MCA Quotes Collected...

[Killzig]

<strong>[ -> N/A]</strong>

Our newest friend Sammy has recently posted an assortment of MCA quotes in relation to Fallout 3 that most of you might find interesting seeing as he'd be the lead designer and all that.

<blockquote>

I would prefer TB combat. And no multiplayer.


I think New Reno in light of the genre was wrong, but I will defend the quests, the choices, and the number of things to do in New Reno until my dying day. I believe it was a fun location to play, and I am still proud for having designed it, despite the genre problems.


80s Sci-Fi is bad. The point of Fallout is that the world functions much the way people of the 50s believed a sci-fi/post-holocaust world would be. And it obeys the same physics, to boot.


Weapons and automobiles (if any) should be rare. I do not think there should be real-world weapons.


For continuity purposes, I would prefer that all Fallout PC RPG titles have their own continuity outside of other platforms and game genres (FOT), and that other platforms and game genres be regarded as "What if" universes, not canon. I do not know if that is my decision, however.


I recognize that PS:T and Fallout are different games. I would also ask if you consider PS:T (done after Fallout) to have been a gross violation of the Planescape genre and whether you thought it had too many easter eggs in it.


I think there are many things that make Fallout what it is:


The SPECIAL system.

The choices in solving quests.

The non-linearity.

The ambiance.

Hard moral choices.

Role-playing, including stupid dialogue and Karma-based responses.

A world where locations have rational explanations and reasons for being, as well as economic reasons for how they have survived.


...among others. There are some things I think were done poorly in FO2, and they are:


Easter eggs.

Too many jokes, which only undermines the plot.

Lack of a satisfying finale.

Lack of choice in finale.

Not enough choice in some areas.

Real-world weapons.

Super Technology.

Too much sex. I don't think you need an excess of prostitutes to make a game serious and gritty.

The presence of aliens and the supernatural. While I can support the presence of aliens in a Fallout 50's ambiance, I think they distract from the human-centric themes in the game.


There are some things I would want to bring from Planescape, however:


- A strong central theme or multiple ones, preferably sparked by your character.

- Deep NPC relationships that are not about romance.

- Richer NPCs whose lives you can affect dramatically.

- Get XP rewards for exploration, learning things, teaching things, and not just killing.

- Even more importance and focus on the central character; rather than seeking a water chip or a GECK, I'd rather the player tell me what he's looking for as a character, then have the game react accordingly.


I would prefer a Fallout that takes a step back from the world in FO2, in a frontier-like area, more in keeping with FO1. I would also like to see certain civilizations' advancement reversed dramatically and violently, as well as perhaps do some general clean-up on the world.


If Black Isle did a Fallout 3, we'd definitely stick with a 50s music feel. No modern day bands.


And we'd need to find Mark Morgan because I love that guy.

</blockquote>

Thanks for passing that along Sammy.


<b>ATTENTION MCA</b>

The answer to your question is yes. I can't e-mail you back because TechWiz is automatically deleting incoming mail from DAC.net. KTHXBYE.

[Mr. Teatime]

I agree with most of what Sammy says. However I did like the sex in F2 - perhaps it was overdone, but I think it added something that I don't remember being in F1.
With regards to PS:T, the thing about that game was that it had the best, most involved plot, I've ever played in a CRPG. I don't think it had too many easter eggs in it. However in a Fallout game, I don't think the NPCs should take such a major role in the game as they did in PS:T. In that game, you missed out on 50% of the plot if you didn't have a full party with you, in Fallout I like the sense that it's very much you as a single character, perhaps with a companion or two at some parts of the game. I don't think the NPCs should be as essential as they were in PS:T, also I think they should be AI controlled, not PC controlled (like in F1 and F2). In both F1 and F2, I prefered playing the game on my own with no companions, and that option should be viable in F3 IMO (and not in the 'play on your own but miss out on a LOT if you don't have companions).
Having said all that, I still should emphasise that I rank PS:T with F1 and F2 as my favourite games ever. If, somehow, you managed to merge Fallout and PS:T together and got it to work that still felt very much like a fallout game, you'd have the best game ever written on the PC.
Finally, the game should be BIG. Too many games I buy are completed in under a week these days. F2 was pretty large; F3 should be as large or preferably larger.........

thanks

[Saint_Proverbius]

I'd rather have smaller with an abundance of options than larger with less quality. Fallout 2 was larger, but certainly not better in terms of keeping the setting continguous.

As for what MCA said, I can't see anything I disagree with, so I <3 MCA.

[Kreegle]

I can't see anything I disagree with, so I <3 MCA.

THE PLANETS ALIGN!

[Viktor]

I can't see anything I disagree with, so I <3 MCA.

THE PLANETS ALIGN!

Which is the best omen for FO 3 I've seen yet!!

[Smiley]

I'd rather have smaller with an abundance of options than larger with less quality. Fallout 2 was larger, but certainly not better in terms of keeping the setting continguous.

As for what MCA said, I can't see anything I disagree with, so I <3 MCA.

Agreed...

The areas don't have to be larger, in fact it should maybe be a bit
smaller than Fo2, but with a tad more small-villes....

And more quests in every damn town! =D

[atoga]

Sounds good!

Get XP rewards for exploration, learning things, teaching things, and not just killing.

Isn't this already a part of Fallout 1 and 2? Perhaps the rewards should be a bit more substantial, though.

Even more importance and focus on the central character; rather than seeking a water chip or a GECK, I'd rather the player tell me what he's looking for as a character, then have the game react accordingly.

I can see this being hard to implement in a Fallout setting, since the main theme is that you're doing something for others, not yourself. Still, it could be interesting (ie. Harold's quest to "find out where all those super mutants came from" would be a good example of a self-motivated quest).

[peasofme]

im glad to hear fo3 will be an actual fo game. fo2 was bigger and better than fo1 in every respect imo. im not a huge fan of ps:t. i thought it was an ok game, but it was really overrated. it was one of the worst infinity engine rpgs. iwd proally being the worst. i think new reno was the best part of fo2. i love the sex, drugs, and depravity. i like npc romances. fo3 becoming simplier is a good thing, less tech, less weapons, etc. heres hoping fo3 will actually come out, and a new ps:t would be cool too.

[Spazmo]

I knew MCA wasn't evil! I bet he doesn't even eat babies.

[dishwasher]

Too much sex. Hahahahahahaha............................. Well, personally, I find the atmosphere of fallout and fallout 2 to be very diferrent. Personally, I prefer the vault dweller leaves to save vault than the tribal chosen one leaves to save village scenario. Also, fallout 2 somehow didn't manage to give me that post apocalyptic feel. I mean, it had mobsters in pinsuits. Where the hell are you going to find suits in a post nuclear holocaust world? Definitely keep to the 50s sf feel.
- Deep NPC relationships that are not about romance.
- Richer NPCs whose lives you can affect dramatically.
Yea! And I suppose theres a dog whose live you would affect in a big way? And please make them smarter. I hate to see Sulik run all the way up to an enemy, switch to knife because he is low on action points, then sticking to it for the rest of the battle when he has a super slegdhammer on him. Perhaps a mixed system where npcs do their own thing most of the time, but letting pcs direct them, perhaps at a cost of aps, and thus switching control to the player for a turn. Then perhaps they won't get killed so often.

[Vergilius]

Nice quote, nice words:).
Two things from me:
a) I notice that some become cautious when they read Chris&#8217; New Reno defense and I take the opportunity to give you this short but probably boring text about that part.
I, perhaps, read this in a optimistic way but as far as I can tell he doesn&#8217;t defend New Reno and its quest in a Fallout setting, only speaking in a &#8220;in a game where area makes sense the quests&#8230;are good&#8221; way.. In this specific setting they are completely wrong/bad&#8230;
b) This is a somewhat topic related note:
Fallout, the original game, used a dialogue option that brings back memories from a time before the point and click system became standard. It combined both this new invention with the nice feature of giving you a chance to ask about x , to me that increases the Role Playing as I can go beyond the visible options and I feel like my character actually gains more from the dialogue. I want that back.

[Rosh]

As for what MCA said, I can't see anything I disagree with, so I <3 MCA.

I'm surprised you didn't catch upon something I noticed.

Notice how he's pretty much alluding to the time of Googie style (50's ambiance)? Fallout was 50's sci-fi style and ambiance, not "50's ambiance".

There's a HUGE difference. Yes, that is a link. Click it.

As long as he understands that as well, and can do enough research on that as well, fine with me and I'll mirror Prov's sentiments, but I thought that the backdrop setting would have been a big point that MCA would have made. Which, it appears he has said, but he only really says that 80's sci-fi is bad, 50's-era music is good, and 50's ambiance. Only two of those belong.

[ghazghkull]

If they get rid of the real world weapons i'll cry.

Simple as this: Post nuclear world = No Tech, therfore the majority of weapons have to have been those left around after the war, to reove them would, i feel, kill a bit of the atmosphere - that of people rebuilding using anything they can find.

[Human Shield]

Glad to see that he recongized some of the mistakes from FO2 and wants to move back towards Fallout 1.

I am hesitate about this:

I would also like to see certain civilizations' advancement reversed dramatically and violently, as well as perhaps do some general clean-up on the world.

Hope he can pull it off.

Did you guys see this:

For continuity purposes, I would prefer that all Fallout PC RPG titles have their own continuity outside of other platforms and game genres (FOT), and that other platforms and game genres be regarded as "What if" universes, not canon. I do not know if that is my decision, however.

They should put this on the Interplay homepage and on the game boxes.

[Spazmo]

ghazghkull, I think that you misunderstand the real world weapons thing. We're all for having high-tech and mid-tech weaponry, but it shouldn't be from the real world. Fallout 2 included weapons that exist in the real world, such as the H&K G11, which is wrong because the Earth in Fallout is a different Earth, one whose history diverged shortly after World War II. The bombs fell in 2077, but the stretch between ~1950 and 2077 is quite different from ours. Thus, it makes no sense for Fallout to have weapons from the real world. It's better for the weapons to be like the real ones, but not the same. Basically, instead of AK47s like we had in Fallout Tactics, we get the AK112, the Assault Rifle from Fallout. Beyond simply making sense, this also allows the developers to adjust weapons for balance and game logic without gun purists complaining (and rightly) about how they didn't simulate a given weapon correctly.

[Rosh]

If they get rid of the real world weapons i'll cry.

Simple as this: Post nuclear world = No Tech, therfore the majority of weapons have to have been those left around after the war, to reove them would, i feel, kill a bit of the atmosphere - that of people rebuilding using anything they can find.

I would like to welcome our newest memeber. One which, it appears, has little understanding of the setting.

Before you decide to retort, think about the setting and when/why it was from, and how.

EDIT: Ah, looks like Spazmo beat me to it. There's also token guns like the Mauser and the Desert Eagle that are put in there for other reasons than to just have them.

[Grey_Ghost]

Ok, so no new real world weapons, but do all the weapons Fallout 2 introduced to the Fallout Universe get to stay? We just can't start saying things in Fallout 2 never happened, and sweep them under the rug...I hate it when game developers do that.

Grey_Ghost

[Spazmo]

Well, it's not the existence of the M3A1 Grease Gun is a significant event. If you simply can't find any more in FO3, nobody will even notice.

[Human Shield]

From the same topic.

Hey Rosh,

Chris Avellone writes:

triCritical wrote:
A couple of the problems I found with FO2, was that the sociology of the regions were too different. So in FO2, which did have nice oppurtunities to build a strong theme with your character, you could not do so, because the locations were so different. I think there needs to be some sort of continuity with the locations. Something so that in every location there is something that allows your character to build on a theme he/she wants to create. Do I want to be a slaver, ranger or whatever, the world from location to location should provide that oppurtunity. I think FO2 actually had more oppurtunity for creating a central theme then FO1 but just did not have enough of continuity to enforce playing it out in a like fashion everywhere you went. I think FO1 did this better, but it was much smaller, and people didn't seem to like that. BTW this is all IMO, in case you were wondering.

No arguments on continuity problems, you're absolutely right. If we were to do a sequel, then I would like to have area locations standardized and someone in charge of making sure the continuity of the game remains intact.

And Chris also edited his post to include turn-based combat in the list of things that make up Fallout.

[Sammael]

Ok, so no new real world weapons, but do all the weapons Fallout 2 introduced to the Fallout Universe get to stay? We just can't start saying things in Fallout 2 never happened, and sweep them under the rug...I hate it when game developers do that.

I would also like to see certain civilizations' advancement reversed dramatically and violently, as well as perhaps do some general clean-up on the world.

In answer to your question, no.