Fallout 3 on the Xbox 360???

[Slowtrain]

Also to tell the truth, I had more fun figuring out the rules system and such over playing the actual game.  I am a rules set fanatic.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

SO am I. Piecing together the inner-workings of a new rules set is great fun. And I'm not knocking SPECIAL. I think its the best rule system I've ever played in a CRPG. I'd be perfectly happy if FO 3 uses some version of it. But, otoh, dropping SPECIAL altogther, would not make it not Fallout (to me).

[Llyranor]

Did alanschu just threathen to kill RP? Is that against the forum rules?

[213374U]

No, that was just captain Needa.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Forum drama is HEATING UP!

[Musopticon?]

If by "drama" you mean hot intercourse, then yes.

 

 

And so that that wouldn't come totally out of the blue, left field, ex nihil, I must point out that Bethesda would never be stupid enough to just outright bluntly delete a working rpg system. Should they just overwrite SPECIAL with their own established system(of Morrowind and Oblivion fame) turned into a post-apoc modrern world variant(with corresponding weapon classes and whatnot) everyone would blame them for being lazy. Not to mention, there's bound to be folks who love Fallout on the team and a great lot of them probably associate SPECIAL as one of the working blocks of the very essence of Fallout, what makes a Fallout experience. Just as quite many of the old fans do. I think we need not worry.

 

Of course, this is just speculation and opinions.

[Slowtrain]

If by "drama" you mean hot intercourse, then yes.

 

 

And so that that wouldn't come totally out of the blue, left field, ex nihil, I must point out that Bethesda would never be stupid enough to just outright bluntly delete a working rpg system. Should they just overwrite SPECIAL with their own established system(of Morrowind and Oblivion fame) turned into a post-apoc modrern world variant(with corresponding weapon classes and whatnot) everyone would blame them for being lazy. Not to mention, there's bound to be folks who love Fallout on the team and a great lot of them probably associate SPECIAL as one of the working blocks of the very essence of Fallout, what makes a Fallout experience. Just as quite many of the old fans do. I think we need not worry.

 

Of course, this is just speculation and opinions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I agree. I think SPECIAL will be kept in some form. The atributes if nothing else. A lot will have to be changed to work in a realtime/first person engine though. If they were to drop SPECIAL and use the Oblivion/Morrowind type of skill system, I would be disappointed. Not because those skill systems aren't SPECIAL, but because they are not very good.

[Volourn]

"Fallout was designed as a single player crpg, with companions thrown in for a variety. They weren't supposed to last long and/or survive the game. Companions are definitely NOT key to Fallout."

 

I disagree. FO was designed as CRPG where there were companions; BUT you could easily go it solo if you wnated. If companions were not a key to FO; why did thgey bother to improve them for FO2? Obviously, they were of some importance to the series. Comnpanions weren;'t as important in FO as, say, BG series or PST (amongst other games); but they were important.

 

And, they were supposed to last as long as the player felt they should last.

[Slowtrain]

"Fallout was designed as a single player crpg, with companions thrown in for a variety. They weren't supposed to last long and/or survive the game. Companions are definitely NOT key to Fallout."

 

I disagree. FO was designed as  CRPG where there were companions; BUT you could easily go it solo if you wnated. If companions were not a key to FO; why did thgey bother to improve them for FO2? Obviously, they were of some importance to the series. Comnpanions weren;'t as important in FO as, say, BG series or PST (amongst other games); but they were important.

 

And, they were supposed to last as long as the player felt they should last.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, I read something from some of the Fallout devs awhile back which was a response to complaints that it was so hard to keep Ian, Tycho, Katja and Dogmeat alive to the end. The dev response was that basically they weren't designed to be kept alive to the end. Ian was supposed to be a startup companion to help the player character get aquainted with the world. Tycho was supposed to be help for dealing with Gizmo and the Skullz. Katja was supposed to provide some help near the later parts of the game. The game was designed to be started alone and finished alone. That last part is almost a direct quote. You'll just have to take my word on it though since I have no chance in hell of ever remebering where I read it. So feel free to disagree, since I can't prove it.

[Volourn]

Oh, I believe that. I remember something like that as well. But, I stand by what i wrote because that's how FO and its companiosn come across. If a agme is going to have companions that is the way it is. Plus, the fact that companions wer eimproved in FO2 pushes that companions were an importnat part of the FO experience. The populairty of Dogmeat (whm is the the worst joinable EVAR!) also pushes this point home that companions were important to FO.

 

But, yeah, that may have not been the FO deisgners' original intentions. Sometimes, these things are bigger than even those who make the game. Heh.

[Slowtrain]

Oh, I believe that. I remember something like that as well.  But, I stand by what i wrote because that's how FO and its companiosn come across. If a agme is going to have companions that is the way it is. Plus, the fact that companions wer eimproved in FO2 pushes that companions were an importnat part of the FO experience. The populairty of Dogmeat (whm is the the worst joinable EVAR!) also pushes this point home that companions were important to FO.

 

But, yeah, that may have not been the FO deisgners' original intentions. Sometimes, these things are bigger than even those who make the game. Heh.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

The change in how companions were handled between FO1 and FO2 is probably the single biggest gameplay difference between the 2 games. As you point out, its obvious that the FO devs didn't anticpate the popularity of the companions. In FO2, the companions were intended to go much farther with the pc. Although its still pretty hard to finish the game with them, especially when Sulik goes charging right into the guns of an enclave patrol.

[Sand]

What do you expect from a guy from Salt Lake City?

[Slowtrain]

What do you expect from a guy from Salt Lake City?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I expect him not to charge 6 enclave troopers, who are all wearing advanced power armor and carrying pulse rifles, with a sledgehammer.

[Pidesco]

I went up alone against more than 6 enclave troopers, only I was unarmed. :D

[Diogo Ribeiro]

I remember taking quite a few followers with me once into the Enclave, then pumping them with drugs and telling them to rush enemies. Meanwhile I stayed back sniping Enclave soldiers with Plasma weapons. Fun times. Gory ones, too.

[Sand]

I hope they keep the gore level high like the FO 1 and FO2. I definitely would love to see a minigun rip a person a part in full 3D rendered glory!

[Llyranor]

Yes, that would be much more significant than actual choice and consequence. Long live Bethesda!

[Sand]

Significant? No. Hilarious? Yes. :D

[J.E. Sawyer]

Fallout's encounter system wasn't so great.  Wasn't what made Fallout.

I completely disagree. The fact that I can poke around in the world at my own pace, facing challenges as I see fit is one of the best elements of both games. What's key is that the challenges at those locations do not dynamically scale and I am not prevented from exploring the world in the way that I want.

 

Fallout was designed as a single player crpg, with companions thrown in for a variety.  They weren't supposed to last long and/or survive the game.  Companions are definitely NOT key to Fallout.

What was intended and what players enjoyed are two different things. Clearly the original Fallout devs didn't expect people like the companions that much, but players sure did. I'm neutral on it, since I'm pretty "companioned" out.

 

Sure you get a glabal repuation bump and maybe a "label" or two, but most stand-alone quests  hardly made any huge difference over how the gameplay played out

The differences don't have to be huge, and there don't have to be hundreds of them. And a little choice in how things get wrapped up would be nice. I enjoyed the Dark Brotherhood plotline, but I don't think it would have been crazy to allow that plotline to wrap up in two different ways, depending on player input.

 

ES2 Daggerfall had a faction and reputation system so far beyond what was implemented in Fallout that its not really comparable.  Granted that was with Julian LeFay as lead not Todd Howard so game visions are different, but the fact remains that the ES series has already done more with factions and reputatioins than Fallout ever did.

Great, so let's go back to that.

[Slowtrain]

Josh, certainly you are not saying that an encounter system that has your pc fighting 25 rats while encased in hardened power armor and carrying the turbo plasma rifle is something to be copied and admired? Oblivion's enocunter system has problems, but so does Fallouts. They both could use an overhaul. Which was my only point. Whether some prefers a world with set encounter levels or one that scales to match the level of the pc or some combiantion of the two is entirely subjective. I've seen both done well.

 

As far as companions go, I am only talking about Fallout 1. If one starts to talk about Fallout 2 implemtations then they acknowledge that sequels can make postive changes in gameplay which contradicts the "one must be beholden to Fallout's way of doing things because that is all that is right and good" argument. There was little developer continuity between Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 (iirc Cain and Boyarsky both left before FO 2 development started or shortly thereafter), so there's just as good a chance that any changes made be Bethesda will be as good as whatever was changed between Fallout 1 and Fallout 2.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

The excess of negligible enemies that bogged down certain combat instances were mainly an issue about area design and specific encounter design rather than the encounter system itself. I can't remember one single random encounter that featured 25 rats, but I can remember a handful of areas that had predetermined enemy types and amounts: Trapper Town, the Klamath tunnels, Modoc, Redding - all had considerably large areas or drawn out combat sequences which involved killing rats with a meager amount of HPs. Same applies to the pitifuly weak ants in the Broken Hills mine.

[213374U]

I liked the FO encounter system better than any other game's, to be honest. That kind of calculated unbalance was quite fun, helped to maintain the suspension of disbelief, and could be exploited to get some fat hardware early on...

[Gorth]

Scaled encounters are annoying. They take all the fun out of levelling up

 

You feel like you never make any progress (except that the loot grows fatter). Oblivion is by far not the only game guilty of that though.

 

There is something perversely satisfying in frying 30 mewling opponents in a firestorm (whether it be magical or napalm) and be done with it so you can move on

[Slowtrain]

Those are valid points that a developer needs to be concerned about when developing a scaled encounter system, I agree.

 

Just a couple thoughts:

 

A scaled encounter system in a crpg is meant to keep the challenge up for the gamer. Its not different from say how IWD2 was designed, except IWD2 was totally linear, so the challenge difficulty could be pre-set. but the goal in both cases is the same: try to keep the challenge at a certain level. When you give the gamer freedom to roam around a non-linear world at will, this can be a problem.

 

Specific to Oblivion's system: Morrowind did not scale most of its guild and plot critical quest lines (although it did scale creatures in the world), and was severly criticized by a lot of gamers because they would go off and do exploring then get around to the quest lines and they were incredibly easy because the PC was now level 15 and the game wasn't matching that. So Bethesda took that criticism to heart and tried to correct it. They may have not succeeded entirely, but Oblivion is NOT broken in the same way Morrowind was, and to me, that gives great hope that they will learn from Oblivion and correct where that fails.

[Gorth]

Just a couple thoughts:

 

A scaled encounter system in a crpg is meant to keep the challenge up for the gamer. Its not different from say how IWD2 was designed, except IWD2 was totally linear, so the challenge difficulty could be pre-set. but the goal in both cases is the same: try to keep the challenge at a certain level. When you give the gamer freedom to roam around a non-linear world at will, this can be a problem.

Agree to a certain point

 

I might be wrong, but I do seem to remember that both Fallouts had a (sort of) scaling system too, in that the random encounters increased in difficulty the further south you moved on the overland map.

 

But since you weren't really forced to spend all your "outdoor" time in the southern half, you could just move to areas where enemies of a type you felt like bashing were more likely to be encountered. Felt like fighting plants and rats? Stick to Arroyo and surroundings for a while, feel like some power armoured, gauss gun wielding enclave thugs, hang around the area of umm... can't remember the name of the base anymore :">

 

I don't mind a good challenge at all. It's just that when it gets systematically kept at a certain difficulty level compared to your own abilities, some of the fun disappears.

 

Of course, if my level 2 vault dweller falls down a pit of hairy deathclaws, some of the fun might disappear too

 

For me (personal taste stuff), a nice mix would be to give you a chance of "getting back" (wiping the floor with them) at those who made your life miserable in the early part of the game and then use the harder encounters as stumbling blocks between you and special accomplishments, like solving sidequests, discovering that the earth isn't flat, etc.

 

And since this is Fallout, it ought to be an option to solve at least the critical path and a number of sidestuff without always having to build the ultimate optimised combat machine

 

Just my 0.25$

Edited January 30, 2007 by Gorth

[Slowtrain]

Hi Gorth!

 

I agree with much of what you are saying. Certainly, I think the single biggest challlenge of a system that scales off your pcs level is keeping the player feeling like their pc is improving. The argument that if your pc is improving but everything else in the gameworld is improving as well, then your net forward progress is zero is a very valid point. And watching your pc get noticeably better is a big part of the fun of a crpg.

 

But compare that to Icewind Dale 2. Because of the linear nature of that game, your pcs could never really go backwards. they were always pushing forward to the next new area which was always going to be harder than the area they had just left. So, isn't the end result the same? A "net forward progress of zero" effect.? Your party may be a lot touigher than they were when they were facing goblins, but now they are facing hook horrors, which are a lot tougher than goblins.

 

Now IWD2 maybe a bad example since it is a linear crpg, and Fallout and Oblivion are both non-linear, so that may be a bit of an apple to oranges comparison. I guess what I am looking at more is the design philosphy of the developers and how they feel challenge should be presented to the gamer..

 

 

Fallout did kinda scale, but not off the pc level. It changed by area, so "harder" areas would have harder encoounters. Head west to the military base at level 1 and you are going to have an unpleasant run in with a mutant patrol carrying miniguns and rocket launchers.

 

Another game that used a similar scaling was Wizardry 8, which used a combination of level scaling and areas scaling. Wiz 8 would generate all its creatures based on the parties level but each area in the game had upper and lower limits of what could be spawned within that area. this was actually kind of buggy. For example, if you went Arnika below level 5, there was a small chance that the game would spawn level 22 enemies due to some bug with how low a level that area would spawn. It would somehow wrap around to the other end.

 

Also a niote specific to Obilvion: It's important to understand that Oblivion scales its creatures, OFF the pcs level not TO the pcs level. Opponents that the devs have decided should be a challenge, will spawn + x levels higher than your pc. Guards for example are always + 10 levels, Guard Captains are + 15 levels higher than your pc. Run of the mill bandits will generally spawn 1-3 levels less than the pcs own level. So its not as if there is no variety to the challenge difficulty Oblivion presents.

Edited January 30, 2007 by CrashGirl