GameSetWatch Columnist Critiques F3 Storytelling

[The Vault Dweller]

Columnist Emily Short of GameSetWatch has done her newest entry about Fallout 3 examining the narrative and storytelling aspects. She has a lot of in-depth and critical analysis surprising for someone in the industry.

<blockquote>There were various flaws -- the sameyness of the setting after enough hours being a prominent one. Then there was the implausible world-building: after two hundred years, you're telling me there's still edible, unlooted food in the grocery stores?

But one forgives those things because one has to.

In any case, I couldn't help but be impressed by the degree to which my story in Fallout 3 felt like it was something unique, probably a lot different from someone else's story.

Some of that had to do with the way the player is allowed to control the features of storytelling -- pace, exposition, rate at which the backstory is uncovered. Some of it had to do with the direct control over the protagonist's choices.

Oddly, it was most often the former aspect that I found narratively meaningful, while intentional choices often let me down.</blockquote>

From there she goes on to give critique on the plot, environmental storytelling, gender choice, and characterization.

You find it all here.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Hes talking about choices ? In Fallout 3 ... what kind of "choices" ? To play or not play the game eventualy

 

[Tagaziel]

She. Just shows how much of the article you've read before yappin'.

 

[Crni Vuk]

honest answer? I havnt read it. I loost my interest after the first lines already written here

"In any case, I couldn't help but be impressed by the degree to which my story in Fallout 3 felt like it was something unique, probably a lot different from someone else's story. ... "

yeah ... very unique storyline. And also impressive. Most particularly the way you can shape the story (harly ever actualy)

regardless how many times one might play the game but the story and the parts around it do not have much replay value. Not even if you play a bad or good guy.

 

[NiRv4n4]

I think she might be referencing how most of the quests had multiple outcomes, and that the open world aspect enhanced the story of the game.

 

[Tremer]

honest answer? I havnt read it. I loost my interest after the first lines already written here

dont worry, it said nothing important

 

[Tagaziel]

honest answer? I havnt read it. I loost my interest after the first lines already written here

"In any case, I couldn't help but be impressed by the degree to which my story in Fallout 3 felt like it was something unique, probably a lot different from someone else's story. ... "

yeah ... very unique storyline. And also impressive. Most particularly the way you can shape the story (harly ever actualy)

regardless how many times one might play the game but the story and the parts around it do not have much replay value. Not even if you play a bad or good guy.

If you haven't read it, shut up and don't post about it. It's not a lot of text - if you can't devote five minutes to reading it, at least don't moan.

 

[decline]

"Some of that had to do with the way the player is allowed to control the features of storytelling -- pace, exposition, rate at which the backstory is uncovered."

Quest Character, "Oh my God!!! HELP US!!!! We are under attack!!! We are all going to be DEAD SOON!!! HURRY!!!"

PC, "On my way!"

4 game years, 8 stockpiled houses, 27 levels, 98% of the map uncovered later.

PC, "I'm here to help"
Quest Character, "Oh thank you thank you thank you, we are expecting their attack any time now."
PC, "I'm not quite ready yet."
Quest Character, "ok, come see me when you are ready. Please hurry."
PC looks at him and yawns.

 

[Crni Vuk]

If you haven't read it, shut up and don't post about it. It's not a lot of text - if you can't devote five minutes to reading it, at least don't moan.

Don't rob me of my only hobby D: mean cat-bastard

 

[PaladinHeart]

There are a few different outcomes, depending on what you do or don't do. Like whether you accept or don't accept the gun that Amata offers you.

 

[UniversalWolf]

I like the idea about the development of the character taking place gradually throughout the course of a game. That could be interesting.

Emily Short writes some really good interactive fiction, BTW.

 

[UncannyGarlic]

In any case, I couldn't help but be impressed by the degree to which my story in Fallout 3 felt like it was something unique, probably a lot different from someone else's story.

She really doesn't explain this statement at all but I assume she means because the game is fairly non-linear?

I've several times heard authors of conventional fiction assert that the problem with interactive narrative is that you can't control pace at all. In a sense that's true; in another sense, there's a lot to be gained by letting the player decide how much diversion he wants -- whether he wants to play the story as a tight cohesive short story or as a big rambling novel, a Michener-esque handling of Apocalyptic Wasteland.

The problem is that in not controlling the pace at all, the player can fuck their experience. It's not as bad as Oblivion who compounded the problem with crappily designed level scaling, horrendous quest design, and horribly amateur writing, but if you truly try to "go anywhere and do anything", I can't see it not having the same problem that Oblivion had which is that you can't. It's painfully boring if you don't do the scripted content.

Well, except that in Moby Dick that stuff did have a thematic point. There isn't always a thematic coherence to Fallout 3, except possibly on the very loose theme that a mutant-infested wasteland is not a nice place and life there is hard.

Bout time someone main stream noticed.

Speaking of player-directed characterization, the game universe did not seem to have been constructed to account for my protagonist being female. Women sort-of flirted with my character; men treated her with male-to-male-style aggression.

If you'd have played Fallout 1&2, you'd know that this was not a problem previously.

It's more that the more RPGs I play, the more I'm struck by the essential sameness of the characters I tend to create, because the characteristics available for modification are so predictable, even if they are filtered to some degree by the nature of the setting.

Is she complaining about RPG's having the same basic underlying skills? Doesn't it make sense that games with the same focuses are going to have similar skills?


I also noticed that she never got into consequences of actions (other than a little bit with environmental storytelling) and that's one of Fallout 3's biggest weaknesses and a large thing to miss when discussing a game's narrative.

 

[KristofferAG]

I can't help but feeling that the whole thing is sort of shallow. Not going too deep at any points.

Still, I'm not going to say I disagree with it all, some of what she writes really makes sense. It still is obvious that she hasn't really taken into consideration FO1 and 2.

 

[DemonNick]

She really doesn't explain this statement at all but I assume she means because the game is fairly non-linear?

The problem is that in not controlling the pace at all, the player can fuck their experience. It's not as bad as Oblivion who compounded the problem with crappily designed level scaling, horrendous quest design, and horribly amateur writing, but if you truly try to "go anywhere and do anything", I can't see it not having the same problem that Oblivion had which is that you can't. It's painfully boring if you don't do the scripted content.

I'm going to disagree with this, especially the fact that it's painfully boring if you don't try to do the scripted content. Exploring in Fallout 3 is more rewarding than exploring in pretty much any other sandbox game, especially other CRPGs, because the world itself has a lot more emphasis placed on it than the main storyline. Or any storyline, really. More care and attention to detail went in to placing forks and knives under the grating in the Raven Rock cafeteria or into setting up little vignettes like the Maclellan Townhouse than working on the main story. It shows in that the main story suffers for it, but...

If you'd have played Fallout 1&2, you'd know that this was not a problem previously.

I don't know, I think that the only reason it wasn't a problem in the first two games is that they didn't have character driven moments on the level of, say, the long prologue in the Vault. The Vault Dweller's dialogue is very workmanlike outside of a few throwaway lines that seemed to be based on the premade character backgrounds and The Chosen One was generally assumed to be (unless you took a low INT) a wisecracking adventurer.

The writing in 1 and 2 is from a different time, a time when there was less emphasis on allowing the player to characterize his character, when it was more acceptable to take control of dialogue out of the player's hands and give the character floating strings like in the conversation between Val and Vic in Vault City. Sure, it avoids the specific pitfall of overly gendered dialogue but at the same time it does kind of box you in to a certain kind of protagonist.

Is she complaining about RPG's having the same basic underlying skills? Doesn't it make sense that games with the same focuses are going to have similar skills?

She's complaining about the fact that there are basically certain rules or patterns that, if you follow, will give you a good character. Like maxing out Luck if the game has a Luck stat, dumping tons of XP/Skill Points/Whatever into Speech, Lockpick and Hacking... Basically there being 'good' or 'must-have' skills that unevenly reward (and therefore enforce or at least strongly encourage) certain play-styles despite the central mechanic supposedly being based on choice w/r/t the protagonist and their talents/actions.

I also noticed that she never got into consequences of actions (other than a little bit with environmental storytelling) and that's one of Fallout 3's biggest weaknesses and a large thing to miss when discussing a game's narrative.

She kind of brushes over them in a section that I believe you quote, where she talks about how decisions you make about exposition (IE running through the full dialogue trees on characters like Dr. Li that have huge exposition dumps linked to certain questions) or pacing.

That said I don't think she really touches on the main problem with Fallout 3's story, which is basically the same problem as Half Life 2's: the player character is basically incidental to the story. Sure, the player gets to be the big hero that goes everywhere and does everything, but the story isn't really about The Lone Wanderer. It's about Dad. It's especially glaring that The Lone Wanderer dies in the original ending in the same place and manner as Dad in order to finish Dad's life's work.

It's be better if there were an aura of mystery where the player had to investigate to find out what was going on rather than having it get dumped in their lap, a more compelling evil path than GENOCIDE EVERYONE FOR NO REASON OMIGAW, or even just a more complicated and reactive relationship with Dad. Of course the latter was probably unlikely since he was their obligatory celebrity voice actor and so was probably too expensive to give more than a few lines despite an extremely bland and phoned-in performance.

 

[Herr Mike]

honest answer? I havnt read it. I loost my interest after the first lines already written here

"In any case, I couldn't help but be impressed by the degree to which my story in Fallout 3 felt like it was something unique, probably a lot different from someone else's story. ... "

yeah ... very unique storyline. And also impressive. Most particularly the way you can shape the story (harly ever actualy)

regardless how many times one might play the game but the story and the parts around it do not have much replay value. Not even if you play a bad or good guy.

If you haven't read it, shut up and don't post about it. It's not a lot of text - if you can't devote five minutes to reading it, at least don't moan.

One does not pass up an opportunity to complain about Fallout 3, though.

 

[UniversalWolf]

It still is obvious that she hasn't really taken into consideration FO1 and 2.

True. I don't think her purpose is to view the game in that light, though. It's a simple analysis of what she thinks worked and what could work better.

 

[Crni Vuk]

One does not pass up an opportunity to complain about Fallout 3, though.

Yeah, but Crapout 3 makes it quite easy to complain about it

Look, I am ready to acknolwedge the good things. Like the art direction in general. But when people mention choices, which one ? Kill or not kill ? Donate money/water to bums ?

Or the world details. Which one ? Computers standing in the wasteland without power source etc. etc. yada yada ?

The RPG qualities ? With mediocre dialogues ?

Yeah it sounds tedious. And agree. But I just cant find that much in F3 that feels NOT mediocre to me. Besides the art eventualy. And when people talk about a Sand Box experience. I have to say they should play GTA 4 then. It makes it a lot better then Bethesda ever could thx to splendid animations. And Read Dead Redembtion seems to be the newest hit coming out soon enough (well on consoles at least).