Bethesda has claimed that Fallout 3 will have over 40,000 lines of dialogue in the game, dwarfing the amount in the original game by about 20 times.
The amount puts it level pegging with Fable II, which we reported last month contains over 370,000 words of dialogue. If you accept that an average sentence length is ten words, it comes out about the same, which is a bit of a funny coincidence if you ask us.
The news came out of an interview responding to fan questions posted on the official forums. The answers contain a wealth of information for both fans of the original and those anticipating the game, which we've summarised here:
Slavery, children, drugs and addiction feature in the game Child killing will not be possible. If attacked, they run away and adults around turn on you
Most non-humans are hostile, but not all
A level editor will not be included with the PC version, but might become available in future as a free download
Character traits have been combined with Perks. You now receive one per level. There are around 100 of them, so in order to see them all you'll have to play through the game five times
Up to one companion (plus Dog Meat) will be able to join you. You'll be able to give them weapons and armour
Hand-to-hand combat hasn't been focused upon. It will be hard to complete the game without using weapons
Fallout 3 is scheduled to be released this winter.
Good to hear Bethesda is trying to stick as close to the original games' style as much as possible. Wasn't a fan of Oblivion, thought it had dropped the ball somewhat after the genius of Morrowind.
Good to hear Bethesda is trying to stick as close to the original games' style as much as possible.
Not sure what you've been reading, but almost every recent tid-bit of information has carried the message "doing it like Oblivion". Most of the press reaction has been Like Oblivion, and that's a good thing!, and right from the beginning Bethesda have been of the notion that they're doing it 'their way'. From a recent hands on:
In fact, at times it feels exactly like Oblivion in terms of mission structure and the way you navigate the world. We loved Oblivion so we aren't complaining
Whether or not you think this is a good thing probably comes down to whether you like the original format of Fallout more than Oblivion, but one things for sure FO3 and Oblivion are unlikely to be worlds apart.
"Bethesda has claimed that Fallout 3 will have over 40,000 lines of dialogue in the game..."
If those lines ushered forth from the lips of the voice actors from Oblivion then I might just kill myself.
I NEVER need to hear 'raspy elf shop assistant 01' EVER again.
To the guy who said that he dipped in and out of Oblivion from time-to time; how do you do it?! For me, Oblivion was a way of life for months on end and now I don't think I could ever touch it again!
Personally, I'm in the enviable position of having loved Oblivion but not played the original Fallout games - that makes Bethesda a win/win option for me (probably in the same bracket as most of the target audience?)
sux that you aint gonna make it through the game with just melee wpns. Power hammer play through was fun in the old games. Anyway, it's still gonna rock I'm sure.
40,000 is not level pegging with 370,000 is it? Typo or have I mis-interpreted?
40,000 is the number of lines of dialogue in Fallout 3. 370,000 is the number of wordsin Fable 2. CVG reckon that your average sentence is 10 words hence the comparison.
I NEVER need to hear 'raspy elf shop assistant 01' EVER again
I wish Oblivion DID have proper raspy elves, like the ones in Morrowind. The ones who hated everyone who wasn't a Vvardenfel born-and bred Dunmer. Agree about the limited number of voice actors though, let's hope they've learned that lesson.
Have CVG got their lines, sentences and knickers in a twist? Surely you mean that an average line is 10 words long? Because an average sentence in almost always longer than ten words. And besides, comparing lines and sentences doesn't make sence...
Have CVG got their lines, sentences and knickers in a twist?
11 words
Surely you mean that an average line is 10 words long?
11 words
Because an average sentence in almost always longer than ten words.
11 words
And besides, comparing lines and sentences doesn't make sence...
9 words
Anal.
1 word
Average sentence (not including the word 'Anal'): 10.5 words.
Now that's anal.
Well played.
Anyway. I hope it's not liked Oblivion, I think one of the only ways you could really like Oblivion would be if you haven't played Morrowind - which was so vastly superior in almost every single way: better storyline(s), better, style, better quests, better characters, better levelling up system. If your looking for a truly deep, engaging, and engrossing RPG and you haven't played Morrowind you should go and buy it right now, it probably only costs about a fiver. Its probably the only rpg I prefer to the fallout series
My point is I hope fallout 3 is closer to the Morrowind formular than the Oblivion one. That would be quality - I like the fact that the adult themes are making an appearance (which again were in Morrowind)
Good to hear Bethesda is trying to stick as close to the original games' style as much as possible.
Not sure what you've been reading, but almost every recent tid-bit of information has carried the message "doing it like Oblivion". Most of the press reaction has been Like Oblivion, and that's a good thing!, and right from the beginning Bethesda have been of the notion that they're doing it 'their way'. From a recent hands on:
In fact, at times it feels exactly like Oblivion in terms of mission structure and the way you navigate the world. We loved Oblivion so we aren't complaining
Whether or not you think this is a good thing probably comes down to whether you like the original format of Fallout more than Oblivion, but one things for sure FO3 and Oblivion are unlikely to be worlds apart.
Dead right if you read the forum thing the guy says numerous times "like oblivion" and "we lifted this straight from oblivion"
"Bethesda has claimed that Fallout 3 will have over 40,000 lines of dialogue in the game..."
If those lines ushered forth from the lips of the voice actors from Oblivion then I might just kill myself.
I NEVER need to hear 'raspy elf shop assistant 01' EVER again.
To the guy who said that he dipped in and out of Oblivion from time-to time; how do you do it?! For me, Oblivion was a way of life for months on end and now I don't think I could ever touch it again!
Personally, I'm in the enviable position of having loved Oblivion but not played the original Fallout games - that makes Bethesda a win/win option for me (probably in the same bracket as most of the target audience?)
Me to, i loved oblivion, never played any other elder scrolls, fallout or rpg, all the hardcore rpg'ers are saying oblivion was no way near as good as morrowind, and they are screwing up fallout 3,
Like you said bethesda have lured in the mass market of unhardcore(?) rpg'ers with oblivion so they will all play FO3.
Have CVG got their lines, sentences and knickers in a twist?
11 words
Surely you mean that an average line is 10 words long?
11 words
Because an average sentence in almost always longer than ten words.
11 words
And besides, comparing lines and sentences doesn't make sence...
9 words
Anal.
1 word
Average sentence (not including the word 'Anal'): 10.5 words.
Now that's anal.
Well played.
Anyway. I hope it's not liked Oblivion, I think one of the only ways you could really like Oblivion would be if you haven't played Morrowind - which was so vastly superior in almost every single way: better storyline(s), better, style, better quests, better characters, better levelling up system. If your looking for a truly deep, engaging, and engrossing RPG and you haven't played Morrowind you should go and buy it right now, it probably only costs about a fiver. Its probably the only rpg I prefer to the fallout series
My point is I hope fallout 3 is closer to the Morrowind formular than the Oblivion one. That would be quality - I like the fact that the adult themes are making an appearance (which again were in Morrowind)
I am about to buy a pc and morrowind, but what you say is what most morrowind fans have said, that oblivion was dumbed down for the mass market
To be honest, if FO3 has one more line and one more voice acter than oblivion i would be pleased
Didn't they say they'll use fewer voice actors than Oblivion? Or was it that there will be fewer NPCs than in Oblivion.... Hmmm I'm getting confuddled...
I think with regards to lifting stuff straight from Oblivion, most of the comments are to do with technical and/or engine stuff, rather than, for example, the levelling system....
Have CVG got their lines, sentences and knickers in a twist? Surely you mean that an average line is 10 words long? Because an average sentence in almost always longer than ten words. And besides, comparing lines and sentences doesn't make sence...
Anal.
Maybe then mean lines as an actor would use them...
I am about to buy a pc and morrowind, but what you say is what most morrowind fans have said, that oblivion was dumbed down for the mass market
I can't say for certain but it seemed to me that they spent two much time and effort getting the combat system right, more visceral and entertaining, and making the game look stunning (almost achieved, but it looks s**t in places) than they did on concentrating on the things that define a great rpg: the storyline and the levelling system.
It wasn't so much dumbed down as 'actioned-up'
Actually I'm talking complete b******s it was blatantly dumbed down...
It annoys me though because the only thing that Morrowind needed to make it the perfect game was the combat system of Oblivion - I think Bethseda missed a trick there, hopefully one they'll find again for Fallout 3
Perhaps that's true, but a focus on combat is one of the things that the RPG genre sorely needed as it was one of its biggest weaknesses (and still is). Frustrating and clumsy clickfests who's outcomes are determined by dice rolls being replaced by real-time skill-based (player skill augmented by character attributes) combat is not only a good thing, it's an essential ingredient for the long-term health of the RPG genre.
Let's leave isometric clickfests in the past where they belong. Like text-based games, they are obsolete and have no place in modern gaming.
Perhaps that's true, but a focus on combat is one of the things that the RPG genre sorely needed as it was one of its biggest weaknesses (and still is). Frustrating and clumsy clickfests who's outcomes are determined by dice rolls being replaced by real-time skill-based (player skill augmented by character attributes) combat is not only a good thing, it's an essential ingredient for the long-term health of the RPG genre.
Let's leave isometric clickfests in the past where they belong. Like text-based games, they are obsolete and have no place in modern gaming.
I totally agree, don't get me wrong - I thought the combat system in Oblivion was brilliant, the crowning achievement of the game in fact.
Perhaps that's true, but a focus on combat is one of the things that the RPG genre sorely needed as it was one of its biggest weaknesses (and still is). Frustrating and clumsy clickfests who's outcomes are determined by dice rolls being replaced by real-time skill-based (player skill augmented by character attributes) combat is not only a good thing, it's an essential ingredient for the long-term health of the RPG genre.
Let's leave isometric clickfests in the past where they belong. Like text-based games, they are obsolete and have no place in modern gaming.
I completely disagree. Sacrificing the gap that exists between player and player character would be removing one of the few unique features that set the RPG genre away from everything else.
There's room enough for their to be titles of both sort, and always had been (at least since the days of Ultima Underworld). Saying that removing that gap is necessary shows a woeful lack of understanding of gameplay mechanics, and the strengths of the RPG genre, on behalf of developers.
Here's a fantastic analysis of the distance between player and player character, and certainly shows more understanding and a stronger angument than I've ever seen from the other side of the fence, which usually boils down to hyperbolic rhetoric about it being teh olds lolz.
I completely disagree. Sacrificing the gap that exists between player and player character would be removing one of the few unique features that set the RPG genre away from everything else.
There's room enough for their to be titles of both sort, and always had been (at least since the days of Ultima Underworld). Saying that removing that gap is necessary shows a woeful lack of understanding of gameplay mechanics, and the strengths of the RPG genre, on behalf of developers.
Here's a fantastic analysis of the distance between player and player character, and certainly shows more understanding and a stronger angument than I've ever seen from the other side of the fence, which usually boils down to hyperbolic rhetoric about it being teh olds lolz.
I agree about the Oblivion combat system being the best an RPG genre has to offer. Perhaps Deus Ex had it nailed before ESIV, but anyway...
I'd have loved to have read the argument for having a player gap, but that link doesn't work....
It seems to me that the fundamental purpose and appeal of a ROLE playing game is that you take on the ROLE of a character and become immersed and invested in their life and the world around them. Putting 'gaps' between the player and the character can only work against this end.
Yeah can you get that link to work, I'd like to read that article/argument as well.
I'm still not convinced as yet though, I agree with Mogs. Whilst I enjoyed games like Buldurs Gate, Icewind Dale etc (I haven't played loads of rpg's) when I was a kid - the formular has worn pretty thin for me now though (both in biowares combat system and general storylines, Mass Effect was quality though).
Yeah can you get that link to work, I'd like to read that article/argument as well.
Works for me. If you copy/paste this into your borwser, does that work? http://www.irontowerstudio.com/forum/index.php?topic=338.0
It seems to me that the fundamental purpose and appeal of a ROLE playing game is that you take on the ROLE of a character and become immersed and invested in their life and the world around them.
Taking on the role of a character other than yourself is made all the easier by the distance, as it gives you the time to consider how it is that your character (rather than yourself) would react, and also allows you to create characters beyond that which you can accomplish as a player. To quote that article:
I'm going to dodge the topic of immersion for the time being though, but consider this - when the player descends (or ascends) into a brain state where interactions are reactive and not conscious, then they're no longer capable of playing a role other than themselves. This particular kind of immersion, where the player has no awareness of the HMI is ideal for simulations such as the Falcon or Gran Turismo series, but completely contrary to the core CRPG concept of an alter ego.
Now I wouldn't personally go that far, but it's a valid point.
The most immediate example of this would be the differences in combat between FO1, which uses the indirect combat method, and FO3 which (for the most part) uses a direct control method. Say I wanted to create a character who sacrifices large weaponry in order to be quick on the draw and accurate (I like 'The Good, The Bad and The Ugly, and any game that would let me play The Man with No Name is a sure fire winner). Indirect method will allow me to do this all the better, with the computer behind the scenes deciding whether my character is quick enough off the draw to shoot that raider in the face, without any hiderance from my skill or lack thereof. Direct control will, for a large part, come down to my own ability to spot that raider (i.e. Perseption is useless, and the points I invest in it are wasted), and my ability to hit the VATs pause button in time (i.e. speed has little bearing on the ability to shoot first).
Now in many instances there may be many advantages to the direct control method, and I'm quite happy for there to be many successful games of that ilk. What I'm less than happy to see is Bethesda justifying their own inability to move beyond their confort zone (which that are perfectly within their rights not to) by suggesting that their way is the only real (next-gen (tm)) way. See: Ashley Cheng whinging that Diablo III isn't next-gen(tm) first person like it should be.
It seems to me that the fundamental purpose and appeal of a ROLE playing game is that you take on the ROLE of a character and become immersed and invested in their life and the world around them.
Taking on the role of a character other than yourself is made all the easier by the distance, as it gives you the time to consider how it is that your character (rather than yourself) would react, and also allows you to create characters beyond that which you can accomplish as a player. To quote that article:
I'm going to dodge the topic of immersion for the time being though, but consider this - when the player descends (or ascends) into a brain state where interactions are reactive and not conscious, then they're no longer capable of playing a role other than themselves. This particular kind of immersion, where the player has no awareness of the HMI is ideal for simulations such as the Falcon or Gran Turismo series, but completely contrary to the core CRPG concept of an alter ego.
That's very woolly logic and only really applies in games where the player doesn't define what the character is, in which case they're probably not an RPG anyway. The whole point is that you define who the character is through your choices and how you respond to the events that take place. That's what RPGs are all about.
Nevermind philosophical debates about immersion etc, clickfests are just BORING imo. The combat is tedious and frustrating. If it was actually fun to mindlessly click on enemies (ocassionally cumbersomely clicking on the spell/potion bar) while the computer basically decides if it was a good click or a bad click based (loosely) on how much clicking you chose to endure earlier in the game, then it wouldn't be such a big deal. But sadly it isn't.
The problem is that these mechanics are inherited from board games who have to use them due to the obvious limitations of that format. Video games these days should not be using such obsolete systems of interaction. INTERACTION - the fundamental thing that sets games apart from other media. Being resistant to increased interaction is a concept which is lost on me I'm afraid. I guess people are always resistant to change...
The whole point is that you define who the character is through your choices and how you respond to the events that take place.
Exactly. Which is why a skill check upon my character attempting to pick a lock is closer to that RPG ideal of creating an alter-ego that a skill based direct-control minigame. The minigame tests my skill, not that of my character. All I'm really doing there is playing myself dressed as a thief, not a thief.
Nevermind philosophical debates about immersion etc, clickfests are just BORING imo. The combat is tedious and frustrating.
It doesn't have to be. Sure for every game where indirect combat is done right, there are a million Dungeon Sieges, but that's simply down to the fact that it is harder to do. Take X-com for instance. Try to imagine a game with direct control with that level of tactical interaction or cereblral challenge. It's simply a different form of intereation, with different advantages and dis-advantages for simulating different situations. If all games were to adpot the method of direct control, then there would be quite a number of characters that would be nigh impossible to really create.
I guess people are always resistant to change...
I'm not resistant to change, and anyway direct control is as old as games themselves. What I am resistant to is yet another form of variety being stripped from games, until they're all first person, all realtime, and the only variation is that of setting. Variety is the spice of life my friend.
All good points, but I will quickly say that direct control is undoubtedly the way to go wherever it is possible. How you overcome the issues you mentioned is by having the character's skill or equipment augment the player's skill. So picking locks is hard if you don't have a decent lock pick, but if you do, it becomes much easier etc.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court, 30 Monmouth Street, Bath, UK BA1 2BW England and Wales company registration number 2008885
