fallout 3

[Sand]

Well, sure, there are similarities in the interactive storytelling elements of CRPGs & PnP games-- every type of interactive storytelling will fail if the teller is lousy. But I'm talking more about mechanics. Taking turns moving figurines around a hex-grid on a tabletop is what you do in PnP because that's really the closest to a combat simulation you can get when you're sitting around a card table in your basement and the only tools you have are dice, paper, and said figurines. That sort of thing is fun in spite of the crudeness of the game rules, mostly because of the people you're doing it with. CRPG developers who unnecessarily imitate the mechanics of PnP gameplay are hamstringing themselves. Sure, it can still be a fun experience, but it could be more satisfying if they fully embraced the potential of the tools they are using (microprocessors > dice).

 

I would completely and totally agree with this if and only if Fallout 1 and 2 did this from the beginning, but they did not. The designers decided to use the PnP model and so, being a sequel to Fallout 1 and 2 so should Fallout 3. Now if this was an original IP with no relation to Fallout you would have a strong case and I would agree with it, but Fallout 3 is not an original IP. It is a sequel to an established series.

[metadigital]

Weapon degradation and the need for backup weapons is completely compromised by an infinite inventory, though. If I can carry thirty-six rifles and pause to swap between them mid-battle, then the mechanic is just an irritant.

 

Fallout 3 will hardly feature infinite inventory. With all the importance they are placing on the wasteland feel (irradiated water, degradable equipment for example) they're hardly going to remove the enumberance system that was present in both the original Fallouts and in Oblivion.

 

I agree with your point in general, just don't think it applies here. Unless you know something I don't?

Nah, just making a general point.

 

Well, sure, there are similarities in the interactive storytelling elements of CRPGs & PnP games-- every type of interactive storytelling will fail if the teller is lousy. But I'm talking more about mechanics. Taking turns moving figurines around a hex-grid on a tabletop is what you do in PnP because that's really the closest to a combat simulation you can get when you're sitting around a card table in your basement and the only tools you have are dice, paper, and said figurines. That sort of thing is fun in spite of the crudeness of the game rules, mostly because of the people you're doing it with. CRPG developers who unnecessarily imitate the mechanics of PnP gameplay are hamstringing themselves. Sure, it can still be a fun experience, but it could be more satisfying if they fully embraced the potential of the tools they are using (microprocessors > dice).

 

I would completely and totally agree with this if and only if Fallout 1 and 2 did this from the beginning, but they did not. The designers decided to use the PnP model and so, being a sequel to Fallout 1 and 2 so should Fallout 3. Now if this was an original IP with no relation to Fallout you would have a strong case and I would agree with it, but Fallout 3 is not an original IP. It is a sequel to an established series.

That's the most arbitrary line of reasoning you could possibly spout. Just because the original Fallout and the sequel used a particular device that was based on pen-and-paper technology that predates computers, doesn't mean that those techniques are the best way to manage the particular challenges involved, especially after (how many?) decades of knowledge and information technology development since DnD first became a reality.

 

Seriously, you expound a a fanatical fundamentalistic zeal that makes a Jahovah's Witness appear the epitome of toleration.

[Sand]

That's the most arbitrary line of reasoning you could possibly spout. Just because the original Fallout and the sequel used a particular device that was based on pen-and-paper technology that predates computers, doesn't mean that those techniques are the best way to manage the particular challenges involved, especially after (how many?) decades of knowledge and information technology development since DnD first became a reality.

 

Seriously, you expound a a fanatical fundamentalistic zeal that makes a Jahovah's Witness appear the epitome of toleration.

 

If you are going to make a sequel then make a sequel. If you are going to make a new game then make a new game. Don't be making a new game then slap the name of a previous game on the box. That would be like calling Fallout Wasteland 2. Fallout may be in the same genre as Wasteland and carry some of the same themes, but it has totally different game mechanics and presentation than Wasteland therefore it wasn't called, nor should it, Wasteland 2 but Fallout.

 

As for the whole weapon degradation, it sounds like useless hype like what they had in Oblivion. Instead of "soil erosion" we have "gear erosion."

 

Edited June 18, 2007 by Sand

[Xard]

Well, sure, there are similarities in the interactive storytelling elements of CRPGs & PnP games-- every type of interactive storytelling will fail if the teller is lousy. But I'm talking more about mechanics. Taking turns moving figurines around a hex-grid on a tabletop is what you do in PnP because that's really the closest to a combat simulation you can get when you're sitting around a card table in your basement and the only tools you have are dice, paper, and said figurines. That sort of thing is fun in spite of the crudeness of the game rules, mostly because of the people you're doing it with. CRPG developers who unnecessarily imitate the mechanics of PnP gameplay are hamstringing themselves. Sure, it can still be a fun experience, but it could be more satisfying if they fully embraced the potential of the tools they are using (microprocessors > dice).

 

I would completely and totally agree with this if and only if Fallout 1 and 2 did this from the beginning, but they did not. The designers decided to use the PnP model and so, being a sequel to Fallout 1 and 2 so should Fallout 3. Now if this was an original IP with no relation to Fallout you would have a strong case and I would agree with it, but Fallout 3 is not an original IP. It is a sequel to an established series.

 

I still don't find anything particularly pnpish in Fallouts :/

[metadigital]

If you are going to make a sequel then make a sequel. If you are going to make a new game then make a new game. Don't be making a new game then slap the name of a previous game on the box. That would be like calling Fallout Wasteland 2. Fallout may be in the same genre as Wasteland and carry some of the same themes, but it has totally different game mechanics and presentation than Wasteland therefore it wasn't called, nor should it, Wasteland 2 but Fallout.

Why? Because you don't like it? Because it isn't "right"?

[Tale]

The better objection is that any SP CRPG imitation of PnP is destined to fail because it doesn't include the one thing that makes PnP worthwhile: other people and good gamemastering.

 

Except that argument is based on the assumption that good players that participate in a session and a good Game Master are a constant in PnP, when this isn't true. Bad GM

Edited June 18, 2007 by Tale

[Sand]

Why? Because you don't like it? Because it isn't "right"?

If a game is going to use the name of a previous game then it needs to be similar to that previous game othewise its just using the name to sell itself and yes, I don't like that. If I am going to buy a Fallout game I want to play a Fallout game, not a poorly made FPS game with pause and play which Action Points is used as mana. It may be okay for you to accept crap like this but I most certainly will not.

 

If you are going to make a sequel, then make a sequel. If you are going to make a new game then make a new game. Can't make it more plainer than that.

Edited June 18, 2007 by Sand

[metadigital]

 

(I thought you were giving up gaming forever.)

[Sand]

 

(I thought you were giving up gaming forever.)

I have. Haven't played a game for weeks now, but that doesn't mean we can have our little discussions on the forums.

[Tale]

I have to agree with Sand in some ways. If you're going to make a sequel, make it like the previous games.

 

If you're going to take only the setting, then it's more of a spinoff.

Edited June 18, 2007 by Tale

[Enoch]

The better objection is that any SP CRPG imitation of PnP is destined to fail because it doesn't include the one thing that makes PnP worthwhile: other people and good gamemastering.

 

Except that argument is based on the assumption that good players that participate in a session and a good Game Master are a constant in PnP, when this isn't true. Bad GM

[Sand]

No I'm not. I simply argue that the desire to emulate the tabletop gaming experience shouldn't be the reason that game developers stick to turn-based systems.

 

In PnP gaming, you really don't have the TB/RT choice-- your gaming medium makes it for you. Computers make RT gaming possible, so game developers have to make the choice as to which method is better for each individual project. TB systems and RT systems both have strengths and weaknesses, and game developers should pick what mechanic they use based on what they want to emphasize in their games and not based on nostalgia for the all-night PnP sessions they had when they were in college.

It has nothing to do with nostalgia. Fallout 3 is being billed as a direct sequel to Fallout 1 and Fallout 2. S.E.Q.U.E.L.

[metadigital]

I have to agree with Sand in some ways. If you're going to make a sequel, make it like the previous games.

 

If you're going to take only the setting, then it's more of a spinoff.

Who is the authority that polices what aspects of a game MUST be kept for it to be a sequel?

 

Where does innovation become interference? I ask again: Who is the judge?

[Sand]

Just because something is innovative does not make it better. Advancement should be used, such as 3D dynamic graphics, but the core design need to remain the same if the game is a direct sequel. The final judge is the individual gamer. If the changes are acceptable then he or she will buy and play the game. If not, then he or she will not buy the game. If you are fine with the changes Bethesda introduced for Fallout 3, then by all means buy and play the game. For me, the game isn't Fallout enough to warrant the name with a following number after it, so I am not going to buy and play the game. Simple as that.

[Tale]

I have to agree with Sand in some ways. If you're going to make a sequel, make it like the previous games.

 

If you're going to take only the setting, then it's more of a spinoff.

Who is the authority that polices what aspects of a game MUST be kept for it to be a sequel?

 

Where does innovation become interference? I ask again: Who is the judge?

You use an audience to judge similarity. You have the intended audience of the series attempt to recognize degrees of similarities between games without first knowing of an intended relationship between any. The same way that trademark/likeness/copyright (when not applying to whole works) infringements are measured.

 

To just go and remark on the lack of a specific judge is to render the term "sequel" arbitrary and moot. Humans can identify patterns, if you refuse to acknowledge that, then you can make an argument for a hello kitty horse adventure game being labelled as a dungeons and dragons game. Who's to judge?

 

"interference" is a good/bad judgement call and I don't think it applies. There's a difference between innovating and taking only a setting. If a reasonable audience sample cannot gleam a relationship beyond setting without first being informed the relationship, then it would be more suitable for a spin-off classification.

 

I'm not saying Fallout 3 is only taking a setting. I'm still on the fence with it. It has action points, but I don't know if they're really similar to action points in more than name. It does have a limb targetting system, too. And probably other similarities, but I don't know how similar they are.

Edited June 18, 2007 by Tale

[metadigital]

If a hello kitty horse adventure game allows me to roleplay and fight monsters, then it's DnD game. The fact that it uses d20 or not is pedantry.

[Tale]

What if it lets you play as a Sanrio kitty that rides horses with no fighting of monsters?

 

Why is D&D about roleplaying and fighting monsters? Who's to judge? The point I'm getting at here is it seems the argument you were trying to put forth exists solely to play off doubt.

Edited June 18, 2007 by Tale

[J.E. Sawyer]

Anyone whose played Arcanum will know what a joke "weapon degradation" (aka let's trek back 5 levels of the dungeon after every bloody hit to find a blacksmith 'cause the designers insisted on placing freaking LAVA MONSTERS that swarm at turn-of-the-century stop motion animation speed!) can be.

Anyone who played Descent to Undermountain knows how terrible D&D can be.

[Tale]

Anyone whose played Arcanum will know what a joke "weapon degradation" (aka let's trek back 5 levels of the dungeon after every bloody hit to find a blacksmith 'cause the designers insisted on placing freaking LAVA MONSTERS that swarm at turn-of-the-century stop motion animation speed!) can be.

Anyone who played Descent to Undermountain knows how terrible D&D can be.

I see what you did there!

 

I think...

[Pop]

Anyone whose played Arcanum will know what a joke "weapon degradation" (aka let's trek back 5 levels of the dungeon after every bloody hit to find a blacksmith 'cause the designers insisted on placing freaking LAVA MONSTERS that swarm at turn-of-the-century stop motion animation speed!) can be.

Anyone who played Descent to Undermountain knows how terrible D&D can be.

Oh, snap.

 

If MCA was around, he'd probably say the same thing.

[Arkan]

Anyone whose played Arcanum will know what a joke "weapon degradation" (aka let's trek back 5 levels of the dungeon after every bloody hit to find a blacksmith 'cause the designers insisted on placing freaking LAVA MONSTERS that swarm at turn-of-the-century stop motion animation speed!) can be.

Anyone who played Descent to Undermountain knows how terrible D&D can be.

 

 

What point are you trying to make? That it can still be terrible?

[J.E. Sawyer]

What point are you trying to make? That it can still be terrible?

Using the worst implementation of a system isn't an indictment of all such systems in any application. I think it's much more useful to look at the best implementations of a system to judge its potential merits and flaws.

[@\NightandtheShape/@]

I've always thought of the problem with games is general as being that good and bad games have merit, the good point out how things can be implemented well, providing a nice starting point for potential improvement, where bad games point out how not to implement something.

 

That's just how I look at problems from a disection point of view before I code, if something feels clunky I try and figure out why it's clunky, thus hoping to never make the same mistake myself.

[Arkan]

What point are you trying to make? That it can still be terrible?

Using the worst implementation of a system isn't an indictment of all such systems in any application. I think it's much more useful to look at the best implementations of a system to judge its potential merits and flaws.

 

Of course, there's no guarantee either way, so the point is moot. I just hope they don't make it damn near manditory to constantly have to repair your weapons and armor ala Oblivion.

[Aegeri]

What point are you trying to make? That it can still be terrible?

Using the worst implementation of a system isn't an indictment of all such systems in any application. I think it's much more useful to look at the best implementations of a system to judge its potential merits and flaws.

Games with weapon degradation fall into two extremes however. You either fail to notice it, so it's a non-relevant gameplay mechanic or alternatively, the pace of weapon degradation is so high it just severely aggravates players (Best example is SS2).

 

I'm not impressed overall with what I've read about Fallout 3 anyway, but at least it has some positive aspects. I'm not giving it a good chance of being a faithful sequel though.

 

It has nothing to do with nostalgia. Fallout 3 is being billed as a direct sequel to Fallout 1 and Fallout 2. S.E.Q.U.E.L.

 

It's rather remarkable how hard it is to get that simple concept across to some people.

Edited June 19, 2007 by Aegeri