New stuff on F3

[Pop]

*thwack*

 

IT'S NOT DEAD

 

It's been 15 days since Game Informer got its exclusive look at F3, so now everybody else takes a crack:

Bethesda Q&A 1 and 2

Comprehensive IGN coverage

Gamespot coverage

Joystiq article and bullet points

Eurogamer coverage

1up coverage

 

o'course, links cribbed from DAC.

[Bokishi]

Oblivion

 

With

 

Guns

[Hurlshort]

Huh...those screenshots don't really remind me of Oblivion.

[J.E. Sawyer]

Well, as we all know, there weren't talking heads in Fallout. Also, Oblivion had that exact same body part targeting system. And let's not forget that Oblivion also had an offset-from-center third person camera.

[Gorth]

Uninspired dialogue... Level scaling (partially)... Radiant AI... Minigames... etc.

 

The graphics are different though. They have really captured that retro 1999 look in their artwork.

[Hurlshort]

Uninspired dialogue... Level scaling (partially)... Radiant AI... Minigames... etc.

 

The graphics are different though. They have really captured that retro 1999 look in their artwork.

 

I'm a bit confused how you can pick up on the dialogue from a few screenshots. I'm also not sure where level scaling (partial?) and radiant AI suddenly make the game Oblivion. Radiant AI sounds like a good thing if it's done well. And there are quite a few games with minigames. I just think you should wait for some actual gameplay videos before making snap judgements about a game.

[Cantousent]

The scaling system they used in Oblivion is simply a mistake. I'm not going Fallout Faithful on you guys, but that scaling system is a downer. I'll probably pick up the game anyhow, although that's not a given, but I won't like the scaling system.

 

The other thing is, while we can't exactly say the dialogue will be bad in F3 judging from the screenies, we can't say it will be good. If Bethesda really wanted to show that they'd created solid dialogue for the game, they could have released screenshots to prove it.

[Tigranes]

1/Radiant AI is totally freakin' awesome if they do it right. They didn't in Oblivion, mostly. It was still cool in places. So if they've improved (which they should have), then it should be something to wait for.

 

2/Minigames suck, let's hope there isn't a Persuasion one.

 

3/Graphics are good.

 

4/We've seen very few lines of dialogue, so it's unfair to judge. The dialogue on the screenshot up there... it could well be in a Torment.

 

5/ What partial level scale?

 

Firstly, the first time you enter a zone, it will level itself appropriately. But, go back later and it will stay at the level it first generated.

 

Oh, that does sound pretty damn stupid.

Edited July 1, 2007 by Tigranes

[J.E. Sawyer]

I think minigames are great, mostly because I think most CRPG mechanics like lockpicking are absolutely boring and terrible in every way. The minigames should definitely be good (and I think the Oblivion ones had some major problems), but the ol' "roll a die to see if you've spent enough points over the last 20 hours of gameplay" mechanic is incredibly dull to me. At least combat has enough instances of those checks and other variables that it's a robust game, but lockpicking (as an example) on its own is brainless and uninteresting. I think the lockpicking minigame in Oblivion was "okay" and I think the persuasion minigame had a lot of flaws. But I'm also pretty confident that the Bethesda folks know this too.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

The other thing is, while we can't exactly say the dialogue will be bad in F3 judging from the screenies, we can't say it will be good.

 

One of the previews mentions that, quote:

 

For each dialogue option that makes use of the speech skill, you'll see a percentage chance of success. You'll want to take note of these numbers because if you fail, it's likely that you'll really irritate the person you're talking with.

 

Dialog quality is still a mystery, but that is pretty awful.

[Llyranor]

Dude, don't diss on FO3. It's going to be great. Experienced storytellers from the esteemed team that made Oblivion are going to reinvent the tale of a young nameless vault dweller, leaving the comforts of the vault in order to find out what conspiracy has led to his or her father's (voiced by non-other than the one and only Qui-Gon Jinn) disappeared. Amidst betrayal, suspence, AND drama lies an epic journey of portable nuclear launchers and nuclear-powered cars that will leave your enemies in a mushroom cloud of regret. Regret that they have crossed you. Yes, for the first time ever, you get to be Qui-Gon Jinn's son and/or daughter. The legend begins!

 

That, and one of the stats they keep track of is the number of corpses you've eaten. For all the necrophiles out there, this is a boon to gaming. It was, after all, the greatest feature in (FO-wannabe) The Fall as well, where upon character creation you had the option whether to allow the government to use your corpse as food when you died or the feds killed you - rewarding you with a small sum of money if so.

 

Now, to be fair, the VATS system in and of itself doesn't sound outright bad per say. As a FPS combat system with a pausable 'special ability' menu using action points that regen over time, it could work.

 

My only small concern is that Bethesda hasn't the slightest clue how to implement choice & consequence in RPG fashion, has writers unable to write themselves out of a toilet bowl, and whose past few games have had the worst real-time combat systems of all time. Trivial issues at best. The gaming media doesn't mind, after all.

 

/Hades

[Sand]

Llyranor, give it a rest will you.

[Enoch]

Here's one more from Gamespy. Has a few details I didn't see in some of the others.

[Wombat]

I think minigames are great, mostly because I think most CRPG mechanics like lockpicking are absolutely boring and terrible in every way. The minigames should definitely be good (and I think the Oblivion ones had some major problems), but the ol' "roll a die to see if you've spent enough points over the last 20 hours of gameplay" mechanic is incredibly dull to me. At least combat has enough instances of those checks and other variables that it's a robust game, but lockpicking (as an example) on its own is brainless and uninteresting.

I kind of agree with this but, IMO, putting mini-games is not the only solution. At least, I think these skills/abilities should be differently treated. For example, with time limits, which requires some turns or action points in security checks, it would add some tactical essences to isometric turn-based games. The player should think beforehand if his/her lock-picking character enough skills to open locks or disable devices before the character gets caught or the situation goes wrong. I think Jagged Alliance 3 or 3D was planning to make a system in which better skills require less time. I prefer this approach in top-down style tactical simulations.

 

In first person view, I personally like Thief: Deadly Shadows lock-picking and still remember how the series showed how important the immersion factor is even in the lowest-rated work. Even if there is a minigames, I would like to see them implemented in a way which doesn't break immersion. I totally agree with you about the persuasion minigame in Oblivion, which was a very good example of how to break immersion.

[Sand]

I for one hate minigames. I will always hate minigames. If I want to play a shooter I would play a shooter, and not do the poorly executed fighter scenes in KotOR 1 and 2, or even the one in Jade Empire. As for the lockpicking, I much rather have it be based on my character's skill in lockpicking for I am playing the character and not me. In a CRPG character skill needs to take precedence over player skill in nearly all aspects. In a game like Thief, which is more of an action adventure game it is okay because that fits the genre but in a CRPG if I have 10 ranks in Open Locks then I should be able to have a decent chance to pick a lock by the die roll.

[Llyranor]

Can't play minigames without playing games!

[Sand]

However one can discuss minigames without playing games, Llyranor.

 

If you want to discuss this further then take it to PM, otherwise lets stay on topic.

Edited July 2, 2007 by Sand

[Cantousent]

Having read the full article, I'm more optimistic. First of all, I liked Oblivion. There were aspects I didn't like, of course, but I still enjoyed myself. On the other hand, I don't know if it will be "Fallout." Strictly speaking, probably not. I imagine I won't think of it as a real fallout game. Still, if the screenies are any indication, they've done a good job on the fallout feel.

 

Shrug. I dunno. Right now, I'm pretty stoked about it. In fact, so much I've decided to listen to "A Kiss to Build a Dream on" while I read this thread. haha. Anyhow, I'm pretty sure I'll buy this one.

[Llyranor]

http://www.shacknews.com/featuredarticle.x?id=411

 

Sadly, groin targeting has not returned for Fallout 3.

Sadly, groin targeting has not returned for Fallout 3.

Sadly, groin targeting has not returned for Fallout 3.

Sadly, groin targeting has not returned for Fallout 3.

 

What the bloody crap?

[Tigranes]

The lack of groin targeting forecloses all other arguments. What the bloody crap?

 

On minigames, I think Thief 3's worked well because it happened in real-time, and trying to jiggle that lock on the chest next to the sleeping guard you were always nervous about the sound waking him up, or someone coming up behind you - that had a degree of immersion and excitement, and an unspoken time limit tension. In Oblivion you sit there going ting, ting, ting, ting, click, and the persuasion minigame was a joke because it both broke immersion massively and because it was so easy and so repetitive, that it didn't even qualify as a minigame - it was a stupid chore, and if theres a choice between a dice check and a stupid chore..

 

I'm just not sure what kind of minigame in such circumstances could fit into the Fallout atmosphere and also not be stupid / boring. For example, picking locks in the Fallout universe. How would that be done?

 

For the speech % check thing, I think it'd be okay if instead of putting in actual percentage values, they put in things like [Very Likely], [Likely], [unlikely], [Very Unlikely]. Just three or four categories. Or not have those at all, but that's probably unrealistic to ask. I think the good part to that decision is that when you fail, there's no return (you can't just 'try again'), and you can irritate the person. I think that's a good step for Bethesda to make, at least.

[J.E. Sawyer]

As for the lockpicking, I much rather have it be based on my character's skill in lockpicking for I am playing the character and not me. In a CRPG character skill needs to take precedence over player skill in nearly all aspects.

So I take it you would also like combat to be resolved with a single die roll? After all, there's an extraordinary amount of player skill required to resolved the combat mini-game in RPGs.

[Gorth]

As for the lockpicking, I much rather have it be based on my character's skill in lockpicking for I am playing the character and not me. In a CRPG character skill needs to take precedence over player skill in nearly all aspects.

So I take it you would also like combat to be resolved with a single die roll? After all, there's an extraordinary amount of player skill required to resolved the combat mini-game in RPGs.

Depends on how it is implemented. In most crpgs (that I know of), combat seems to part of the "main" game. Whereas "mini" games replaces your main interface with a new interface and a new set of "rules", effectively becoming a different game. Oblivion was very bad in this regard (IMNSHO). For all their praise of FPP = Immersion, they insisted on pulling the player out of the main environment and do something completely unrelated for Fish knows what purposes. Of course, you *could* just skip the minigames entirely and forfeit the part of the game that was opening boxes and get more info out of npcs than casual rumours about mud crabs.

 

And yes, I am especially biased against minigames after failing again and again at the awful "dancing" game in Pirates!

[J.E. Sawyer]

Depends on how it is implemented. In most crpgs (that I know of), combat seems to part of the "main" game. Whereas "mini" games replaces your main interface with a new interface and a new set of "rules", effectively becoming a different game.

Sounds like entering combat or conversation in Fallout.

[Gorth]

Depends on how it is implemented. In most crpgs (that I know of), combat seems to part of the "main" game. Whereas "mini" games replaces your main interface with a new interface and a new set of "rules", effectively becoming a different game.

Sounds like entering combat or conversation in Fallout.

Possibly. One could also argue that tactical combat in X-Com is a minigame, yet for some reason it didn't feel that way. Feel might be the keyword (for me). Does it feel like a natural part of the game, fine. If not, I'll slap a Minigame sticker on it and make it subject to unreasonable hatred.

[Wombat]

Good Point, Gorth. Minigames should be implemented in a natural way so that it doesn't destroy the feel, if I rephrase what I wrote.