerates like Todd Howard belongs on the cross
Playing Fallout 4 makes me wish for a involved sawyer...
Fallout 4 dialogue (real example):
1. How will the Brotherhood remember them?
2. That's it.
3. That's everything.
4. That's all.
Brilliant...
chunks
What is it with all these kids going around lying about Fallout 4 based on those completely bullshit pre-reviews, even years later? Are you really this salty over those pre-reviews that years later you still haven't played the game, and still feel the need to make bullshit posts that no one who ever played the game would believe?
Throttle Kitty I have played the game, and that's exactly how most of the dialogue in FO4 works. They aren't the ones who are lying... You are.
Also, why do all your comments on this video have one and only one upvote? Are you upvoting your own comment? Kind of pathetic if that's the case...
??? Are you like 5? What is with dense kids these days who think saying "NU YU" auto-wins them the argument? It's 4 option based, but two of them change all the time. Similar to Mass Effect/Dragon Age. If you weren't lying out your ass, you'd know that. Also, I only have one other post here with 2 upvotes?? Lie more?
you mean... like a normal conversation?
FO4 dialogue:
a) tell me more / yes
b) yes
c) no
d) sarcasm / yes / give me more money
FNV dialogue:
1. Yes!
2. Okay.
3. Excuse me what?
4. I don't like it but I'll do it anyway.
5. No.
6. I'll do it only if you give me 100 caps.
7. Give me all your money.
8,9,10...
Or you could just exit out of the conversation, lure a nearby death claw to the speaker, and run. This is why Fallout NV is always going to be my favorite fallout.
There's a "No" option?
Or did you mean "Say yes later?"
The "no" option is to exit the conversation and leave.
a) fake choice
b) fake choice
c) fake choice
d) fake choice
There is always one real choice, at the end of a fatman launcher.
Josh Sawyer's point on choices that are the same thing: I think there is something to be said for making choices to roleplay and inform your own character even if these choices don't necessarily affect anything in the world.
And that isn't neceserily a good think for singleplayer RPGs. Your player character is meant to have an impact on the game's world by your actions, you aren't just a pawn like in MMOs. And that's why i got deeper into my FO3 character than the Courier.
-In FO3 you see your birth, all the life stages up to your adulthood and you are pivotal to the outcome of your world. You screw up, everyone dies. You hold the lives of a town in your hands. You are the main lead character in every facet of the game. You experience the character as if it was you from birth to victory.
-In FONV, you are thrust into the world without background, without purpose or beliefs. You are a pawn for greater powers, your background sprinkled in DLCs and dialogue. You are used by others to achieve what you BELIEVE its better, not what you CHOOSE what is better.
flyingspagetti
No you can be a pawn or an important one depending on what the writers decide. I hate the idea that my character is supposed to be the "chosen one" who is the only savior of the universe. The world shouldn't revolve around me, I should revolve around the world.
@@flyingspaghetti Lone Wanderer is not the protagonist of FO3. During the main story line at no point you make any choice about what's going to happen. You father is the protagonist, because the entire story revolves around his choices and both of you following HIS dream. You can be the most detached, self-serving bastard in the universe and you still gonna end up activating the purifier, because that's what your daddy wanted. And even when the a sidequest gives you some kind of agency of outcome, it's 95% of the time a binary choice between objective good or objective evil with slightly better paycheck.
@@victorwagner2423 exactly! The point in the Courrier be blank is to you have no limits in the RP, the way flying spaghetti talks seems he prefer a movie than RPGs. Witch is not bad.
@Abel plus when Obsidian talk about your past, as revealed in Lonesome Road, they do in a vague way. They do enought to you have some shock but not in a way that break your RP till that point.
Show this to Emil "Profligate" Pagliarulo
Too complicated! Keep it simple and stupid!
📄✈️
He's head designer of their games now
@@bigch33se11 and we saw how well that went.
this has to be THE guide/presentation on branching narrative design. excellent talk
what I'd do for Obisidian to work on another Fallout game...
Gustav von Rauch [Antifaschistische-Deutschland] Obsidian is now shell of its former self
How? They have made two great RPGs in the last 3 years, Pillars of Eternity and Tyranny, which are actually RPGs unlike a lot of games that come out nowadays calling themselves such. They still have many of the same leads that have always been at Obsidian, only Avellone left to pursue his freelance writing/design career (besides, the team makes a game, not just a few, but many of the directors/project leads, and CEO are still the same that have always been).
Obsidian is probably doing better than they've ever had.
To me, PoE was quite boring. Not nearly enough exciting things in that game. And this is coming from a Fallout 1 and BG2 fan.
I would say PoE was the best RPG in a long time. On par with the old Infinity Engine games. And this is coming from a fan as well.
Show this to todd
Ghostly Fallout 3 had the highest Metacritic score
and?
Ghostly it's the better game
lol ok
Please tell me, exactly, how Fallout 3 is better in any way, shape or form. I'll wait.
the solution to the "winning" problem in a conversation is just to remove the squared parenthesis, you shouldn't know that a certain choice is only available for you because of your speech or intelligence, you should be able to figure out the best choice on the merits of the words. fallout 1 did this incredibly well for example, spoiler: * at the end of the game u can win the conversation against master by telling him that mutants cant reproduce and even that isn't enough u have to also tell him to ask his mutants and then female mutants*. you win this conversation because u deserve to and not because u put certain skill points.
Completely agree. There's a mod in NV for this, and it makes dialogue significantly better. The classic games made you actually think about what you were saying, whereas making the skill checks obvious also makes the 'correct' answer obvious. It's also a little immersion breaking I'd argue.
This is such a simple yet effective solution.
When I first played New Vegas, I was immersed in the dialogue choices and I carefully read the ones when talking to important quest related NPCs. But as I progressed through the game with steady Speech leveling I start looking for the [Speech X/Y] marker and choosing that and just skipping past dialogue.
Deus Ex Mankind Divided on the other hand without CASIE made me pay attention to what the NPC is saying and how they say it to get the "right" response.
Fallout 1 has a perk that outlines certain dialogues in red or blue to help you "win" conversations, but even so you're still right. A player had to choose that perk, in F:NV it's there outlined for you by default.
Replying 4 years later, but I'm not sure this is the right thing to do. If a person levels up their melee skill, they know that to utilise that investment they should use weapons that have 'melee' written next to them. Currently in FNV, levelling up speech gets you the same information, you know how to utilise your skill because it tells you, by highlighting the speech dialogue options. Removing that makes speech lesser than every other skill, because you have to rely on your IRL 'speech' to decide if you are using it, whereas if you are roleplaying a smooth-talking guy, they would always know the right thing to say, and so the game should tell you that. You shouldn't have to rely on your people skills outside of the game, the character you're playing can be totally different to you.
@@TheThundererVidz true, what I personally prefer to mod NV to - you have brackets with skill name, but no requirements, or [success]/[failure] wording, so you never REALLY know, was this how it were supposed to go, or is that your skill just isnt enough.
I listened to the Emil Pagliarulo (Fallout 3, 4 writer) video after this and ended up pretty depressed about the future of Fallout. Ah well, we'll always have the classics.
I liked Fallout 3 story. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
flyingspagetti I didn't like it all that much. Really, if you just play fallout 3's main quest, you're playing quite a shit game. Same with all bethesda games. Bethesda are great at environmental storytelling and worldspaces, but in the narrative department, with Emil in the lead, they flounder. Big time. Just look at fallout 4. Emil made the main quest and nuka world, I believe. Another guy, I think his name is Will, wrote far harbour. FH had branching paths, heaps of options, grey moral choices and interesting lore and dialogue, Fallout 4 main game was just plain boring, and nuka world was a shoot em up with hardly any storyline at all, the only decision was one that made the mistake of having a conflict of player and character goals. Kill the raiders, lose a bunch of content. Be a raider, be bad but get the content.
edit: 2 years later, I think my opinion here was pretty misinformed and simplistic. i was speaking on game design, something I had no idea or experience with back then. games are collaborations between many people, saying things like "emil wrote this dlc" is just plain incorrect.
@Gr8Sc0tt I disagree with my original comment now tbh. keep it simple stupid is the way to go when it comes to writing, I've learned that with experience. even obsidian writers agree. it's about keeping projects manageable. i also think it's short-sighted to put blame on a single developer of a massive project. emil was lead writer on far harbor as well, the guy I was talking about was lead designer. it's not as simple as I make it out to be
@@jacksonelh Totally agree, the diffirence between Bethesda and Obsidian however is that Obsidian puts a focus on immersing you in their game and thus it doesn't really seem stupid simple
@@pings3356 I think both put that focus, but obsidian more so with the dialogue, while bethesda more so with the worldspace. at least in those days. but yeah obsidian works with the keep it simple stupid method. it's just the best way to get games done, and to keep the team healthy. i think they decided to use that after new vegas, after all not keeping it simple caused a ton of planned content to have to be scrapped.
I really want a game that has a dialogue system that is as robust as a general combat system these days.
Like you can include specific names or objects in a sentence that would modify that sentence's effects. Or control the intensity of the voice, or choose certain parts to emphasize that would transfer a hidden meaning to a character without others in the conversation knowing. Or even where you're standing or looking would would affect the outcome of your speech.
Sounds like a lot of cool ideas that would take time to figure out and polish, but I love this idea
That would have to be a VERY algorithmic game. You just can't do a game like NV with that kind of systems.
@@brunoactis1104 lol wut? You can attempt that with any kind of game with a dialogue system.
You have this with games that enable voice chat. (haha, jk)
Slay the spire does this right
Oh man Im still waiting for the 2016 Josh Sawyer talk. Cant have too much Josh Sawyer.
F:NV is the greatest game I've ever played and I've always wondered how they made such an intricate design. So stoked to watch this video!!!!
MinecraftBerry Finn in they managed to make it great despite the horrible, buggy engine!
Abraham Lincoln nope.
have you watched it yet?
FoNV is by far my favorite game of all time. The only thing that comes close is if you considered its DLC's its own game than that would be very a close 2nd..but it's literally just more of the same game.
@LWKGD
What the best crpg
Fallout 4 devs did not watch this...
I doubt they even played New Vegas
Doesn't matter what they played or not. Witcher 3 devs never played Witcher 1 (as no Witcher 3 player did anyway) and look what they made.
flyingspagetti sure but that’s somewhat different. The Witcher series is based on a series of books. To “get” what the series means, you need only read the books. So every game should be looking to be the best adaptation of the books as possible. The Witcher 1 was a flawed game and did a decent job of trying to translate what made the books great at the time. Fallout has a greater onus on it to look back at what made he series so special and what makes it unique. There’s a more immediate need to look and play past releases to see exactly why they are so beloved. CD Projekt Red don’t really need to as much as they were always trying to beat bring the book world to life
Witcher 1 wasn't a flawed game, it was an unknown game. No one gave a dime for it, since in 2008 more important games were out there. Buried into obscurity until a flamboyant Witcher 2 showcased some graphics and your typical RPG mechanic.
Here you have a messed up lore (Fallout Bible) that has NO CONTINUITY OR FUTURE. You can practically make anything happen for the future and the lore won't break at all. If you didn't like what Boston or DC was like in FO4 and FO3, then you should look at Fallout:BOS or Fallout:Tactics and laugh your ass off about fallout lore and setting.
flyingspagetti The first Witcher game was unknown, but it is also definitely flawed.
Man, I had to double-check and make sure this talk was given before 2015 because a lot of the points he makes are eeriely relevant to Fallout 4's shortcomings.
And in my opinion, a lot of this just seems like common sense for creating an enjoyable role-playing experience. And I don't think you really need to sacrifice any of it to also include good gunplay and combat mechanics, so when you compare the development period of New Vegas (about 18 months) to Fallout 4's (2 - 5 years: full-production took about 2, but pre-production, outlining, writing, etc started as early as 2009, and that stage is arguably the most important for what Josh is talking about for the most part), it really makes you scratch your head.
Emil should watch this presentation A Clockwork Orange-style 👀
Todd Howard himself said that Fallout 4's dialogue was a failure.
but I can appreciate that they tired something and experimented - they learned from that experience
I just think Bethesda has a different perspective on fallout. they view it as an shooter with rpg mechanics. that kind of perspective informs the way they design dialogue
@@jacobodom8401 Cloning Mass Effect's wheel and failing at it is hardly an experiment. I hate these paraphrased dialogic choices. Sometimes they paraphrase them so bad, I instantly wanna F9. They should just let me see what I'm actually going to say. People actually made mods that do just that, because of how bad that paraphrasing was.
I skipped almost all of it.
@@crab-dogjones4659New Vegas so much better
27:20 damn i can't believe josh predicted the witcher 3 , three years before it was released. This man will just not miss.
Probably my favorite designer in the industry.
Hands down my favorite quest was the one with the rape victim.
-It actually addressed a serious issue in a very realistic manner.
- The NPC that was the victim had a very realistic reaction to it.
-It touched on toxic masculinity with a female character, something I’ve never seen in all of fiction.
-You get to kill a rapist.
And you had the option to kill his cow!
@@luciusjuniustavianus7540 And have his own men kill him because of it!
I mean, the spice probably leads to the greatest of choice agonies in the book series.
Listening to this after playing BG3 is an interesting experience.
Could just call this "why telltale went out of business"
Your choice in Telltale Games rarely matter and affecting the narrative
Telltale only made 1 good game out of TWD formula: The Wolf Among Us.
@@psychodrummer1567 I'd say the Batman games were pretty good, not as good as The Wolf Among Us, but still pretty good.
Even Heavy Rain makes me feel more than TWD, and people said that it's a pretty bad game.
@@psychodrummer1567 Yes, that was awesome
Fallout New Vegas is by far the best true 3D open world Fallout game, and it will remain that way until some really dumb people grow a brain and let Obsidian make another Fallout game, then let them take the lead on making them.
I think the mechanics and NPC interactions in New Vegas are amazing but, for me, Fallout 3's world and story are better and easier for me to dive into.
I can understand that. It's a preference, the wasteland of a city or the wasteland of a desert. Fallout 3 has a very straight forward linear story whereas New Vegas has 4 different ways about doing the main quest.
True that. I always loved FONV for its story, and FO3 for its gameplay. FO3 had more exploration (off the beaten path areas with no quests) and had a buttload of enemies compared to FONV.
Super mutants, ghouls, robots, humans, all roamed the Capital Wasteland. Mojave Wasteland had 90% people and 10% local fauna to kill, it became somewhat boring after a while.
Yeah, New Vegas rather than dotting every enemy type everywhere as a random encounter said, "Ghouls are located here, here, and here. Super Mutants are here, here and also here in this hidden town and Robots will here, there and also in this building". It's up to you to decide which way you prefer it.
And on top of that, FONV removed the random encounters of FO3.
In FONV, the handful of encounters are scripted encounters and not a random encounter from a pool being initiated in predetermined spots in the Wasteland.
That means no sudden spawns as you travel, but complete emptiness or the usual and boring "assassination attempt" from Legion/NCR. Which, in the long run made the game world utterly empty besides the quests and some fixed spawns.
I still play this game til this day, every other Fallout pales in comparison to New Vegas to me.
Aside from the first 2 anyways. Fallout 2 is just as good.
You're right
K1LL 5W17CH Honestly, I didn't like Fallout 1 as much as Fallout 2. For me it stands something like NV and 2 as the best Fallout games.
Fallout 3 wins over for me. But I like people playing older Fallout games even to this day.
@@PedroGomes-cx7ku
Fallout 2 is still uniquely good.
I just finished playing New Vegas and it was interesting to find out how it works from the inside.
We want a real Fallout again!
Yeah I too miss the glory days of Fallout 3
John Black I don't hate RPGs, quite the opposite in fact. I hate that Fallout ceased to exist as an RPG franchise, to become a railroaded story which prevents you from role-playing other characters, and thinks imitating Minecraft is more important than choice and reactivity.
At this point I have to go with "You have got to be shitting me!".
I'd understand if you defended it as a gameplay experience, really. But to say that its RPG choice aspect can "stand with the greats" is absolutely ludicrous. Next you'll be telling me Skyrim has the best reactivity... Go play real RPGs man, lose the "uh, 1990s" prejudice. There were some awesome RPGs made back then.
Unbelievable.
For the record, I don't play CoD, I don't even play a multiplayer shooter anymore. I'd like choice to be more complex than "Yes" or "Sarcastic Yes". I Fallout New Vegas you can end the life of anyone, and it doesn't hold your hand, if you do it often you WILL be locked out of content, as intended. Fallout 4 has the same bullshit essential NPCs as every other Bethesda game nowadays.
We obviously have VERY different concepts of what an RPG is or isn't.
New Vegas suffers from the same problems as Bioshock where it has four or so scripted endings that may or may not meet your expectations. I've only finished it once, but having chosen the "rule the place myself" option, thinking I would be better for the area than anyone else I was then told I was a shit dictator/mob boss and the land suffered because of it. This despite having saintly karma.
26:03 I think RPGs should give you these choices because they allow you to roleplay the way your character responds like you would in a pen & paper rpg.
Ah, so that's why I don't feel like a space pirate in starfield. It's not a valid option.
I don't even know anything about game design and have nothing to do with it, hell I'm missing half of what Sawyer is saying, but it is so interesting
45:16 - "So anyway, I started blasting..."
Josh is a great speaker and New Vegas is superb!
Interesting that LISA uses the Sophie's Choice kind of decisions that he critiques in this talk, but applies it effectively and thoughtfully enough for it to work to the game's advantage
Came here after watching Emil's presentation
the difference is just crazy
I’ve been re-watching these talks by Obsidian employees after The OuterWorlds has released and I can really respect the philosophy they’ve stuck to over the years.
New Vegas they were on a tight leash; The Outer Worlds they’ve been kind of let loose but with a budget; I’m excited to see what comes next.
Outer Worlds was done on a very tight budget actually, They wouldn't be able to make something like that if it wasn't for T2 funding and the help of T2's studio Private Division.
Last words before disaster
But the issue you see with supporting all character types/decisions is that developers simply give every player choice the same outcome.
27:00 to 28:30
Hey he's talking about every Fallout game that Bethesda made!
"Why can't people just make games like New Vegas?"
Dialogue. Branches.
Yeah but it's not as hard as you make it out to be, if The Outer Worlds can do it anyone else can
@@nagger8216Typical take of a person who's never written dialogue branches lol
More than ten years ago, Sawyer pointed out that players were frustrated with games that provide only the illusion of choice, where none of your dialogue options actually affect anything. In 2023, Bethesda continues to design its games around this outdated and unsatisfying narrative structure.
Where can I get the slides? This is Gem!
Thank you for sharing this talk :)
vigge get back to your levels >:I
How do I tag the Frontier devs here? Or is it too late?
45:15 I love that part
I want another Alpha Protocol!
Very nice talk
27:20 "Hey there's a baby. Do you want to give it a smooch on the forehead or throw it in an oven?"
Did Josh Sawyer just predict the Witcher 3?
Could it be, that the second person that asked a question is Michael de Plater ? He's producer and director at monolith productions.
30:07
didn't me3 come out a day later?
Years and years after the original talk, I gotta say that the opening quest in Fallout New Vegas is the reason I didn't play the game until this summer, and boy did I miss out. The problem was that after you get shot, I had no reason to do anything. My first thought was to return to my boss and tell them somebody stole my delivery, but you can't do that. Where did I come from? Do I have family in this world? What is my motivation? Well, I want to see New Vegas so I'll just head straight for that. No, can't do that either (well, you can but you know, Deathclaws). Lots of games have this problem with the character being just this random entity born into the world from nowhere, but I've never felt so disconnected from a game as I did when starting New Vegas that first time. And I promptly missed out on one of the greatest rpg games of all time. Until now.
Isn't one of the first quests to find your boss at the Mohave mail company and tell them someone stole your package?
@GreenTea funny enough I think FO:3 actually had an interesting take on that by having you quickly play through your adoloscence in the vault as part of the tutorial.
I find it weird how our opinions seem to be flipped. I felt the intro showing someone tried to kill me was a pretty good motivator, as well as New Vegas always looming in the distance no matter where you are. Collecting evidence of the man who killed you and where he went, trying to track down the delivery, was a pretty clear goal for me.
Fallout 3 on the other hand had the sole goal of finding my dad. Why? Because... he's my dad. Later you find out he's the main character, but if anything that just makes me wanna ignore the storyline entirely.
Also in terms of the player character, I much prefered New Vegas' blank slate to Fallout 3's prewritten character. In New Vegas I feel like I can roleplay anyone, from an NCR grunt doing deliveries as a side job to a slimy silver tongued weasel that's more cowardly crook than smooth criminal. In Fallout 3 I'm always the main character's child, always a vault dweller, always the one to get the purifier up and running. I'm not allowed to write my own character sheet, I'm always given a premade one with the option to be either Lawful Good, True Neutral or Chaotic Evil. I guess the problem is Fallout 3's intro is a novelty that wears off after the first playthrough, while New Vegas goes the "you start in a tavern" approach of letting you express your own character right from the get go, with the downside of no fancy intro.
@@kiwi3085 Your points are excellent! And my own preferences have shifted to something more in the middle of my previous stance and what you are saying here. You have a great point about replay-value and the opening of NV vs F3. I think a good compromise would be a game were you had the option to select broad categories regarding A: your childhood, B: your class/training and C: What got you started on this life.
I remember I roleplayed a courier who was an old guy with that could take any amount of physical pain like it was nothing. But everyone he had ever loved had died from diseases and his sturdy constitution condemned him to outlive all of them. Mechanically that worked wonderfully, as I could easily kill my way heroically onward until I met the Legion who almost killed my character. it became a great arc about him facing his own mortality, and recruiting that Brotherhood follower as a de-facto new daughter. That story worked because the mechanics in the game worked alongside my personal narrative. That's what I'd like to see kicked up a notch. But maybe you can't bottle magic without turning into sparkling water, if you get what I'm saying?
@@voldlifilm I see what you're after, and I feel like Pillars of Eternity really allowed for that sort of player definition within character creation. Where they came from and what their job was determined what your gear was and what it looked like. A soldier from the far north looked like a barbarian in comparison to the very prim and proper brigandine wearing soldiers from castles nearby. Cyberpunk 2077 probably had the best idea for this (although the execution is lacking) where you have select starting backgrounds, each with their own intro.
I'd love the idea for a synthesis of these two ideas; have you choose a background that informs what you wear, what gear you carry and stat influences, followed by choosing your own personal main quest separate from the big main quest ie. meeting your family again, being the ambassador for your country to foster peace, making a delivery, enlisting in an upcoming war etc. Each of these could have their own specific intro, a sort of personalised tutorial, before thrusting you into the main game via whatever means with your chosen main quest alongside the developer's main quest. That'd be a ton of work, but I'd 100% be here for it.
28:00 I feel like Lisa the painful is one of the few games that uses the Sophie’s choice extreme to perfect effect tho
Man I love Josh Sawyer
"Ass Effect 2. Heh."
-jsaw, 2012
Isn't being a dummy who roleplays the absolute worst option in a dialogue exactly what roleplaying is about? If I am playing a snarky jackass that ends up not getting a thing because of it, then that is just what should happen. I guess I got to find another way to get that thing now. My point is that losing is fun, messing up is fun. That's why everybody loves Indiana Jones, he stumbles his way forwards blundering into victory through luck and gumption. And that's how I like to play as well.
The ncr cant even protect the road north of goodsprings
best fallout game to me..
6:13 Fallout 4 lacked 3 of these things
not really. you had 4 questlines that didn't really pick up until the end, and at that point, you would just have to make a choice of who you'll keep alive and who you'll blow up/betray.
A "Serial Psycho" expects to be taken seriously? Ha!
No, FO4 had those... just not in abundance. I think the main issue was in reactivity--when there was reactivity it was very minimal. I know he says to "keep it local" in this talk, but I feel FO4 took that notion too far and also prescribed far too much to the modern Bethesda notion of never closing off any paths ever and reduced almost all interaction to combat.
FO4 had those 4 things, but the majority of the game was non-choices with little to no reactivity. The story only changed in the most minute ways possible (the gist remained entirely the same) and character agency was incredibly shallow.
No. It didn't. I swear, Fallout 4 has the biggest community of shit-talkers who haven't even bothered to play the game. It's like, you read 1 really negative bias pre-review 2 years ago and that's the only opinion of the game you ever absorbed.
Throttle Kitty Here's the thing. New vegas showed that you're choices matter in the end. Fallout 4 had a pre rendered scenes that didn't show what you did. All you had was a different group standing with you when you blew up Boston. Or the 1 institute ending. The problem is the cut down dialogue didn't allow for actual choice. It's not even because the mc is voiced because Mass Effect has tons of choice with a voiced character. You cannot be purely evil in 4. In NV you have plenty of choices just for evil characters. You could be an evil NCR ranger or a Legion member. You can move between factions and groups whenever you want, and in 4 it's like Bethesda looked at NV and they saw that people loved the faction and real player control you have in that game and they tried to copy off it. I've played through 4 3 times with a total of 120 hours in the game. I've looked at all of the factions, and really, none of them truly matter. You always have to make the teleporter, you always have to talk to Shawn, you always have to go to Fort Hagon, and you ALWAYS have to kill Kellogg. There are things that you technically always have to do in NV as well, such as meeting with all the factions representing you're main faction, but in that you can kill them, use stats to convince them to work with you or do lots of quests to gain they're trust. 4 is so linear because according to the story you are always a caring parent, you always want to find your son, and you the player has no choice in that. You always love your significant other and you always want revenge on at least the guy that killed your husband or wife and took your son. You also always have to kill opposite sides. In NV you can do a run and never ever kill anyone even if they oppose you. Or you can murder everyone. 4 has throw away bullet sponge human and humanoid enemy types that you HAVE to fight if you want experience and the skills to not immediately die later in the game. types like raiders and super mutants that you could have a conversation in New Vegas you either must shoot or run away from in 4. I don't hate 4, it's a pretty solid shooter, but that's it.
Bethesda excels at keyword dialogue systems, Straying from that was the problem. The open world where you can do anything plus the poorly written dialogue where you cant say jack.
Obsidian 2012: Don't give false choices.
Bethesda 2015: Hold my Beer!
Fallout 5
Yes
NO [Yes]
Maybe [Yes]
Yes [Sarcastic]
but we already have that in FO4, more likely that FO5 dialogue will be: Yes / No [Yes] or be completely automated with no choice.
the man himself
super interesting perspective and I really enjoyed his point about what the player wants and what the character wants.
It just works
What a crazy coincidence, started a new game for the first time since it's release today
Enjoy it ;) . It may be a bit aged, but y'can just mod in some modernity
I would like to sit down with Josh Sawyer, and probably John Gonzales and other key people behind New Vegas and the classic Fallout games, and talk about this stuff, because in this public setting, Joshua is being really polite and not bragging about how amazing their games are. I'd like to see him, or them, talk more openly about their goals, what they did to reach them, and what ended up at what level of awesome as a result, and what other games succeeds and fails at all this and in what ways.
What I'd do to work for Obsidian...
wow... GDC 2012
Hire this guy for cyberpunk 2077 please
Lol
lol
The Sophie's Choice point really helped it click for me as to why I don't like the new Wolfenstein game's intro and partner decision. There's nothing gained. You're just making 1 of 2 shitty choices.
Does anyone else watch GDC talks and forget everything by the end? This happens to me a lot unless I'm actively taking notes idk.
As flawed as it was I really wanted a sequel to Alpha Protocol
I wish i could tag Emil Pagliarulo.
sarcastic yes
#BetterthanBethesda
Ok, when do you talk about building architecture?
It's fundamentally wrong to think every possible character has to be able to experience every bit of code and story written as well. If you balance the amount of "bonuses" hidden behind dialogue between the available types of "conversation tones" evenly, there's no problem at all. If min-max and save scummers "destroy" their game by collecting everything by playing "multiple personality characters" then that's not something developers should spend a calorie worrying about.
51:10 - 53:30
Disco Elysium managed to do this successfully i think
Not all dialog choices should be valid. Sometimes you cannot get what you want by acting however you want. Most of the time, the sassy jackass does not get "the thing". To quote you, "Sometimes people complain about this, tough shit." I 100% disagree that speech skill is not gameplay. Especially, if refusing to use the speech check results in a medium reward and the skill can give you a Better or worse reward for success failure. Then it becomes a question of gambling, which is absolutely a game. You can absolutely "win" a negotiation.
You're only partially right. Sure you should be locked/softlocked out of specific scenarios, but there should be another why in order to solve a problem or newly created problem in a smart believable way. I don't think Josh was saying that there SHOULDN'T BE CONSEQUENCES for your actions. But there should be SOMETHING for ANY character made. If you created a character and because of how you built them you couldn't complete the game because you lack certain skills and your skills don't provide an alternative answer NOT VALID BUT ALTERNATIVE with their own consequences then what is it about the game that allows for something other than linearity?
The speech skill is fine, as long as there are other ways to get there for other builds, like intimidate, intelligence, or other more specific skills based on the situation, like doctor or repair, etc.
the keys to the kingdom as far as I'm concerned
Great talk. I think a simple design fix to the question of the "evil" character rewards, it should simply align with real life. for example, fable 2 rewards evil with unimaginable amounts of wealth. you can still make a lot as a good guy but not as much. Also, i think they should leave it up to the player to know, if i punch this guy, he wont be friendly. i dont think thats punishing a player so much as a natural reaction to their choices. anyways i enjoyed listening to Josh and all of innovative ways they continue to separate themselves.
Alpha Protocol, baby!
God I love this game...
41:17 You son of a bitch, I love you but I will never fogrive you for that. If I had the power, I'd force you to tell us what happened in Baja.
I wonder if this will be condensed and re-edited into a Mark Brown video?
lol.
ARf! Arf! bark mown Zwischen Baum und Borke!
it was tho lmao
"Turn off your telepathic link"
It's good to know psykers have representation.
I love Obsidian and Sawyer and Urquhart and the other top brains at Obsidian are so awesome I hope they just move on from all this Fallout debate, and they develop their own IP's like Pillars and Tyranny, set post apocalyptic, and noone ever looks back at Fallout again.
Okay that's just a straight up Six-String Samurai reference at 30:27 I KNEW that movie was an inspiration for New Vegas!
Also the Choice Agony comes up in a lot of NV reviews and stuff and is credited to be why the game is such a talking point this far down the line - because people have different values so they have different ideas on which side is the "best" and why.
I hope Josh gets a shot at the next Fallout game. FO4 was a steaming hot pile of garbage that spat in the face of the previous games.
Fantastic talk!
I always appreciated iron man modes and usually play them because I have to think about how a character/faction would respond to someone fundamentally disagreeing with them
Oh my god I just realized chose-your-own-adventure books are actually RPG games, just very basic ones.
damn man this guys is awesome
Great talk! Thank you.
18:19 Key note
27:20 you wanna throw the baby into a oven?
*cd projekt red take notes*
it's kinda funny watching this in the "post-disco elysium" timeline