Column: 'Homer In Silicon': Character Creation And Fallout 3
May 4, 2010 12:00 AM |
['Homer in Silicon' is a biweekly GameSetWatch-exclusive column by Emily Short. It looks at storytelling and narrative in games of all flavors, including the casual, indie, and obscurely hobbyist. This week she looks at Fallout 3.]
This January and February I estimate I spent somewhere between sixty and eighty hours with Fallout 3.
I must have liked it.
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.
Pace
The thing I admired most about the storytelling in Fallout 3 was the generous way it lets the player decide the pace of the main story, by offering both a clearly demarcated major quest line and a near-inexhaustible supply of subordinate quest material.
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. I can't remember ever playing another game that had so much purely optional material to offer.
Environmental Storytelling
Maybe "environmental storytelling" is becoming a buzz-phrase. There were two separate GDC 2010 talks on the way environment can carry narrative information: "What Happened Here?: Environmental Storytelling" by Matthias Worch and Harvey Smith; and "Environmental Narrative: Your World is Your Story" by Richard Rouse III. That's justified: story-as-told-by-place is something that mainstream games are getting increasingly good at.
Fallout 3 is exceptionally rich in this kind of storytelling, though it's worth pointing out that environmental storytelling is almost always backstory-telling: it's about what has happened here, not about what is happening or might happen in the future.
That works for Fallout 3 because, in apocalyptic wastelands, most of the present is about the past, so that's all right. And it goes together well with the player-controlled pacing of the main plot, because it means that there is also player-controlled pacing of exposition. It's as though when you had Moby Dick assigned to you in high school, you were allowed to do the chapters on whaling as an interactive diorama sequence, and you got to skip the encyclopedic chapter on ambergris entirely.
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.
There's one respect in which the environmental storytelling extends to the game-play present, though: the radios that refer to the protagonist's exploits and the reputation that builds around her. (Or him. But I played a her.) The broadcasts here worked better for me than the similar elements in Fable 2, where villagers would sometimes discuss me -- perhaps because Fallout 3's broadcasts seemed more particular and more often keyed to really significant choices and events in the protagonist's life.
Characterization
Speaking of character choices, I wish RPGs would allow me to make decisions about my character not at a clump in the beginning, but at the moment when those decisions become interesting.
Example: Fallout 3 concerns a man who has made significant sacrifices in order to offer a safe and healthy life to his daughter (or son -- the protagonist, in any case).
Up to the point where I discovered that bit of backstory, I had been playing my character in the default mode that I use for all RPGs: with an emphasis on intelligence, ranged weaponry, and any skills that look like they'll get me out of tedious melee fight sequences; generally friendly and ethical, except when the dialogue tree offers me something irresistably sarcastic to say to a character who is irresistably annoying.
When I found out about Dad's sacrifice, though, I immediately wished I'd chosen differently. It would have been much more creepy and compelling from the point of view of story if, actually, his daughter was a sociopathic monster. That would produce a much darker narrative, perhaps with a bit of a theme about not investing too much hope or ambition in any single person besides yourself.
But by the point in the story where it's a narratively interesting question what ethical character you have, you've already made a lot of fundamental choices and established quite a lot of karma.
The overly simplistic good/bad scale doesn't entirely help matters either, because as with every game that has simple good/bad karma, I find that the game's idea of virtue and vice misses my own idea entirely.
Gender Fail
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. (I'm not the only person to notice this, I know.)
It's possible to imagine an interesting version of the wasteland in which most women are lesbians, but pretty clearly the game world hadn't developed this way intentionally. The whole time I was playing, the social interactions kept reminding me that being female was the "other" choice, the marked choice, the non-default; the thing they didn't bother to write for or program until last.
Matters could be much worse. At least Fallout 3 didn't, like Heavy Rain, establish the sole female protagonist with a leeringly detailed near-rape scene and then go on exploiting her sexual risk for the entire rest of the narrative. So at least the female option isn't written in there with the obvious intention of providing amusement to men; it's just equally obviously an afterthought.
It doesn't have to be that way -- and making it different doesn't have to mean setting all stories in a perfectly egalitarian society, either.
One of my favorite examples of player-selected gender is in the interactive fiction Bolivia By Night, in which the player's choice of gender (and also of nationality, interestingly) affects the attitudes of the non-player characters. Sometimes being a girl makes the other characters treat you in sexist, unpleasant ways.
But this is so clearly a characterization that it's not the game being sexist, it's the game being (in part) about sexism. Other characters also have comments about your being (say) American. The choice of gender becomes a new way to explore the setting and narrative created in the game; it's not arbitrary, and it definitely isn't an afterthought.
Character Creation
I'm not arguing here against letting people choose protagonist characteristics; not at all.
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.
But I would make different and more interesting choices if, instead of doing character-building in a clump at the beginning, that process were more gradual. I admit I felt this way even more strongly after the stunningly longwinded character creation processes in Dragon Age and Mass Effect.
Fallout 3 does, of course, allow you to add some special abilities as you level up, which is a nice touch -- but a lot of character fundamentals are established right at the outset, before you've had any chance to understand what those choices mean in this place and this story.
(Disclosure: I played a copy of this work that I purchased at full price. I have had no commercial affiliations with the publisher at the time of writing.)
[Emily Short is an interactive fiction author and part of the team behind Inform 7, a language for IF creation. She also maintains a blog on interactive fiction and related topics. She also contracts for story and design work with game developers from time to time, and will disclose conflicts with story subjects if any exist. She can be reached at emshort AT mindspring DOT com.]
Categories: Column: Homer In Silicon








14 Comments
I actually had the exact opposite feeling towards the character creation process in Fallout 3. I thought it was brilliant the way that they subverted the standard process by having you choose details about yourself while being born, and then just as your father says "And what kind of person will you be when you grow up?" (or something along those lines), suggesting to me that I'm about to choose a class, your mother starts dying and you're whisked away.
Roguemonkey | May 4, 2010 10:07 PM
I liked the character creator in Fallout 3 a great deal as a way to get the kind of granularity that you have in much more tedious systems while feeling more like I was playing a game, and for being friendlier to players who weren't dyed-in-the-wool RPG or CRPG nuts. That said, I have to agree with your remarks about character sameness. I played Oblivion immediately prior to Fallout 3, and after those two I played Dragon Age. My character in all three games, despite significant differences in setting and supposed backstory, was more or less identical.
I find that the Bioware first-person RPGs strongly encourage certain kinds of gameplay, which is part of that. There seems to be a huge bonus to playing an intelligent, stealthy character who can deal damage at range and avoid direct confrontation. There are also usually more benefits to being "good" than "evil", especially as regards availability of optional side-quests.
Just to buck the trend, my girlfriend made a fighter in Dragon Age, and has been regretting it ever since. She's pondered resetting to make a rogue on several occasions. The game sets you up with two fighters and a mage right off the bat, so the skill set would fill more gaps, and it's really much more tedious to not have someone who can unlock things in your party than to not have another big stick or spell caster.
I don't remember it being that obvious a choice in old-school computer RPGs when I played them back in the day, but I don't know whether that's a general trend in the industry or a bias on Bioware's part. (Are there many A-list computer RPGs that aren't made by Bioware?)
Irfon-Kim Ahmad | May 5, 2010 1:43 PM
I'm a guy who played a female character in Fallout 3. I remember there was a special perk "Black Widow" that you could choose. It gave new dialogue choices where you could use your feminine charms to "influence" men. I do agree, there should be more attention paid to gender by NPCs, but that would be an enormous amount of work.
dude | May 5, 2010 5:27 PM
I thought your comments on Gender Fail were a bit silly.
It is unrealistic to have artificial equality in Post Apocalyptic settings. In these worlds, only the strongest survive and on average, women are not as physically strong as men.
If people want to see what role women would play in a realistic PA setting, see the movie The Road.
Having said that, I'd be interested to see what you think of Fallout 1. I thought it was far better than F3 by every measure.
JR | May 6, 2010 1:29 PM
Oh wait. I see what you were getting at on gender now.
JR | May 6, 2010 1:35 PM
Try play Fallout 2, better then Fallout 3.
Fallout 3 wins in the graphic tech.
Fallout 2 wins in the storyline and the awesomeness.
and if you're talking about gender preferential treatment, you'll notice the difference immediately when you play Fallout 2.
F2 | May 7, 2010 1:26 AM
Fallout3 is far worst than Fallout1-2 in many ways.
It's like if 3D graphics is tied with sacrificing all the other aspects from the game.
We are 200 years after the bombs and there is style not a bit of grass, people are still living in ruins and they haven't rebuild anything. We can't understand what happen in an area of the game cause all lack so much of realisme or even logic, and it's also in the dialogues.
Mid | May 7, 2010 6:14 AM
Fallout 1 and 2 acknowledged the character's gender in many ways. Some quests can be solved by seducing the guards, which is only available to female players; while in many areas NPCs will make remakes depending on your gender.
Fallout 3 is a far cry from the sophistication of detail from its predecessors.
Ruben | May 7, 2010 8:40 AM
I enjoyed the game while I played it, but something that really bothered me about F3 was the overall setting. The towns were tiny and really had no signs of self-sufficiency -- no farming or sources of fresh water. And there was no greenery in the game, and -- except for monsters -- no ecosystem at all, and it made the whole thing seem flat. The other part is, the DC area is basically intact: buildings are mostly standing after 200 years after a *nuclear freaking holocaust*. So the game is set in a world in which the ecosystem was completely destroyed and the few humans are either fortified or living in tiny hamlets, but the same bombs that reduced them to that didn't even take out the downtown area of the capital city of one of the two countries at war in the first place.
Furious | May 7, 2010 10:23 PM
I really enjoyed your article, and completely agree on the gender fail situation.
My biggest disappointment was downloading Operation Anchorage on the day of release, and having all the characters address my female character as male. Then i went to the official message boards, where people told me women shouldn't be included at all anyway - even by one of the mods. :((
Robyn | May 8, 2010 12:36 PM
I agree on the gender fail thing. The dialogues are also generally fail, ignoring the character's other qualities as well. FO1 and FO2 do it differently (better). That's the price that a fully voiced game has to pay: having all different dialogue choices for different characters becomes so much work "it's not worth it." That's too bad because it takes away the rp from any rpg.
Nina | May 8, 2010 3:47 PM
While I see your point on Fallout 3, I'm not sure I see it in Dragon Age. I found that my character creation in Dragon Age was heavily influenced by my class/race combo (and not just because of the restrictions imposed by the game). My dwarf commoner was a sarcastic, backstabbing rogue because that's the type of character which originates from that background. Likewise, my human noble was pretentious but idealistic, and my dalish elf was downright xenophobic towards any non-dalish. My race and class didn't choose the dialogue options for me, but instead allowed me to make the choices based on what my character would do.
Greg | May 14, 2010 10:13 AM
"The thing I admired most about the storytelling in Fallout 3 was the generous way it lets the player decide the pace of the main story, by offering both a clearly demarcated major quest line and a near-inexhaustible supply of subordinate quest material."
On a conceptual level, it's also not clear to me that this has anything to do with "storytelling" in any meaningful sense; it's simply the player taking time to explore a given game world at his or her leisure, and imagining (as we humans, tireless creators of meaning as we are, inevitably do) that there is some form of unified experience there which forms part of an over-arching storyline despite the fact that - at least from a purely technical perspective - the allegedly "story-telling" developers aren't really contributing anything at all (besides refraining from time-limiting the main quest).
The major point (or worry) which I'm interested here is that, to put things drastically, a game like Fallout 3 can become a good experience for no particular fault of its own. That is; the game can feature dreary settings, a banal storyline, broken character development and tedious mission structure (all of which I think are fair criticisms of Fallout 3) but still manage to be a compelling game simply by virtue of providing a virtual playground which, at its core, does not require anything more of the developers than to provide a geographically expansive environment, some rudimentary physics and guns (preferably lots of 'em). This could very well be seen as a Good Thing, but to me it seems like a complete nightmare and an excuse for making bad games...
Triakins | May 21, 2010 7:00 AM
The major point (or worry) which I'm interested here is that, to put things drastically, a game like Fallout 3 can become a good experience for no particular fault of its own. That is; the game can feature dreary settings, a banal storyline, broken character development and tedious mission structure (all of which I think are fair criticisms of Fallout 3) but still manage to be a compelling game simply by virtue of providing a virtual playground which, at its core, does not require anything more of the developers than to provide a geographically expansive environment, some rudimentary physics and guns (preferably lots of 'em).
They did more than that; it may just not be obvious why/how because it worked fairly transparently.
To be specific: the transition from the intro of the main storyline into the more open world works pretty well. You come out of the vault, you look for more clues, and you're told you can have more clues once you've come up with more resources. That gives you a clear story and game motivation to move away from the main quest arc and begin engaging with the rest of the world.
It's likely to be a little bit disorienting to do that, but that experience is also fictionally right: your vaultdweller *should* be taken aback by the realities of the world outside.
Then, too, the main quest is going to raise certain issues: the place of mutants in society, the difficulty of survival in the wasteland, the question of whether you take an idealistic or a pragmatic approach to the post-wasteland world. Those same issues are are things you see reflected in the world when you go off and explore the sandbox part of the game. In particular, you encounter many many places where people have tried to set up their own little societies with their own pockets of safety, authority, and civil structure. Those attempts shed some light on what the main quest arc is trying to do. For that matter, the main story line feels considerably more fraught than it otherwise would just because you've had a chance to see that there's a whole world full of people who will be affected by your actions.
So, like I said, I don't think that the game is flawless, but the surrounding sandbox world is contributing essential material to help make sense of the main story arc, and give it added weight -- and a lot of design and storytelling decisions went into making that work.
Emily Short | May 21, 2010 9:58 AM