Fallout 3: New screenshots from OXM US

[Asknoone]

Being dumbed down was the least of Bioshock's problems. Repetitive gameplay and the lack of enough interesting elements to shake up the tedium at the midway point is way higher on the list. Being easy is also no bad thing.

Turn based combat can easily be done in an accessible and easy way. It's a myth that only real-time sells.

All right, but what about the people who buy the turn-based combat game and then turn it off long before the end? Not seeing it through until finish? A lot.

 

[Tagaziel]

Being dumbed down was the least of Bioshock's problems. Repetitive gameplay and the lack of enough interesting elements to shake up the tedium at the midway point is way higher on the list. Being easy is also no bad thing.

Dude. Just, dude. What kind of a game is a game without any sort of challenge?

All right, but what about the people who buy the turn-based combat game and then turn it off long before the end? Not seeing it through until finish? A lot.

If they do that, there's something wrong with the game, and it isn't turn based combat.

 

[Asknoone]

Dude. Just, dude. What kind of a game is a game without any sort of challenge?

Where did I say it wasn't? I said "easy" was no bad thing - don't take that the wrong way. That doesn't mean I think all games should be a breeze, but difficulty should be heavily moderated. Frustrating, hair-pulling difficulty that exists for no other reason than to piss you off has no place in todays gaming. Players should not be constantly dying and restarting.

Challenge, yes. But after 3 or more deaths most players call it a day and don't go back.

If they do that, there's something wrong with the game, and it isn't turn based combat.

I think you're mistaken and that is one big sweeping generalisation.

 

[Tagaziel]

Where did I say it wasn't? I said "easy" was no bad thing - dont' take that the wrong way. That doesn't mean I think all games should be a breeze, but difficulty should be heavily moderated. Frustrating, hair-pulling difficulty that exists for no other reason than to piss you off has no place in todays gaming. Players should not be constantly dying and restarting.

Challenge, yes. But after 3 or more deaths most players call it a day and don't go back.

It ain't easy then. It's called moderate.

I think you're mistaken and that is one big sweeping generalisation.

Then prove that turn-based gaming is bad.

Real-time combat usually equals twitch gaming, and that is very bad, as most players do not have the agility of a meth-stimmed monkey.

 

[Asknoone]

Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying real-time combat is the be all and end all.

 

[Tagaziel]

Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying real-time combat is the be all and end all.

Then say it all, don't use just one-liners, Sammy, please.

 

[KagePrototype]

So basically rip out important gameplay mechanics (random encounters and turn based combat)? The latter isn't even tedious, as long as you don't try to get into massive battles, like hitting a random townsman intentionally or picking a fight in the Cathedral or the Mariposa.

You wouldn't have to rip them out, just improve on them so they're not so tedious. Fallout's a good game, but like I said there are problems you have to trundle through (the combat, the UI) to get to the meat (the story, the characters, the setting).

Real time combat is also a devolution, as it doesn't allow for any complex situations or AI intricacies

I would say this is a moot point, since the player has to be make decisions more rapidly in a real-time situation compared to a turn-based scenario. Both can be equally exciting in their own ways, I think it just comes down to personal preference in the end.

 

[Tagaziel]

You wouldn't have to rip them out, just improve on them so they're not so tedious. Fallout's a good game, but like I said there are problems you have to trundle through (the combat, the UI) to get to the meat (the story, the characters, the setting).

Agreed, the UI could use a few more tooltips, but generally it is pretty intuitive. As for the combat... it can be made faster, since there is a slider that controls it's speed in the options.

I would say this is a moot point, since the player has to be make decisions more rapidly in a real-time situation compared to a turn-based scenario. Both can be equally exciting in their own ways, I think it just comes down to personal preference in the end.

Yeah, but it is TB that gives more processing power to individual enemies rather than RT, which is forced to distribute the processing power.

 

[Kadayi]

The great problem with the whole fallout 3 thing for me is that the original games were of their time in terms of how you interacted with it and how the game responded to you, as well as the visual nature of the game. In turn based isometric with pixel based characters it makes sense to have over sized beasties, guys in hulking great big suits of power armour, and 10 ft tall green mutants, because the look suited the medium of the game. Translating all of that isometric kitsch directly into into a 3D engine doesn't make that much sense imho. I'm not saying the game should be stalker gritty, but I can't help think of the teaser for Rage that ID showcased last year:-

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/23175.html

and not feel this is the sort of thing I'd rather they went for.

 

[KagePrototype]

Agreed, the UI could use a few more tooltips, but generally it is pretty intuitive. As for the combat... it can be made faster, since there is a slider that controls it's speed in the options.

It's not even the lack of tooltips; it's just a cluttered, unfocused mess.

Yeah, but it is TB that gives more processing power to individual enemies rather than RT, which is forced to distribute the processing power.

But this doesn't make turn-based a superior form of gameplay by default. My point is that just because each enemy gets less processing cycles doesn't make real-time worse. Players will need to think on their feet, and so the experience is compensated for any perceived loss of complexity. Both offer a different thrill; one is stretched out and strategic, the other is short and intense.

 

[Jintor]

The great problem with the whole fallout 3 thing for me is that the original games were of their time in terms of how you interacted with it and how the game responded to you, as well as the visual nature of the game. In turn based isometric with pixel based characters it makes sense to have over sized beasties, guys in hulking great big suits of power armour, and 10 ft tall green mutants, because the look suited the medium of the game. Translating all of that isometric kitsch directly into into a 3D engine doesn't make that much sense imho. I'm not saying the game should be stalker gritty, but I can't help think of the teaser for Rage that ID showcased last year:-

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/23175.html

and not feel this is the sort of thing I'd rather they went for.

Now you, good sir, have a point.

 

[Tagaziel]

It's not even the lack of tooltips; it's just a cluttered, unfocused mess.

What's unfocused about it? It's quite clear.

But this doesn't make turn-based a superior form of gameplay by default. My point is that just because each enemy gets less processing cycles doesn't make real-time worse. Players will need to think on their feet, and so the experience is compensated for any perceived loss of complexity. Both offer a different thrill; one is stretched out and strategic, the other is short and intense.

Yeah, but RPGs are NEVER about twitch-based combat.

 

[Sui]

The whole problem could be solved easily if someone would just release an easy to use map editor for Fallout 2. Then we could make our own Fallout 3!

What's the Fallout mapping community like? Are there any decent story-based worlds that people have made?

 

[KagePrototype]

What's unfocused about it? It's quite clear.

It's clear when you're used to it, but I distinctly remember being completely lost when first loading Fallout. It took me longer than it should've to figure out how to exit combat, to aim at specific body parts, to change weapons, even to use skills like stealth or lockpick. And then there's the one-column inventory screen, the fuzzy map that doesn't coincide with the player's viewpoint...if you want a good UI, see: any Blizzard game post-Starcraft.

Yeah, but RPGs are NEVER about twitch-based combat.

Oh, I assumed you were talking generally. I'm not going to take the risk of starting a "what's an RPG" debate now...

 

[Tagaziel]

The whole problem could be solved easily if someone would just release an easy to use map editor for Fallout 2. Then we could make our own Fallout 3!

What's the Fallout mapping community like? Are there any decent story-based worlds that people have made?

Killap's Restoration Project for Fallout 2, like a game unto itself.

It's clear when you're used to it, but I distinctly remember being completely lost when first loading Fallout. It took me longer than it should've to figure out how to exit combat, to aim at specific body parts, to change weapons, even to use skills like stealth or lockpick. And then there's the one-column inventory screen, the fuzzy map that doesn't coincide with the player's viewpoint...if you want a good UI, see: any Blizzard game post-Starcraft.

Uh, you did read the manual?

Oh, I assumed you were talking generally. I'm not going to take the risk of starting a "what's an RPG" debate now...

True RPGs: Fallout, Planescape: Torment, Baldur's Gate, Arcanum...
Action-RPGs: Gothic, Oblivion, partially Morrowind...
Game with RPG elements: Anything that features a char development system.

 

[Absinthe]

As somebody who only came to play and appreciate Fallout 1 & 2 in the last few years, I have to say that my initial exposure to it was not overwhelmingly positive. Everything Kage listed was a problem for me. And endlessly whacking (and missing) cave rats as my first combat experience was not a fun time. I continued, keeping the game's age in mind, and had to invest a few solid hours into it before growing to like it. But it's not a matter of learning curves. Even if I were to load up today, I'd feel like I'm enjoying the game in spite of its UI and its typical combat. They're things I have no problem with being overhauled because they're not what attracted me to the games in the first place.

And I imagine most gamers today wouldn't have the patience to put up with them before switching to another game.

 

[DEATH eVADER]

Dude. Just, dude. What kind of a game is a game without any sort of challenge?



If they do that, there's something wrong with the game, and it isn't turn based combat.

It is a Hybrid

 

[theotherguy]

As somebody who only came to play and appreciate Fallout 1 & 2 in the last few years, I have to say that my initial exposure to it was not overwhelmingly positive. Everything Kage listed was a problem for me. And endlessly whacking (and missing) cave rats as my first combat experience was not a fun time. I continued, keeping the game's age in mind, and had to invest a few solid hours into it before growing to like it. But it's not a matter of learning curves. Even if I were to load up today, I'd feel like I'm enjoying the game in spite of its UI and its typical combat. They're things I have no problem with being overhauled because they're not what attracted me to the games in the first place.

And I imagine most gamers today wouldn't have the patience to put up with them before switching to another game.

Agreed, I tried it and hated it. It was way too boring and complex.

 

[KagePrototype]

Uh, you did read the manual?

Never had one.

(I can't remember the last time I needed a manual for a video game)

 

[Jintor]

Agreed, I tried it and hated it. It was way too boring and complex.

You know, some of what made Fallout so entertaining for me (and I only began playing it during the holidays between 2007/2008) was the critical hits occasionally displaying a different animation. And the sound being so awesomely meaty.

 

[Kyorisu]

Never had one.

(I can't remember the last time I needed a manual for a video game)

Indeed. No game these days should need a manual to explain the basics of game play.

Yeah, but it is TB that gives more processing power to individual enemies rather than RT, which is forced to distribute the processing power.

Pfft processors are more than fast enough to deal with a few AI on the fly, we have multi core systems ffs. It's got nothing to do with processing power at all. What you are talking about is designing enemies for turn based via enemies designed for real time. One might perceive one easier than the other. I see turn based games as easy because I can think ahead as many moves as I need to. Whilst in real time the battle is far more dynamic and the enemies have more options available to them.

 

[Tagaziel]

Indeed. No game these days should need a manual to explain the basics of game play.

Basics, yes. Intricacies and other complexities? The manual should be essential.

Not to mention that the manual can be a beautiful gem, like Fallout's manual. Or Quake 2's.

Pfft processors are more than fast enough to deal with a few AI on the fly, we have multi core systems ffs. It's got nothing to do with processing power at all. What you are talking about is designing enemies for turn based via enemies designed for real time. One might perceive one easier than the other. I see turn based games as easy because I can think ahead as many moves as I need to. Whilst in real time the battle is far more dynamic and the enemies have more options available to them.

Uh, more options? Every additional character halves the amount of processing power that is allocated to it. And that amount isn't even big to begin with, as most of the processor is nowadays occupied with rendering graphics (supporting the GPU), calculating physics, tracking variables, supporting the OS...

 

[Cerpin]

There's a big difference between complexity and complication.

 

[Beerdude26]

Fallout 1 & 2 was not complicated. It was complex, yes, but certainly not complicated.
It was about as complicated as Baldur's Gate, for that matter. (Which I did not find very complicated )

 

[Gargantou]

Basics, yes. Intricacies and other complexities? The manual should be essential.

Not to mention that the manual can be a beautiful gem, like Fallout's manual. Or Quake 2's.

Or F-14 Fleet Defender Gold, Falcon 3 Gold, F-15 Strike Eagle III Gold!

 

[Asknoone]

Everything should be explained ingame for the player. They should never have to turn to the manual to understand something. If they do, you fail as a game designer.

 

[Jintor]

This is truth. It may not have been truth back in the 90s, but it's damn well truth now.

 

[Tagaziel]

Everything should be explained ingame for the player. They should never have to turn to the manual to understand something. If they do, you fail as a game designer.

So basically a bigass tooltip should pop up whenever the player is faced with a choice, explaining what is going to happen?

Also, define "everything", Samon. Your broad generalisations and vague posts ain't helping to understand your point.

In my opinion, only the basics should be explained, with any higher intricacies being explained in the manual. I would rather play a complex game without much tutoring instead of a dumbed down game where the devs spent loads of time just to make it user friendly and had to cut complexity down.

On the topic of RT/TB again, compare games which try to implement both modes. They are good examples of the inherent differences of combat. In Arcanum for instance, RT combat is pathetically easy and prevents any use of tactics, as both the enemy and you charge at the same time and the person with the higher Speed attribute wins. TB is much more challenging, as it takes in account your entire character sheet and statistics. You actually have to think about your moves and act with reason.

Same goes for FOT, where RT combat consists solely of running up to the enemy and bursting the crap out of him, while TB requires you to use cover responsibly and think ahead.

Then, of course, there's Wizardry. In RT, the combat would be incredibly stupid and simplistic, not to mention twitch based, as you would have to control SIX characters simultaneously (not counting recruited NPCs). Wiz is entirely turn based, and forces accurate tactical assessment of the situation and forethought.

 

[Jintor]

In simple terms: you should be able to learn how to play the game by, well, playing the game.

It should not need to be AllThereInTheManual.

 

[Absinthe]

Most games today try to teach you as you go along, even if only in a tutorial. They want them to be immediately accessible. And a lot of people, especially non-gamers, don't bother with manuals at all.

 

[Kyorisu]

On the topic of RT/TB again, compare games which try to implement both modes. They are good examples of the inherent differences of combat. In Arcanum for instance, RT combat is pathetically easy and prevents any use of tactics, as both the enemy and you charge at the same time and the person with the higher Speed attribute wins. TB is much more challenging, as it takes in account your entire character sheet and statistics. You actually have to think about your moves and act with reason.

Oh please all you've done is shown the real time aspects of Arcanum were poorly designed.

Same goes for FOT, where RT combat consists solely of running up to the enemy and bursting the crap out of him, while TB requires you to use cover responsibly and think ahead.

Again poor design, do you have a clue what that means? Seeing as the word TACTICS is in the title I'd automatically assume they spent far more time refining the turn based system and threw real time in for lols.

Then, of course, there's Wizardry. In RT, the combat would be incredibly stupid and simplistic, not to mention twitch based, as you would have to control SIX characters simultaneously (not counting recruited NPCs). Wiz is entirely turn based, and forces accurate tactical assessment of the situation and forethought.

I believe Mass Effect did a job god with it's combat system. These lines are taken straight off the Bioware site.

Although combat will take place in real-time, you will have the ability to pause combat and issue commands to your squad which they will then execute with the precision of a highly trained elite force.

You were saying?

 

[Tagaziel]

Oh please all you've done is shown the real time aspects of Arcanum were poorly designed.

Then show me am RPG with RT combat that isn't twitch based and emphasizes tactics.

Again poor design, do you have a clue what that means? Seeing as the word TACTICS is in the title I'd automatically assume they spent far more time refining the turn based system and threw real time in for lols.

No. CTB (real-time) combat was in there from the beginning. Anything else you'd like to contribute?

I believe Mass Effect did a job god with it's combat system. These lines are taken straight off the Bioware site.
You were saying?

Real-time with pause is not turn based, not by a long shot. Now, if you had mentioned KOTOR, now that would be a better example.

 

[Deleted member 56031]

Everything should be explained ingame for the player. They should never have to turn to the manual to understand something. If they do, you fail as a game designer.

I agree. Yahtzee had said for mass effect he couldn't figure out how to install mods. I also agree with him, I couldn't figure out how to work the inventory menus at first as it isn't described very well at all.

 

[Fliko]

Everything should be explained ingame for the player. They should never have to turn to the manual to understand something. If they do, you fail as a game designer.

Couldn't be put better.

When I first played Fallout 2, I found it extremely unaccesible, I mean... SHIT! I couldn't hit anything, everything was really ****ing hard. It toned down a lot as I leveled up, but I play games a lot, I've developed a very high patience level for games (Just like most other games.).

Now, put a non-gamer into this seat and they'll start ripping out their hair and throwing their keyboard across the room. That is, if they get past the first little level in Fallout 2 (Which I admit, I had trouble in. I couldn't figure out how to open one of the last gates.).

The depth in Fallout 2 is immense. While it made it a great game, it was practically boring and short without exploring the world at great depths. Not everyone wants to explore 1 world for a long time. People like to jump from game to game, to experience new things.

Oh, and another HUGE problem I had with Fallout 2 was Character Creation. Yes, it's probably one of the coolest, and best systems I saw except for 1 flaw; it's really confusing (For lack of better word) to create a character to your playstyle that is also strong. You got absolutely NO feel for anything, and you're getting told choices. After you create your character you can obviously fix this problem by leveling up and just going somewhere else, but this put me at a serious disadvantage at the beginning of the game that was frustrating, and uninviting. (This point is completely invalid if you played the game, say once though.)

Games can be challenging, they can be easy. That's why they invented difficulty levels. But just because a games challenging doesn't mean it has to have a cluttered UI, and a bad in-game tutorial system, or therefore a lack of.

And 1 last problem I had with Fallout2 was setting bombs. I didn't figure out I had to drop it until it blew up in my inventory. These things are damn brilliant if you know the game, but if you are just coming into the game it's very tedious.

 

[Absinthe]

Amen nigga.

 

[French Ninja]

Looks cool.

 

[Cornerstone]

Fallout was intended to have a descent learning curve, try Icewind Dale with no knowledge and see how far you get. One of the greatest aspects of Fallout 1 & 2 was discovering for yourself and learning how open that game really was. I have no idea why so many demand that everything be spelled out for them now, I spent hours and hours just on the Fallout demo and it was one of the greatest times in my life with a video game and in the end of Fallout 1 & 2, I had taken a character that I created, developed and adapted through one of the best open games ever created and all that time only derived more pleasure. I went through Bioshock and dispite a great story, only dying once when I was very drunk really didn't make me feel any sense of acomplishment, I could sit through a movie and use as much skill as I used in Bioshock. [/rant]

 

[Krynn72]

To be honest, I dont get why people like games that are so challenging that you die every few minutes. I mean, its like a rating now "Bah, I only died three times the whole time, this game sucks."

I dont know, for me its a very jarring experience to die in a game. It totall rips me out of the "experience" and reminds me im playing a game. Same goes for complicated controls or complex gameplay. If I have to look in the manual, or on a website to find out gameplay aspects, then i'll never be able to enjoy the game because i'll constantly be struggling with the game, and i'll never be able to just play without knowing in my head "this is a video game." I mean, it totally ruins any suspension of disbelief.

Not only that, but I dont see the fun in having to do things over and over just because one area is difficult. Thats the number one reason why I stop playing games and never finish them. If I die like 4 or 5 times in the same area, and have to play 20 minutes of game over and over again just to die in the same area... i just become frustrated and quit. Usually for forever.

 

[Absinthe]

Fallout was intended to have a descent learning curve, try Icewind Dale with no knowledge and see how far you get. One of the greatest aspects of Fallout 1 & 2 was discovering for yourself and learning how open that game really was. I have no idea why so many demand that everything be spelled out for them now, I spent hours and hours just on the Fallout demo and it was one of the greatest times in my life with a video game and in the end of Fallout 1 & 2, I had taken a character that I created, developed and adapted through one of the best open games ever created and all that time only derived more pleasure. I went through Bioshock and dispite a great story, only dying once when I was very drunk really didn't make me feel any sense of acomplishment, I could sit through a movie and use as much skill as I used in Bioshock. [/rant]

So because I actually want to play the game when I launch it instead of figuring out how to, I must be a spoonfed simpleton.

Gaming no longer caters to the niche mentality that obstructing the player's control enhances a title's character or worth. It doesn't. And the problem is not necessarily Fallout's learning curve, but its exacerbation with unintuitive UIs and mechanics. They may not be deal-breakers for you and I, but I know 95% of my friends would give up on it if they played through the beginning of either game.

EDIT: Stupid ****ing forum deleted a bunch of shit I wrote here. Munro is fired.

 

[Cornerstone]

So because I actually want to play the game when I launch it instead of figuring out how to, I must be a spoonfed simpleton.

Gaming no longer caters to the niche mentality that obstructing the player's control enhances a title's character or worth. It doesn't. And the problem is not necessarily Fallout's learning curve, but its exacerbation with unintuitive UIs and mechanics. They may not be deal-breakers for you and I, but I know 95% of my friends would give up on it if they played through the beginning of either game.

EDIT: Stupid ****ing forum deleted a bunch of shit I wrote here. Munro is fired.

Yes, you are so f'in smart nothing is left to be read and no learning curve is worth it... [another ... for sarcasm] ...