Basically, would you prefer a game with a very,very good story and terminal notes etc but more glitchy and not as good gameplay or vice versa? Personally, I prefer lore- it answers a lot of questions and adds a sense of depth to the game when you hear about different characters from the war-now.

Oh, and if this counts as suggestions or ideas, then fair enough, but Im not intending that:D

I don't get what you are getting at with this topic?

Why can't we have alot of information and good game play? Why does it have to be one or the other?

I was thinking something else entirely different than what the title suggested.

Anyways, this isn't one of those things that should be either or. Both should be equal in priority, and both should be as fleshed out as possible.

Lore shouldn't be that hard to do. That is research and preparation. As far as I'm concerned, all of that stuff should be done before they start coding it.

Because writters cost money and the implementation of lore sometimes requres a crapload of programming if its even possible to implement it. Its rare that we have both in any games as most studios prioritize. And in this day and age of attenion deficit pixel hunters who buy 8 games plus a year on console, its usually "streamlining" of storyline and "innovative gaming" that wins out.

This is the thing though, good writing doesn't cost any more or less then bad writing. How much money is spent on the story won't affect how good it is. What matters is who you get, not how many you get.

There is plenty of proof that you don't need to spend lots of money to have both a great story and fun gameplay; there are loads of indie games made by very few people, for very little money on their home computers that prove this. There doesn't have to be a compromise.

I came here expecting something about PA.

And I see no reason why we can't have a great story with great gameplay.
NV is proof of that.

This. The fact that NV's story is better than 3's isn't because of money. If anything, Bethesda probably paid more money and definitely spent more time on the game. Obsidian simply has better story-writers (a.k.a Chris Avellone and his team).

As people have said, NV is a great example of a game that exelled in both. I would prefer that future games do the same.

NV is great... no doubt, but its a rare, if not unique gaming experience. Games like that do not come often. And even NV has issues.

The following is courtesy of Fallout 3's lead developer, Emil Pagliarulo whom clearly indicates Bethedsa's take on the subject.

"All of the followers were implemented into the game fairly late in development, after the main story had already been nailed down. So, you know, we had the scene at the end of the game, with deadly radiation, and never really compensated for the fact that you could have a Supermutant, or Ghoul, or robot, who could possibly turn the purifier on for you. We'd only ever planned for you sending Sarah Lyons into the purifier, because we knew, from a story standpoint, that she'd definitely be in there with you.

What we could do -- and what we did ultimately do -- is cover that stuff in dialogue. You can ask those followers to go into the purifier, and they'll tell you why they won't. We felt that fit with their personalities, but really, they didn't "sell" that to the player in a single line of dialogue. So, in the end, the player's left with a, "Huh, why the hell can't they do it?!" sort of feeling.

So the story does kind of break down. But you know what? We knew that, and were OK with it, because the trade-off is, well, you get these cool followers to join you. You meet up with Fawkes near the end of the game, and it's true you can go right with him to the purifier. So we could've not had him there as a follower, and that would've solved the problem of him not going into the purifier -- because, at that point in development, that was the only fix we had time for. But we kept it, and players got him as a follower, and they seem to love adventuring him with. Gameplay trumped story, in that example -- as I believe it should have.

So if we'd planned better, we could've addressed that more satisfactorily. But considering how it all went down, I feel good about the decision we made there."

In-addition to the obvious, if you knew that players thought it was [censored] and they weren't convinced... why do you "feel good" about the decision you made when it was clearly insufficient and was entirely recognisable as the cop-out that it was?

So they're trying to disguise the immersion cracking mistake they made, after four years(iirc) of game development, as a contest between gameplay and story?

Yup, and that was the best that they could come up with. Giving the characters some dialouge that they knew nobody would really buy; especially the Mister Gutsy that juts obeys orders.

Gameplay is more important to me than lore, if the lore is good, though, I consider that icing on the cake, but it's not super important.

We are OK with it because you get cool followers!

Oh god! Idontwannaliveonthisplanetanymore.exe

They could've at least done a special encounter zone with a bunch of enclave that ends up blocking everyone but Sarah Lyons and the player from the control room.

Indeed. That seems obvious. They wouldn't have had to have the voice actors do more lines either; just a textbox like you were entering Caesar's Tent.

That quote right there is why I don't trust Bethesda with Fallout, it's a damn shame.

I think they should've made it so as soon as you got to the Purifier itself (as in right outside the door) five or six veritbirds show up in a cutscene and all of the people from Lyons' Pride still with you, along with any of your followers tells you and Sarah that they'll hold them. You're then put through the loading screen into Project Purity and you are not allowed to leave the building.

It'd also make the fight against Autumn and his two guards a little more difficult. You have to rely on yourself and Sarah as opposed to yourself, Sarah, and a companion (specifically Fawkes, the game breaking overpowered mutant of death).

That would give the ending a little more logic (there's still the matter of why the Lone Wanderer didn't tell Elder Lyons that the Enclave want to give the water to the wastelanders as well (under Autumn)).

Because God-dammit it was Mom and Dad's dream for water to be free! And if you don't sacrifice your life for your father's work and the world you were thrust into some months back your a bastard.

Sadly this is Bethesda in a nutshell....
But at the end of the day developers would rather appeal to the masses of casual gamers than to the people who actually don't instantaneously skip all dialogue and care about the lore .

Jesus, the OP posts a thread about which would you rather see devs put more emphasis on, and you guys turn it into another Fallout 3 bashing forum. You don't like the game, we get it. Let's stop beating a dead horse and go back to the original topic at hand...

I prefer a more emphasis on Lore. I can really get into a game with great lore and story, even if it has lacking gameplay.

And I provided a quote from a senior developer which makes Bethesdas opinions on thr issue vrry much clear; gameplay came willfully and knowingly at the expense of the entire game ending and sacrifice motif. If anything its made this thread a moot point.

And I provided a quote from a senior developer which makes Bethesdas opinions on thr issue vrry much clear; gameplay came willfully and knowingly at the expense of the entire game ending and sacrifice motif. If anything its made this thread a moot point.

No, it makes nothing moot. The OP is asking for the opinions of others in this community whether they prefer lore or gameplay, trying to see other viewpoints and start a discussion. He isn't asking what the devs prefer or plan on doing, he's asking YOU whether YOU prefer lore or gameplay.