Forum:Fallout 3 world objects categorization discussion

From The Vault - Fallout Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Index > Wiki discussion > Fallout 3 world objects categorization discussion
 
Gametitle-Wiki.png
Gametitle-Wiki.png

I've been going through the Fallout 3 world objects category, and I have some ideas for organization. What would you think of...

  • Main category: Fallout 3 world objects
    • Subcategory: Fallout 3 interactable world objects (Objects in each child category could be merged into an overview page.)
      • Child category: Fallout 3 containers and storage
      • Child category: Fallout 3 grabable world objects
      • Child category: Fallout 3 drinking source world objects
      • Child category: Fallout 3 sittable world objects
    • Subcategory: Fallout 3 static world objects (This would contain one page: Fallout 3 and New Vegas miscellaneous world objects.)

The only pages I believe that this schema leaves sitting loose in the interactable subcategory are Workbench, Wonder Meat Maker, Eat'o'tronic 3000 (not a container in the same sense as all the rest), and Bobblehead Collector's Stand. I can't quite figure out an appropriate child category for these four. --Gothemasticator 02:30, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Alternate and probably simpler suggestion:

  • Main category: Fallout 3 world objects

This second schema would leave items like Fire Hydrant (world object) in the category: interactable objects, while an item like Chair would have to be double-categorized as interactable and static, since some are sittable and some aren't. --Gothemasticator 05:25, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Both provide the basic sub-groupings providing a primary delineation between interactable and static objects, which is a good start. A possible solution with the first option if there is a desire to be inclusive with sub-categorization would be a child category of Fallout 3 miscellaneous world objects (or miscellaneous interactable world objects). I do like clean, simple and elegant, so am partial to the second option, although also like the first due to its more descriptive groupings, admittedly with some seemingly awkward terminology :p   phoenix  txt  xp  08:53, March 21, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah. What's a better word for interactable, which is pretty terrible? Interactive won't work. Grabable would only work because the mechanic is called grab. I'm open to suggestions from a more refined vocabulary.--Gothemasticator 09:09, March 21, 2010 (UTC)
Interactable is fine, even though it does look somewhat similar to intractable. How to verbalise "Something you can pick up, move, or interact with, but which cannot be added to your inventory" in one word???? lol. Grabable and Sittable are what I would consider to be the "awkward" ones, but do sum their properties up simply. After all, we need to strike a balance, and don't want something so technical that people have no idea what we are referring to. Could you imagine Fallout 3 kathisia world objects?? :D   phoenix  txt  xp  10:19, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Generally, I agree with the idea of a more systematic approach for world object pages. I'm not sure whether we really need all these subcategories though; I think world object pages should all be merged into a couple of overview pages, and categories with a single page in them seems a bit like overkill to me :) I was thinking something along the lines of:

  • Fallout 3 containers and storage
  • Fallout 3 furniture (indoor static objects: chairs, tables, lamps etc)
  • Fallout 3 movable world objects (e.g. baby carriages, brooms)
  • Fallout 3 scenery objects (outdoor static objects: street lamps, street lights etc)
  • Fallout 3 traps
  • Fallout 3 usable world objects (stuff like terminals, the Wonder Meat Maker or fire hydrants)

What do you think? On a sidenote I'm also not that fond of combining FNV and FO3 pages/categories into one. While there certainly will be some overlap, FNV will have world objects which do not exist in FO3 and the FNV designers will likely delete some unneeded FO3 stuff (if only to speed up loading times). In addition, we can't be sure the object IDs (for example) will be the same in FNV. -- Porter21 (talk) 12:20, April 13, 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Ausir(talk) 23:41, April 13, 2010 (UTC)