I like the fact that there's actually a difficulty curve in NV. F3 was fun, but it was a cakewalk once you got a couple levels under your belt and stopped running out of ammo constantly, even on Very Hard. And once you hit level 20? Forget it. Sneak up behind super mutant, behead with deathclaw gauntlet, rinse and repeat FOREVER. It got to the point where I'd leave my house with nothing but a Chinese pistol and some clothes just so the next quest I went on would actually be a bit of a challenge, at least until I got my hands on a decent weapon.
I actually could care less about difficulty in Fallout. I wish I didn't have to fight at all. I just want to see the stuff, and talk to all the people.
I actually could care less about difficulty in Fallout. I wish I didn't have to fight at all. I just want to see the stuff, and talk to all the people.
Yes!
I actually do want fighting, but I want interesting fighting, not the lame-ass level-based wars of attrition I end up engaged in all the time. Fallout combat < Borderlands combat < everything else good.
I actually do want fighting, but I want interesting fighting, not the lame-ass level-based wars of attrition I end up engaged in all the time. Fallout combat < Borderlands combat < everything else good.
I also want to do interesting fighting, but...not really in an RPG. I just want the fighting to practically disappear. Like, I love Street Fighter; I love Quake; but I don't want to do either of those in Fallout. I almost wish fighting was handled the way speech checks are, for instance. You run into some guys, and you want to fight them. If your "fight" skill is higher, you win -- if it's not, you lose. I understand that I'm an extreme minority in this opinion.
I actually do want fighting, but I want interesting fighting, not the lame-ass level-based wars of attrition I end up engaged in all the time. Fallout combat < Borderlands combat < everything else good.
You run into some guys, and you want to fight them. If your "fight" skill is higher, you win -- if it's not, you lose. I understand that I'm an extreme minority in this opinion.
So far I've only been putting points into stuff for VATS Accuracy and Damage, and Crit bonuses, and Gun Skill. I can just skip combat. (Press V + Click-Click = Game Over)
So far I've only been putting points into stuff for VATS Accuracy and Damage, and Crit bonuses, and Gun Skill. I can just skip combat. (Press V + Click-Click = Game Over)
I do more or less the same thing -- I seldom even fire a shot outside of VATS. So generally, I either completely slaughter everyone, or get raped by deathclaws in 2 seconds. Either way, combat is a foregone conclusion, and since it's not really fun anyway, I'd rather be able to just skip to the outcome. Maybe I could press a button, and it would just skip ahead, with a semi-random amount of ammo, HP and stimpacks removed.
So far I've only been putting points into stuff for VATS Accuracy and Damage, and Crit bonuses, and Gun Skill. I can just skip combat. (Press V + Click-Click = Game Over)
I do more or less the same thing -- I seldom even fire a shot outside of VATS. So generally, I either completely slaughter everyone, or get raped by deathclaws in 2 seconds. Either way, combat is a foregone conclusion, and since it's not really fun anyway, I'd rather be able to just skip to the outcome. Maybe I could press a button, and it would just skip ahead, with a semi-random amount of ammo, HP and stimpacks removed.
If a game mechanic is so stupid that it can be automated, the solution is not to automate it. The solution is to remove it.
Yeah, combat in F3 just got seriously tedious. I DO want combat in the game, but I want it to be a challenge.
I like the fights in New Vegas more, so far. Like I said, you can turn up the difficulty and it actually matters, and Hardcore Mode means that managing your ammo is actually important (albeit not THAT important since even with default strength you're a fucking mule and can run all day carrying 200 lbs) and you can't just stick 14 stimpacks into your neck and get shot all fucking day long. Oh, and limb damage and crippling actually suck if you're playing on Hardcore.
It seems like the only ways to make the fighting suck less are to either use VATS all the time, or not use it at all. Either elide the fights, or play 'em by hand. That said, it would be better if your skills really only had a mechanical effect - reduce bullet scatter and maybe help your crosshairs snap to target a little. I don't know exactly how it really works but I know I hit things I oughtn't to have hit sometimes.
I'd be totally down with combat more like Mass Effect 2, but maybe with even fewer hit points and fewer health-recovery options. Make it skill-based, fast, and brutal.
It occurs to me that I also tend to play Fallout sorta like Assassin's Creed or Thief and make things happen by sneaking around and making headshots from concealment, which is a lot more satisfying than standing toe-to-toe with a Deathclaw and using a crate of stimpacks to just exhaust the fucker.
Follow the Metroid model. No stats. It's all about equipment and player skill. Oh yeah, you start off really inaccurate, because you've got a musket. Good luck finding something better!
Follow the Metroid model. No stats. It's all about equipment and player skill. Oh yeah, you start off really inaccurate, because you've got a musket. Good luck finding something better!
So you don't think that having a Guns skill that makes your aim steadier - reduces the size of your shot grouping, say, not auto-aims - makes sense as a representation of the increasing skill of the character?
Also, saying that Metroid has "no stats" is a bit of a stretch. Energy tanks are a pickup, sure, but HP/energy doesn't count as a stat? You get it by finding it, not grinding, but even so.
Nah. Worst-case scenario is Scott states his personal narrow taste in games as objective fact, and I say, "Oh, we have different tastes but he has stated his as a fact," and we're done.
Best-case scenario is he says "That is a valid design strategy for a different type of game than the style I prefer" and we both nod and grimace in manful salute.
So you don't think that having a Guns skill that makes your aim steadier - reduces the size of your shot grouping, say, not auto-aims - makes sense as a representation of the increasing skill of the character?
It's not that it doesn't make sense metaphorically. It just also makes the game shittier and less fun.
I think that's actually a major problem games have these days. They put the story and metaphor as the first priority, and as a result the game itself ends up suffering.
Let me continue using my Metroid example. Super Metroid is a direct sequel to Metroid 2. What happened to Samus' weapons? She was fully loaded after Metriod 2. They don't even try to explain it. They just completely ignore it. Samus' starts out with the bare minimum at the beginning of Super Metroid. Why? Because that's what makes a better game.
How about a board game like Puerto Rico. You use the mayor to get "colonists" (slaves) to work in your plantations and buildings. Metaphorically it makes sense that you should have to pay these colonists for their work. Even if they are slaves, you should have to feed them. But that's not in the game. If it were, it would make the game pretty shitty. The theme services the game, not vice versa. That's why Puerto Rico is still #1 on board game geek.
For an example of doing it wrong, look at D&D; 3rd Edition. Technically you are supposed to keep track of how much weight your character is wearing and figure out their burden and all that. It makes sense, metaphorically. You shouldn't be able to carry that much and run around at full speed without getting tired. However, actually figuring all that shit out is boring, distracts from the part of the game you care about, and as a result almost nobody actually does it fully or properly, if at all.
It's not that it doesn't make sense metaphorically. It just also makes the game shittier and less fun.
"Oh, we have different tastes but he has stated his as a fact."
Actually, I agree completely in principle - you have to cut off the simulationism at some point in favor of good game design. All the older editions of D&D; are great examples of doing that wrong in a number of ways. I just don't agree in this particular case. Having your character's hand get steadier in a game that's meant to include character maturation and learning makes good sense to me as long as it's balanced by increased challenge. It doesn't make sense in a game where characters essentially stay the same all along but gain abstract power in the form of "levels" for no better reason than to make the numbers on the screen bigger (lookin' at you, JRPGs).
Having your character's hand get steadierin a game that's meant to include character maturation and learningmakes good sense to me as long as it's balanced by increased challenge.
They can do what I suggested earlier. Just don't give the player access to accurate weaponry. If it's based on equipment, as opposed to stats, then there is no grinding or other BS. Also, the skill of the player matters more than the time investment. Having a shaky hand to reduce the effect of actual aiming skill is a Harrison Bergeron move.
Follow the Metroid model. No stats. It's all about equipment and player skill.
That's my issue -- I don't even want a game like Fallout to be about "player skill". The parts of the game that are interesting to me aren't about player skill at all -- they're about what you decided to make your character good at, and the decisions you make in the game world. When I'm playing a game like Fallout, I don't want any part of it to be about physical player skill. That goes in a different part of my brain, and I like it, but in a different kind of game. To me, it doesn't make sense that I can talk my way through a situation in the game just by clicking my way through all the options that say "[speech 75]" next to them, but if I want to fight my way through a situation, I have to have some mouse skills. It could be argued that doing it the way I've been talking about makes it barely even a game, but I'm fine with that. I don't play RPGs to be challenged, I play them to explore the world, make choices, and see what happens.
I don't play RPGs to be challenged, I play them to explore the world, make choices, and see what happens.
And thus my problem with Fallout. The choices are limited and mostly meaningless or uninteresting. They're also widely dispersed among pointless and boring non-skilled combat.
Hence, I agree that Fallout would be more fun without the combat at all, OR with actual skill-based combat. As it stands, it's stuck in the middle.
That's my issue -- I don't even want a game like Fallout to be about "player skill". The parts of the game that are interesting to me aren't about player skill at all -- they're about what you decided to make your character good at, and the decisions you make in the game world. When I'm playing a game like Fallout, I don't want any part of it to be about physical player skill. That goes in a different part of my brain, and I like it, but in a different kind of game. To me, it doesn't make sense that I can talk my way through a situation in the game just by clicking my way through all the options that say "[speech 75]" next to them, but if I want to fight my way through a situation, I have to have some mouse skills. It could be argued that doing it the way I've been talking about makes it barely even a game, but I'm fine with that. I don't play RPGs to be challenged, I play them to explore the world, make choices, and see what happens.
That exists. It's called a choose your own adventure book.
That exists. It's called a choose your own adventure book.
Find me a choose your own adventure book that's as much fun as Fallout 2, and I'll totally read it.
The game you are asking for "make decisions, see what happens" is mechanically identical to choose your own adventure. The difference is that what you want has exponentially more variables and pages.
The game you are asking for "make decisions, see what happens" is mechanically identical to choose your own adventure. The difference is that what you want has exponentially more variables and pages.
The game you are asking for "make decisions, see what happens" is mechanically identical to choose your own adventure. The difference is that what you want has exponentially more variables and pages.
Burning Wheel is similar. Fallout's problem, as I noted above, is that the interesting decisions are way too far apart.
LD2: "Don't shoot the witch." comes up on the screen in big letters yet I constantly see people pause for a good while, then shoot anyway. Often the same person will be incappacitated, revived, and then go onto do the same thing again, sometimes several times.
I can use the GL and get through the whole Mill without going down once.
I'd like to see someone make a game where they include specific instructions telling you not to do things you take for granted but in this instance kill you. E.g. "Don't press the button.", "Go back the way you came.", "Don't collect this powerup.".
I've never really gotten into Kirby games, but Kirby's Epic Yarn is pretty darn awesome.
I've only played co-op a few times with Jeremy and mainly watched him play as I knit. The levels are challenging and adorable. I really like the whole craft theme of the game and how it translated into various parts of the game.
I asked the local Gamestop for their standee of the game so I can have the cute yarn Kirbies to hang up on the wall.
Comments
I punched the heads off of a lot of raiders.
I actually do want fighting, but I want interesting fighting, not the lame-ass level-based wars of attrition I end up engaged in all the time. Fallout combat < Borderlands combat < everything else good.
I like the fights in New Vegas more, so far. Like I said, you can turn up the difficulty and it actually matters, and Hardcore Mode means that managing your ammo is actually important (albeit not THAT important since even with default strength you're a fucking mule and can run all day carrying 200 lbs) and you can't just stick 14 stimpacks into your neck and get shot all fucking day long. Oh, and limb damage and crippling actually suck if you're playing on Hardcore.
It seems like the only ways to make the fighting suck less are to either use VATS all the time, or not use it at all. Either elide the fights, or play 'em by hand. That said, it would be better if your skills really only had a mechanical effect - reduce bullet scatter and maybe help your crosshairs snap to target a little. I don't know exactly how it really works but I know I hit things I oughtn't to have hit sometimes.
I'd be totally down with combat more like Mass Effect 2, but maybe with even fewer hit points and fewer health-recovery options. Make it skill-based, fast, and brutal.
It occurs to me that I also tend to play Fallout sorta like Assassin's Creed or Thief and make things happen by sneaking around and making headshots from concealment, which is a lot more satisfying than standing toe-to-toe with a Deathclaw and using a crate of stimpacks to just exhaust the fucker.
Follow the Metroid model. No stats. It's all about equipment and player skill. Oh yeah, you start off really inaccurate, because you've got a musket. Good luck finding something better!
Also, saying that Metroid has "no stats" is a bit of a stretch. Energy tanks are a pickup, sure, but HP/energy doesn't count as a stat? You get it by finding it, not grinding, but even so.
Best-case scenario is he says "That is a valid design strategy for a different type of game than the style I prefer" and we both nod and grimace in manful salute.
I think that's actually a major problem games have these days. They put the story and metaphor as the first priority, and as a result the game itself ends up suffering.
Let me continue using my Metroid example. Super Metroid is a direct sequel to Metroid 2. What happened to Samus' weapons? She was fully loaded after Metriod 2. They don't even try to explain it. They just completely ignore it. Samus' starts out with the bare minimum at the beginning of Super Metroid. Why? Because that's what makes a better game.
How about a board game like Puerto Rico. You use the mayor to get "colonists" (slaves) to work in your plantations and buildings. Metaphorically it makes sense that you should have to pay these colonists for their work. Even if they are slaves, you should have to feed them. But that's not in the game. If it were, it would make the game pretty shitty. The theme services the game, not vice versa. That's why Puerto Rico is still #1 on board game geek.
For an example of doing it wrong, look at D&D; 3rd Edition. Technically you are supposed to keep track of how much weight your character is wearing and figure out their burden and all that. It makes sense, metaphorically. You shouldn't be able to carry that much and run around at full speed without getting tired. However, actually figuring all that shit out is boring, distracts from the part of the game you care about, and as a result almost nobody actually does it fully or properly, if at all.
Actually, I agree completely in principle - you have to cut off the simulationism at some point in favor of good game design. All the older editions of D&D; are great examples of doing that wrong in a number of ways. I just don't agree in this particular case. Having your character's hand get steadier in a game that's meant to include character maturation and learning makes good sense to me as long as it's balanced by increased challenge. It doesn't make sense in a game where characters essentially stay the same all along but gain abstract power in the form of "levels" for no better reason than to make the numbers on the screen bigger (lookin' at you, JRPGs).
Hence, I agree that Fallout would be more fun without the combat at all, OR with actual skill-based combat. As it stands, it's stuck in the middle.
To summarize, I would play the shit out of this.
I can use the GL and get through the whole Mill without going down once.
I'd like to see someone make a game where they include specific instructions telling you not to do things you take for granted but in this instance kill you. E.g. "Don't press the button.", "Go back the way you came.", "Don't collect this powerup.".
I've only played co-op a few times with Jeremy and mainly watched him play as I knit. The levels are challenging and adorable. I really like the whole craft theme of the game and how it translated into various parts of the game.
I asked the local Gamestop for their standee of the game so I can have the cute yarn Kirbies to hang up on the wall.
Learning to quicksave again..