This is a really strange week. Outside of straightforward platforming fare like Kirby's Epic Yarn, a gamer can choose not one, but two gigantic, open-world games noted for both their ambition in telling myriad far-reaching stories and for having a number of technical and storytelling limitations, some created by the limitations necessarily put on videogames in general, and some having to do with the inability to solve the problems raised by the ambitious concepts put in place. These two games are, of course, Fallout: New Vegas and Fable III.
This, of course, is not a new debate. New Vegas is built upon a reputable franchise that started out as something equally ambitious as its eventual 3D counterparts, but the structure of a 2D isometric turn-based PC RPG were pretty much in place well before the first Fallout ever came out. That is to say that the game's technical framework was pretty well-equipped to handle a well-written RPG with many variables and outcomes. The "ambition vs. execution" debate really doesn't start with the Fallout series, then, so much as it does with Bethesda's other major franchise, the Elder Scrolls series.
Starting all the way back on DOS computers, the Elder Scrolls games are noted for their wild ambition to create a living, breathing world that allows the player the ultimate freedom to pretty much do whatever the hell s/he wants to. This creates a swirling morass of choices and options, and when any of these games break down (as they are wont to do), it's accepted as a result of the ambition of the developers. Perhaps they don't have a solution to every problem that can arise, but at least they're trying, right?
This concept has come back into the spotlight quite fully with the release of New Vegas, which, like its predecessor (Fallout 3), is really built on the framework of those Elder Scrolls games. Beyond sharing the same game engine as Oblivion, these are massive 3D RPGs that are prone to breaking down in strange and occasionally hilarious ways. There's everything from simple issues such as characters disappearing or conversation trees not showing up, to more bizarre things like the now-infamous spinning head issue.
It's been about fifteen years since I first played the game Daggerfall on my PC, but it seems to me that even with the advent of increasingly sophisticated technology, there's still not too many great solutions to the problems that developers of games with such far-reaching rule sets seem to have. New Vegas has already been subject to patches to solve a lot of the most glaring issues, but this kind of "release and patch later" mentality seems to drive gamers (on the internet, at least) bonkers. The old mentality of a console developer like Nintendo, for example, has to go right out the window for these types of games, almost out of necessity. Matching ambition in a game like New Vegas* with technical prowess is perhaps a luxury saved for some distant time in the future.
Reviews of New Vegas have focused on this debate between "product vs. experience" mentality, with most reviewers claiming that they review based on the emotional connection that the game makes rather than a bullet-point list of a game's features, and the score reflecting the game's ability to successfully implement those features. While I'd say that despite what reviewers say, this is exactly what they do, by and large, it does raise some interesting questions for the interested observer. Namely, what emphasis do we place on polish and execution, and what balance does a game need to strike to match ambition with execution?
This makes the other game that was released this week, Fable III, an interesting case study. While I won't comment on the mechanics of the game itself (having never played it), I have gathered that it's quite similar to Fable II, which I have played. Outside of the fact that Lionhead Studios and Peter Molyneux are prone to overselling and under-delivering, the Fable series has been a group of games interested in pushing the boundaries of game design and storytelling, and in my experience, doing a royally shitty job at it.
The idea of currying people's favour towards your cause, finding a mate and marrying him/her, spending time with your canine companion, and leading a monarchical revolution, all sounds quite appealing to me on paper. These are indeed ambitious concepts for a videogame, the kind of stuff that your average game doesn't even bother with. But the fact remains that either Lionhead is crippled by the limitations of videogame conventions, or they are incredibly un-clever people who have no idea what to do with their ideas. Farting and burping should not be a primary mode of communication in any game.
In my view, then, New Vegas reaches a critical point where its ambition overshadows any niggling issues with the game's ability to handle its ambition (and to be fair, New Vegas often resorts to using exceptionally well-written conversation trees, an old RPG staple that's handled more aptly here than I've seen since… well, Fallout 2, probably), whereas Fable III does not, and becomes all the more frustrating for it. That being said, there's something about ambitious concepts, even when failed, that are necessary for the industry to move forward.
Obviously, the answer here is that games that correctly balance these two ideas are the ones that end up being certifiable classics; games like Super Mario Galaxy, Ocarina of Time, Chrono Trigger and Grim Fandango. It's perhaps a bit of a mysterious elixir, to know exactly how far to push your concepts and still retain the utmost execution possible, and it seems to be something possessed by only a very select group of developers. But I still have to salute companies like Bethesda. Even though they're perhaps pushing too far, one has to credit the fact that they're making some seriously compelling games despite all of their problems.
* I haven't played Fallout 3. What? That's right. I know it's supposed to be one of the best games of the decade, and it is a part of one of my favourite series of all time, but there it is. That's probably why I'm so impressed with New Vegas so far, because from everything I've read, New Vegas doesn't really change the mold set out by Fallout 3… at all. When I talk about New Vegas' ambition, I mean this in the face of most other games being released, and also in its general concepts that were executed, apparently, in very much the same fashion as Fallout 3. So… innovative in the grand scheme of things, but not as completely ambitious as Fallout 3's transition from 2D to 3D was.**
** And also, isn't it always the case that a transition from 2D to 3D gets read as being super ambitious? I mentioned Ocarina of Time before, which I'm pretty sure is my favourite game of all time, but there's no getting around the fact that it's essentially A Link to the Past in 3D. They obviously executed it very well and had a bunch of revolutionary ideas, but… well, there you have it I guess.