Big bad boss[es]

Megatron · Post by **Megatron** » Tue Jun 25, 2002 10:44 pm

In fallout, I don't think it makes sense if you're the really evil demon spawn, to kill some soldiers/mutants.

Yeah, they might kill you or something, but you could take them on anyway, after all your the chosen one/vault dweller

I think that they're should be a 'good' big bad boss, like mabye the president or a religous leader who wants to make all drugs illegal and have police on every street corner or something.

In fo3, mabye the evil guys could try to destory the world by mabye making all F.E.V genes un-stable and make anything mutated even slightly to explode.

Whatever the main evil is, it can't effect you directly as that would defeat the point.

So mabye the good guys try to stamp out evil (like mabye a group of powerful mutants called super-heros or something) while the bad guys do something...bad

I don't know.

JR Jansen · Post by **JR Jansen** » Mon Aug 05, 2002 6:57 am

Well, look at it as saving your own ass and in doing so saving the world but there is no altruiism just self preservation. If you don't destroy the master, he would've probably dipped you and that might be something that even an evil person doesn't want. The president would've outright killed you.

Doyle · Post by **Doyle** » Mon Aug 05, 2002 9:43 am

Rather than having a "good" boss, you should be able to join the bad guy. Actually finishing the game after dipping, for example.

Constipated BladeRunner · Mon Aug 05, 2002 10:18 am

Hey, the Master was not a bad guy.
He was just
A) Flawed

A real communist.

The Shrike · Post by **The Shrike** » Mon Aug 05, 2002 10:57 am

A real communist.

but communists are evil. At least thats what the US government tells me

Rosh · Post by **Rosh** » Mon Aug 05, 2002 11:35 am

For once, Constipated Craprunner has a valid point.

What made The Master the best enemy in any CRPG game is that he was of an ambiguous nature, from a moral viewpoint. On one hand, he's trying to fix the world, on the other there's the moral aspects of genetic mutation.

A "good boss" is rather...kind of corny, and would likely need a character scheme like M&M7. Personally, I think it would be best with multiple solutions without a boss, much like many of the Ultima games.

The Shrike · Post by **The Shrike** » Mon Aug 05, 2002 11:47 am

For once, Constipated Craprunner has a valid point.

the shock of that one made me fall out of my chair and hit my head on the floor.

What made The Master the best enemy in any CRPG game is that he was of an ambiguous nature, from a moral viewpoint. On one hand, he's trying to fix the world, on the other there's the moral aspects of genetic mutation.

that is why the master is be my favorite end boss of any game. unlike tacked on FRankie iin FO2.

VasikkA · Post by **VasikkA** » Mon Aug 05, 2002 4:07 pm

Having a good boss and a bad boss means you need to have a good ending and an evil ending. This would complicate things a lot if you think of the sequel. The sequel would have to choose either ending if they want the story to continue. Or alternatively, moving the sequel away from that area, but that would only be a temporary solution. It would be rather controversial, don't you think?

There were alternative endings in Fallout, you could have been dipped in FEV, give away the location of Vault13 to save your own ass. Well, these endings had kind of a 'mission failed' feeling, because the game ended before it was supposed to. That is possibly one of the reasons why you couldn't continue the game after you've joined the mutants. I don't know about this but it would be interesting to hear from one of the original Fallout designers why it was dropped out of the game. :roll:

Constipated BladeRunner · Mon Aug 05, 2002 8:11 pm

Rosh wrote:Constipated Craprunner.

I thought the whole point was that I could not "run" crap.
Anyway, yeah that IS something that makes the Master great, but I also love the fact that many of his ideas come from soviet era socalisim, which adds that much to the fifties atmosphere.

Doyle · Post by **Doyle** » Mon Aug 05, 2002 10:29 pm

VasikkA wrote:Having a good boss and a bad boss means you need to have a good ending and an evil ending. This would complicate things a lot if you think of the sequel. The sequel would have to choose either ending if they want the story to continue. Or alternatively, moving the sequel away from that area, but that would only be a temporary solution. It would be rather controversial, don't you think?

There were alternative endings in Fallout, you could have been dipped in FEV, give away the location of Vault13 to save your own ass. Well, these endings had kind of a 'mission failed' feeling, because the game ended before it was supposed to. That is possibly one of the reasons why you couldn't continue the game after you've joined the mutants. I don't know about this but it would be interesting to hear from one of the original Fallout designers why it was dropped out of the game. :roll:

From what I've heard, most of the three years spent on Fallout went into developing the game engine. By the time they had it done, they had very little time to actually make the game itself, and a lot of stuff was cut out so they could get the game released. Chances are, that's why that part of the game was removed. Of course, this is all based off of what Feargus has said in the past, so I'd be interested in hearing Tim Cain's take on it.

Dan · Post by **Dan** » Tue Aug 06, 2002 1:27 am

Doyle wrote:Rather than having a "good" boss, you should be able to join the bad guy. Actually finishing the game after dipping, for example.

Arcanum had a "join the bad guy" option but it was kind of pointless because it was the same as making him kill himself.
It was another option you could have gotten through dialouge.

If there would be a way to join the bad guy in FO3 it must be continued afterwards or have a pre-join condition so it wont be just an option but an entire path.

Doyle · Post by **Doyle** » Tue Aug 06, 2002 4:05 am

No, you shouldn't start from the beginning as a bad guy. For example in Fallout, you could allow yourself to be dipped, then you would help subdue the Vault to get more mutants -- maybe a diplomat could have ended it peacefully -- and then help crush the opposition in the Wasteland. Perhaps a "sort of" bad guy could convince the Master or the Lieutenant to spare certain groups that might otherwise have been destroyed, like the Ghouls at Necropolis.

This example works well with the current story, but you wouldn't encounter it until the second half of the game. That's the type of thing that would work best.

FLEA · Post by **FLEA** » Tue Aug 06, 2002 11:18 am

hmm thats actualy a good idea u start nowwhere and then u decide to join in with the bad bunch and try to counqer the world for example

or join with the good peeps and kil the would be rullers of the world

or go insane and kill everybody :mad: :mad: :mad:

this could be either a trait or the way u play the game hell i like this idea

VasikkA · Post by **VasikkA** » Tue Aug 06, 2002 7:21 pm

Both Fallouts had a goal, water chip then mutants, Geck then the Enclave. Being truly 'evil' would have meant neglecting these goals and joining bad guys instead. As I've previously said, this would have been controversial for the sequel would have had to choose which ending to follow. Now, I don't have any problems helping out your tribe and your vault but only using evil methods to solve quests. Fallouts allowed this and you could quite freely choose how you want to play the game. The possibility of being dipped and joining the mutants would have messed up the plot of Fallout 2. Instead of talking to humans, you'd be talking to super mutants and the Master. Now, that sounds like two different games.

Megatron · Post by **Megatron** » Tue Aug 06, 2002 9:29 pm

I'm not sure if they'd BE another sequel after fallout 3...not many games run into #4 without having another 3 or four sequels after it and I don't want that to happen.

I don't see the point in killing the bad guy though if I
a)Agree with him
b)Want to get revenge on everything, then kill the main bad guy and take over the world with an army of...things.

VasikkA · Post by **VasikkA** » Tue Aug 06, 2002 10:09 pm

Pyro wrote:I'm not sure if they'd BE another sequel after fallout 3...not many games run into #4 without having another 3 or four sequels after it and I don't want that to happen.

I'd want the story continue even after Fallout 3. You know, Fallout doesn't have to be a Star Wars-like trilogy so the sequels after FO3 doesn't have to be released as trilogies aswell. The only point where I would want the story to end is when the sequels get too repetitive and don't offer any new ideas. Fallout series still has lots of potential left.

Doyle · Post by **Doyle** » Tue Aug 06, 2002 11:42 pm

VasikkA wrote:Both Fallouts had a goal, water chip then mutants, Geck then the Enclave. Being truly 'evil' would have meant neglecting these goals and joining bad guys instead. As I've previously said, this would have been controversial for the sequel would have had to choose which ending to follow. Now, I don't have any problems helping out your tribe and your vault but only using evil methods to solve quests. Fallouts allowed this and you could quite freely choose how you want to play the game. The possibility of being dipped and joining the mutants would have messed up the plot of Fallout 2. Instead of talking to humans, you'd be talking to super mutants and the Master. Now, that sounds like two different games.

Fallout 2 already makes a lot of assumptions about how you played the first game. In a game like this with so much freedom, you really have to if you want the sequel to be a continuation of the first game. Having the choice to join the Master and actually finish the game wouldn't have changed anything. After all, the choice is still there, you just don't get to experience the results first-hand.

Dark Xenomorph · Post by **Dark Xenomorph** » Wed Aug 07, 2002 2:29 am

The Shrike wrote: but communists are evil. At least thats what the US government tells me

Yes and if we Duck and Cover, the nuclear waves will bounce off us and back to the evil russkies, Take THAT Commies!

VasikkA · Post by **VasikkA** » Wed Aug 07, 2002 6:06 pm

Doyle wrote:Fallout 2 already makes a lot of assumptions about how you played the first game. In a game like this with so much freedom, you really have to if you want the sequel to be a continuation of the first game. Having the choice to join the Master and actually finish the game wouldn't have changed anything. After all, the choice is still there, you just don't get to experience the results first-hand.

Yeah, but it's clearly not the main ending, it had kinda a 'mission failed' feeling, same with mutants taking over your vault ending. If you die in a battle, the game ends. Should've Fallout 2 taken that into notice?

Doyle · Post by **Doyle** » Wed Aug 07, 2002 8:13 pm

VasikkA wrote:Yeah, but it's clearly not the main ending, it had kinda a 'mission failed' feeling, same with mutants taking over your vault ending. If you die in a battle, the game ends. Should've Fallout 2 taken that into notice?

Well, the mutant ending wouldn't really be the main ending either. I mean the goal of the game is to get the waterchip and wipe out the Master. FO2 does the right thing in assuming that's the goal that was completed. It wouldn't be any different because the mutant ending was a little more detailed.