So sayeth the Puuk!

[Dan]

Damien "Puuk" Foletto commented on a bunch of issues concering project Van Buren in the Interplay forums.

First, a rather interesting thought on the subject of Karma vs reputation:<blockquote>I agree whole-heartedly that reputation > karma. It better illustrates a player's actions in the game world and furthers the "one man's heaven is another man's hell" world-feel. If the player slaughtered an entire village in the middle of nowhere, it should not have any affect on the towns and villages that are hundreds of miles away. Unless, said towns and villages had trade with the massacred town, investigated the crime scene, found a survivor or two, got a good description of the player, and then put out a bounty. Nothing karmic about that, just reputation based as a result of a living, active (and reactive) world.</blockquote>
He also shared some info over in this thread about moral decisions:<blockquote>I think with games like Fallout it seems more "natural" (for lack of a better term) to hover the character in the gray area. Basically, your character will try to do almost anything to save his vault (referencing F1), and the severity of being either good or evil depends on how much work you want to do. Sometimes it's just easier to kill the dork blocking your path, other times it might be interesting to see what happens if you do the same dork's task. In the Wasteland, good and evil are really not so clearly defined - what's good for you and your people may cause major suckage for others. But does it make you evil for helping your people at the expense of others? Morality becomes very ambiguous when survival is at stake. </blockquote>And about using skills to operate work stations:<blockquote>Since skills are a big part of VB, the player would need the requisite skill to use an appropriate work station. Ergo, vis-à-vis , in order for a character to be able to use a mechanic's work station, for example, he would need a decent mechanic's skill. The more complicated the mechanical endeavor, the more skill is required.</blockquote>

 

[4too]

Moral Relativism

Moral Relativism

FO2: I felt the little pick pockets of Den were quite a comic/karmic dilemma.

The early player character is quite poor and tends to shake down the first town encountered, in a spree of petty thefts to finance the "great crusade" for the GECK. How dare the little Dickens steal from me! Killing these sources of irritation not only gets Den mad and might frustrate the freeing of Vic, but would earn the karmic label of "Child Killer". But wait, there's the established tactic of RUNNING to evade the likelihood of theft. So life in the wasteland goes on.

The disconnection of cause and effect appears gratuitous and pandering to the "young American male", giving license to "act out" the universal fantasies of frustration. One denial here generates a kick and a scream there, but wait, the linkage has been broken so 'who cares?". The game designer is molding a universe where the ultimate interconnectivity of what the individual does or does not do,

does not matter.

Is this the dictate of market'eering to coddle the "young American male", or the self imposed whim of the designers?

So how does one establish the crossroad where good becomes evil?

No time for dramatic irony, or was that cut out by the design budget?

What chorus of praise or disdain inspirers the role player to fulfill the transient desire to nurture or devastate?

Again the example of "acting out" is massacring an entire town. The classic bad ass rebel destroys the populace, just to destroy it. Was there loot of tangible or idealistic nature, matters not. Play'a Kill'a on the rampage, again. An example of "evil" or are we projecting our
trauma after a tedious commute to work. Unrequited road rage?

Destroying yet another town.

It's o.k. in the example because no one was there to witness.

Will the entities of the wasteland protect themselves from the rampaging monster or are they mere paper targets.

The only dramatic tension is "getting caught". "Getting caught" sparks a cycle of revenge and or arbitrary retribution. Is the lack of linkage, ... linkage?

Is there a karmic link between satisfying the target demographic of the lowest common denominator, selling out, and games that don't sell well?

What are the profits on "Lionheart"?

Cycles of behavior, sounds karmic, or comic.

4too

 

[Frog]

Hmmm, I think that karma should be factor in game and it should be very important one.
But in my opinion karma should modify not npc reactions but possible choices or dialogues of playing character.

Karma could illustrate what life style character is used to or his good/bad habits.
So player wouldn't be able to make extreeme bad things when his karma is highly good.

I mean when player plays the "good guy" and suddenly decide to slaughter whole city it's ok because it's only game. After few minutes of fun he/she can returns to old way of playing as if nothing happens (especially if in game's world crime remains undetected).
But even one death can change a man, so such deed could and should change a playing character and had influence on his/her futher choices.

One can argue that letting karma decide of some game's aspects (even decide of possible game's endings) is limiting players control of what is happening. But exactly the same thing is when we pick perks or skills. It modifies our way of playing, gives game some deep, makes game a little (or even much) more then simple "go left/right/kill" riddle.

Ummm, just few thoughts to share.

 

[God is Dog backwards]

Hmmm, I think that karma should be factor in game and it should be very important one.
But in my opinion karma should modify not npc reactions but possible choices or dialogues of playing character.

Karma could illustrate what life style character is used to or his good/bad habits.
So player wouldn't be able to make extreeme bad things when his karma is highly good.

I mean when player plays the "good guy" and suddenly decide to slaughter whole city it's ok because it's only game. After few minutes of fun he/she can returns to old way of playing as if nothing happens (especially if in game's world crime remains undetected).
But even one death can change a man, so such deed could and should change a playing character and had influence on his/her futher choices.

One can argue that letting karma decide of some game's aspects (even decide of possible game's endings) is limiting players control of what is happening. But exactly the same thing is when we pick perks or skills. It modifies our way of playing, gives game some deep, makes game a little (or even much) more then simple "go left/right/kill" riddle.

Ummm, just few thoughts to share.

I find karma stupid because it's saying what is good, and what is bad, terms which are completely relative.

 

[Quinn]

I have a good feeling about Puuk and Briareus. It's a shame about Josh leaving, but he's not a messiah. There are other creative, intelligent, passionate people manning this beleaguered keep, and even if it crumbles beneath them, they'll have the experience to do right for the cause.

 

[pnutz]

Re: Moral Relativism

Moral Relativism

FO2: I felt the little pick pockets of Den were quite a comic/karmic dilemma.

The early player character is quite poor and tends to shake down the first town encountered, in a spree of petty thefts to finance the "great crusade" for the GECK. How dare the little Dickens steal from me! Killing these sources of irritation not only gets Den mad and might frustrate the freeing of Vic, but would earn the karmic label of "Child Killer". But wait, there's the established tactic of RUNNING to evade the likelihood of theft. So life in the wasteland goes on.

The disconnection of cause and effect appears gratuitous and pandering to the "young American male", giving license to "act out" the universal fantasies of frustration. One denial here generates a kick and a scream there, but wait, the linkage has been broken so 'who cares?". The game designer is molding a universe where the ultimate interconnectivity of what the individual does or does not do,

does not matter.

Is this the dictate of market'eering to coddle the "young American male", or the self imposed whim of the designers?

So how does one establish the crossroad where good becomes evil?

No time for dramatic irony, or was that cut out by the design budget?

What chorus of praise or disdain inspirers the role player to fulfill the transient desire to nurture or devastate?

Again the example of "acting out" is massacring an entire town. The classic bad ass rebel destroys the populace, just to destroy it. Was there loot of tangible or idealistic nature, matters not. Play'a Kill'a on the rampage, again. An example of "evil" or are we projecting our
trauma after a tedious commute to work. Unrequited road rage?

Destroying yet another town.

It's o.k. in the example because no one was there to witness.

Will the entities of the wasteland protect themselves from the rampaging monster or are they mere paper targets.

The only dramatic tension is "getting caught". "Getting caught" sparks a cycle of revenge and or arbitrary retribution. Is the lack of linkage, ... linkage?

Is there a karmic link between satisfying the target demographic of the lowest common denominator, selling out, and games that don't sell well?

What are the profits on "Lionheart"?

Cycles of behavior, sounds karmic, or comic.

4too

I don't kill the kids because it seems wrong. I've tried killing whole towns before, but it's only after I've played them out and the inhabitants seem like cartoons or talking boxes.

I can't play evil. I've tried, but I just don't enjoy it. By playing evil I mean taking the evil route of the quests. Running around killing everyone is just stupid, but the fact that it can be done makes the world more fragile and dangerous. This isn't so much inviting mass murder, as you seem worried by, instead, this humanizes the world. Everyone is a person. Some are stronger, some weaker, but they all can die. Something this realistic can always be used by people to act out. I don't think this is a bad thing. It's something that comes with the freedom of choice.

Fallout has plenty of choices. You can make a lot morality out of the choices you are given. This includes acting as if you have no morality (or can't feel enough humanity towards the characters to pretend you do). There is much grey area between nuture and destroy that you can play.

You're right about the cause and effect. It seems like they slapped the bounty hunters on to (cheaply) make some kind of balance to the ability to kill off towns. There's not really much to do to someone playing like this except make the game harder for them. Are you going to present them with some kind of moral consequence? They've already stopped humanizing anyone in the gameworld, so unless you can come up with something extremely clever or poignant (this assumes they bother to read anything), they'll probably just kill the person explaining the consequence to them.

 

[4too]

Before I Lose the Morning.....

Before I Lose the Morning.....

pnutz: I've triggered town fights and pursued them to see if I could run and gun for the exit and escape with my NPC's. Not sure if I've ever let that stand, reloaded save. My PC's tend to have spells of situational ethics when scraping money together to spring Sulik or Vic. Or I wouldn't get Tandy home until 3 months or more later so she wouldn't be M.I.A., presumed dead,
for the final credit's tally of cause and effect.

Like the way a 14mm hand gun brightened the shine in her eyes.

Am I projecting here?

We bring a lot of our daily expectations to the games we parlay.
This colors a lot of the moment to moment meaning of our play.
"Acting out" may/could have as much psychological, emotional significance as the second and third cycle dream sleep in which one may/could complete the "naming" of our fears and desires of the previous day. Erasing the brain's tapes and moving on to the next day's morning.

Why do I return to the FO's? Some karmic cycle, one repeats the minutia until one "gets it right"? An alternate spin on "Ground Hog's Day". Or, a game with more elusive depth that the familiarity does not breed contempt.

In another thread Puuk elaborates the karma theme by declaring the intent to reward (or by default punish) both dualities of behavior. "' .. Wouldn't have it any other way.'"

So no worries there. Will have the option of either barrel .......

Or Door Number 3 .....


Above: Frog states that the karma or dramatic twist may, (Are there any "should's" in this forest?), could, match or accent the character path, morality stream, of the PC. This may, or could, dove tail with Mr. Teatime's observation of the relative nature of good and evil.

Blind Justice dealing out the door prizes, with scales akimbo ......


Odd memory jolted by the example of wiping whole towns off the map.
Even those "blessed" with strict interpretation of their biblical compass
seem just as capable of choosing this orientation and "destroying villages to save them."

4too

 

[RatPoiZon]

man... Puuk's quotes are mad cool to read with a Sylvester Stalone italian mobster type of accent...