I think he means factions who form the main quest by offering the player a questline that leads them to the finale, like in NV. Obviously you could argue that Khans and Shady Sands are "factions" in Fo1, or that guilds are "factions" in TES games, or that EotB has "factions" in the sense that the Dwarves are fighting the Drow, but they don't work the same way as the big centrepiece faction quests in more recent games.
In the original Fallout, allying yourself with the Brotherhood of Steel faction means they will send some paladins to help you clean the Military Base and Cathedral out if you ask. Not the best of ideas if you intended to explore those areas non-violently, but it's something that affects the endgame.
This kind of depends on the writing itself. It's always kind of silly when you present the player with a world ending threat as well as fairly powerful factions in the game that the player can join and side with, and then those factions all seem to fuck off near the end when the player faces the world ending threat. If you're going to toss those two things together in the same game, you're going to have to do some masterful writing to explain why those factions have no interest in saving themselves, because they're part of the same world that's going to get ended if the player fails.
They stay outside, which is kind of weird, but we're dealing with late 1990s scripting. If they do go inside Mariposa, I've never seen it happen and eventually I stopped asking in play throughs.
It's a design choice. Fallout Fixt allows them to follow you into Mariposa, and they will block you from leaving the elevator due to the narrow doorway. So the devs just didn't allow them to follow you down there instead of coding a "get out of the way feature", which they did add in Fallout 2.
Yeah, this is the issue. I think New Vegas handled it well but you still get the feeling that nobody except you is really proactively doing anything, and whoever you pick is guaranteed to win as they're blssed with having the most important person in the universe on their side. People in the world do at least mention how they're preparing to take over the Strip but when it comes down to it, nobody can do anything without the player. It's even more odd in a game with so many sidequests because the entire conflict will pause until the player does something to activate it, with both sides in stasis until the player's ready.
That's the thing that I don't quite get about modern CRPGs. Mount & Blade was released in 2008. A huge chunk of fantasy media involves fairly decent sized battles. Yet, there's never really been a successful marriage of the two. You can still have your player power fantasy story, but when you're doing faction quests, you're typically not only building your reputation but you're also building up that faction. New Vegas' fight at the Hoover Dam was pretty close to it, though, but it still feels somewhat scripted.
Yes - that would make sense. Running a kingdom, go on quests in a map like BG1 - maybe a much fancier version of Birthright: Gorgon's Alliance but more focus on main char development, and not the Crusader Kingdoms level of ... wait a second... that could be something.
yo i feel i feel, gonna be slizzy on that glizzy nah mean fo sho most def
Is it a Zoomer or a Soylennial thing to use these type of terms non-stop
Pathfinder kingmaker had timed quests so the bad guys won if you took too long, but nearly everyone got super mad when they took 3000 days to do anything and something bad happened and immediately wrote a bad review or modded it out.
