[Multiplatform] Fallout 3 - Guns with Oblivion

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

Brady, I'm actually curious about what gameplay elements you're going to be missing about some of the older games. Are you talking about games in style similar to Baulder's Gate?

In a sense, yes, though I also think Baldur's Gate was awful for forcing a party mechanic with real-time combat.

What I'm definitely going to miss most is the turn based combat. A lot of people didn't like it and that's fine, but shooters aren't a challenge for me and it certainly won't be with a pause-targeting system. Turn-based combat always has that element of tension that I mentioned before, and I enjoy playing with a system that allows me to set my own pace in an RPG.

Then again, this is the only gameplay aspect that we know is different. Maybe everything else is making up for it, but so far it doesn't look like they're doing the setting any kind of justice.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Bradylama

but shooters aren't a challenge for me

Elaborate, please.

I was speaking idiomatically.

First person shooters are a fairly tried-and-true gameplay mechanic that generally operates within the same bounds every time. I've got the reflexes and the resourcefulness to hold my own in most of these games. I'd probably have a hard(er) time in Call of Cthulhu if I wasn't adept at making headshots with the revolver. This is why when it comes to an FPS I prefer games like the original Rainbow Sixes or Armed Assault, which are more simulationist and a single hit will fuck up your day.

Now, most turn-based games aren't simulationist, but they do provide a challenge and a sense of tension, especially in games like Fallout where a single critical hit will drop you down from full health to zilch.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

I... wait. Something's NOT A CHALLENGE, so you want to make it more challenging by... slowing it down so you have an infinite period of time in which to make decisions?

FELIPE NO

Yes. That's more of a challenge than playing a game where I'm in full control, because there's always a chance that something or somebody will fuck up your shit, be it geckos or super mutants wielding rocket launchers.

It's hard to strafe in turns. =\/

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

The solution to strafing is just to implement a system where you stumble like a retard if you keep running to the side while looking forward, because c'mon

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

First person shooters are a fairly tried-and-true gameplay mechanic that generally operates within the same bounds every time. I've got the reflexes and the resourcefulness to hold my own in most of these games. I'd probably have a hard(er) time in Call of Cthulhu if I wasn't adept at making headshots with the revolver. This is why when it comes to an FPS I prefer games like the original Rainbow Sixes or Armed Assault, which are more simulationist and a single hit will fuck up your day.

Now, most turn-based games aren't simulationist, but they do provide a challenge and a sense of tension, especially in games like Fallout where a single critical hit will drop you down from full health to zilch.

*see Pang's original response*

Real-Time, reflex challenging... versus turn based. I don't find RPGs challenging because while most sections of action based games require at least some semblance of memorization and then on the fly execution, RPGs tend to just fail based off memorization, because there's very little to penalize on execution due to the fact they're so susceptible to "prep time."

I suppose this is why actual Pen and Paper is better than video game attempts at replicating this. But seriously dude, I'm at a loss here... you should be ashamed.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Quote:

because there's very little to penalize on execution due to the fact they're so susceptible to "prep time."

What?

I'm honestly not sure what you're getting at. Execution can still be heavily penalized because all enemies present a certain amount of danger. Rushing into a situation ill-prepared for it can have disasterous consequences.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Rushing into a situation ill-prepared for it can have disasterous consequences.

I'm saying that Turn-Based kills what one might consider "challenge." Rushing in anything usually has disastrous consequences.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Alright, so let's review. I don't think shooters are challenging because I'm good at them. I do think turn-based games are challenging because there's a constant danger that anything can kill you, regardless of how much you've memorized.

Is there a problem with this reasoning?

I was speaking idiomatically.

I would say the fact that "something can kill you in spite of memorization even when you're skilled" applies to other games in other genres, including FPS. That's about the only issue I have with it.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

You're right, it does apply, but it's not as much of a variable. Over the course of a normal FPS game, you can effectively determine how much damage you'll take in any exchange. In a game like Fallout the amount of damage received in an exchange is indeterminable. You could get hit multiple times for 5 hitpoints or you can get hit a few times in crits. The point is that the rules of the gameworld apply to all actors, where an equal amount of damage inflicted on a normal enemy in an FPS would barely put a scratch on the player character. FPSes which do model damage from a bullet with high danger are the exceptions to the rule, and are targeted to a different audience.

FELIPE NO

I tend to enjoy a balance. I remember how fun (not fun) Halo 2 was when the shoe was on the other foot in Legendary mode. The computer kills you in a burst, and a volley of gunfire won't stop the computer from maiming you in seconds, all the while Elites have shields that will recover with time. Usually the time you're taking to attempt and recover.

I still believe challenge is relative, and the thing about RPGs (that you were getting at) is that you're still technically "rolling the dice." I'm not sure I consider it a challenge, though the mechanic would probably be a thrill in some other lifetime for me.

I can agree to disagree in that we find excitement from entirely different variables. I like the illusion that my skill can get me out of any spot. Ninja Gaiden was a good example, until I realized that a great chunk of the move list in that game became impractical.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Bradylama

You're right, it does apply, but it's not as much of a variable. Over the course of a normal FPS game, you can effectively determine how much damage you'll take in any exchange. In a game like Fallout the amount of damage received in an exchange is indeterminable. You could get hit multiple times for 5 hitpoints or you can get hit a few times in crits. The point is that the rules of the gameworld apply to all actors, where an equal amount of damage inflicted on a normal enemy in an FPS would barely put a scratch on the player character. FPSes which do model damage from a bullet with high danger are the exceptions to the rule, and are targeted to a different audience.

Why not do some sort of randomized damage system for a FPS as well? Put in bullet randomization as well as little numbers that pop up each time you shoot an enemy that aren't necessarily the same every time. What's so hard about adding random critical hits to a FPS game?

Most amazing jew boots

Because it ruins the appeal of being in control. If you've got a system where numbers keep rolling up zero even though you're hitting dead on people are gonna bitch about it.

Granted, this was how the combat operated in Vampire, but the problem with Vampire's combat is that it sucks. (like it did in general really)

It sure was intimidating watching those zeros scroll up on the werewolf though. =\/

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Brady, have you played any of the Elder Scrolls games?
Those are all first person RPGs and they all do a pretty good job in terms of combat and threats to the player.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

Why not do some sort of randomized damage system for a FPS as well? Put in bullet randomization as well as little numbers that pop up each time you shoot an enemy that aren't necessarily the same every time. What's so hard about adding random critical hits to a FPS game?

Critical hits were done in Shogo: Mobile Armor Division. Unfortunately, the enemy had critical hits as well... thinking on it, I think Brady might find the challenge in FPS games he's looking for in that particular game.

And Brady has played games in Elder Scrolls series. It's why he's so critical of them.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Matt

Brady, have you played any of the Elder Scrolls games?
Those are all first person RPGs and they all do a pretty good job in terms of combat and threats to the player.

I liked the combat in Morrowind, but "people" that posted on the ESF boards bitched about hit rolls. "If I shoot at it it should hit!" was the sentiment, even among reviewers. Out of all of them, Oblivion is definitely the most shooter like, since the only thing your PC skill impacts is damage (though it seems, not by much).

Quote:

Critical hits were done in Shogo: Mobile Armor Division. Unfortunately, the enemy had critical hits as well... thinking on it, I think Brady might find the challenge in FPS games he's looking for in that particular game.

Shogo is fuckin' solid. I don't recall how critical hits worked, though. In fact I don't even recall there being critical hits. =/

I was speaking idiomatically.

Your memory is failing you, "Critical Hit!" usually popped up on the hud and trippy colors flashed whenever you delivered one on the opponent. You didn't notice an occasional massive health drop if enemies hit you, Brady? It's pretty much why most people loathe playing the non-MCA levels. Everything you describe RPG wise was present here. Yes, you could easily kill an opponent, but any shot could leave you crippled or dead health wise.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Well, all I really remember of Shogo are the MCA levels, so that likely explains it.

Regardless, there's more to a turn-based experience than critical hits. "Critical hits" in an FPS are going to be annoying because the appeal of an FPS is supposed to be an actioney type experience where the player is placed in the control and perspective of the player. The exceptions to this are the simulationist FPSes like RB6 and ArmA, but these aren't marketed to the mainstream like Fallout 3 presumably will be.

A lot of the appeal is also purist. A turn-based system separates the player from the player character, so that the player only directs the actions of the PC instead of having the player act as the PC. It better allows the player to make in-character decisions and determine the best possible approach.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Bradylama

It better allows the player to make in-character decisions and determine the best possible approach.

Again, I have to disagree. Uh, to point out on the Shogo element. I realize that there might be more to the system and mechanics involved, but the feeling of "challenge" and "danger" you described is basically executed in real time with Shogo's system. It only popped in my head when I was thinking about enemies that could just drop you out of nowhere. That or I would have brought up the fact that if anything so much as sneezes on you in a shoot em up, you're done. But, it wasn't in the first person genre.

I'm not a fan of ultra-realism. It isn't unreasonable to say that a balance between difficulty and non-asinine game mechanics can be achieved. I'm not a slouch at FPS, though we obviously see things differently.

I think as far as engrossing the player, I don't like feeling detached at any point. What you described sounds like a preference rather than anything I would go around telling anyone. With a game like Thief, where you're forced to use your wits and tools at hand, there's always a sense of tension that you could be seen, you could get yourself seen.

When the game stops, the way Turn Based does so often, the immersion ceases. Why the hell would I want to be separated from the Player Character. The player character is supposed to be me. I don't feel that stopping time helps me better enjoy the game, perhaps think about my decisions maybe... but I'm not looking to be thrown out of the loop. Challenging players to make their actions on the spot, make their decisions on the spot. Yes, it causes spontaneity, but it feels genuine that way.

Life doesn't feature Turn Based mechanics. I realize this isn't the idea behind certain RPG styles, though I'm more than willing to argue for progression.

Dialogue trees, turn based combat... I don't believe in these mechanics. I don't feel they can immerse the player the way an active system can. I feel that "in-character" decisions can be conveyed through mechanics that don't involve preset paths or stopping time.

I know that right now, we haven't quite reached that level of gameplay execution. But I'm highly anticipating Bioshock because of the ideas behind this.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Quote:

With a game like Thief, where you're forced to use your wits and tools at hand, there's always a sense of tension that you could be seen, you could get yourself seen.

The reason that tension exists is because the guards would fuck you up, and were harder to kill once they spotted Garret.

Quote:

When the game stops, the way Turn Based does so often, the immersion ceases.

Immersion isn't the purpose of a turn-based system, which is part of why I like it so much.

Quote:

Dialogue trees, turn based combat... I don't believe in these mechanics.

Haha, that's fine, but this isn't a religion, we just have different opinions regarding how roleplaying should be. I don't roleplay by pretending that I am the player character and you do, that's great. We're just going to have to agree to disagree.

Quote:

I know that right now, we haven't quite reached that level of gameplay execution. But I'm highly anticipating Bioshock because of the ideas behind this.

I remember I was anticipating Bioshock because of the prospect of NPC interaction and a breathing gameworld until it was revealed that, oh hey everything plays out in levels and gameplay is actually samey half-life type action with splicers that can produce a seemingly endless amount of grenades.

If nothing else I'll play the game for the story and setting, but not for the roleplaying that they act like it will have.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

The reason that tension exists is because the guards would fuck you up, and were harder to kill once they spotted Garret.

Was rolling with the whole "active challenge thing", but you're right.

Quote:

Immersion isn't the purpose of a turn-based system, which is part of why I like it so much.

I figured I was missing the point.

Quote:

Haha, that's fine, but this isn't a religion, we just have different opinions regarding how roleplaying should be. I don't roleplay by pretending that I am the player character and you do, that's great. We're just going to have to agree to disagree.

I love games, but definitely. Still, I have no problem with acquiring knowledge.

Quote:

*Bioshock stuff*

I've been trying not to overhype myself about the game, it's just been awhile since I've had a game of that nature that I actually felt was going to be worth a shit. I want to see what Levine was trying to sell everyone on when he was talking about emergent gameplay.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

I just think it's funny that Objectivists are trolling the Bioshock boards griping about how unreasonable it is that a closed (objectivist) society fails.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

A lot of the appeal is also purist. A turn-based system separates the player from the player character, so that the player only directs the actions of the PC instead of having the player act as the PC. It better allows the player to make in-character decisions and determine the best possible approach.

By having a top-down viewpoint and not seeing things exactly as the character would see them, isn't it then less of an in-character decision? More fragile builds will have to be careful and take greater care in which enemies they engage against, while stronger builds made more for combat can just charge right into a room without worrying what might burst in from the shadowy window.

Also, this Shogo game you guys are talking about sounds kinda interesting. With the preferences I've been mentioning of my own in this thread do you guys think it would be worth me getting?

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?