New stuff on F3

[J.E. Sawyer]

I think natural is pretty relative, but I get what you're saying. I didn't think Oblivion's persuasion minigame felt natural, but I did feel the lockpicking fit.

[Wombat]

I think natural is pretty relative, but I get what you're saying. I didn't think Oblivion's persuasion minigame felt natural, but I did feel the lockpicking fit.

The feel or immersion are subjective, too. However, personally, I find looking Glass Studio veterans tend to take building immersion or the feel seriously. About BIS games, somehow I liked the art-direction of IWD series. The most part of it didn't have "interactions" such as mini-games, though. I am looking forward to Bioshock to see how the integrity of the game-mechanics and the art-style will turn up in the "new generation" graphics.

[Hurlshort]

I still hear people talk about the fallout "feel" to a game. Did Fallout Tactics have the Fallout feel? It was a lot different, but I still enjoyed it. I guess I just don't see why the fallout "feel" needs to be rigidly defined by certain gameplay devices. I think it's more about the wotld that is created than anything else.

 

I also loved the dancing minigame in Pirates!. Heck, that was just a series of minigames, and I thought it was awesome. But I didn't like the dialogue system in Oblivion, more because I thought it was clunky and too superficial. I'm not sure I've ever seen a dialogue system that I really thought captured the art of conversation. Vanguard's card system was kinda entertaining.

[Meshugger]

Discussing minigames, killable children, groin damage and immersion is redundant, since everyone who has posted in this thread will buy Fallout 3 anyway

[Aristademis]

I wonder how upset Obsidian is that they lost the title to Bethesda?

[Meshugger]

Chris Avellone posted a year ago that he wasted 2 years of PnP for planning, optimizing and testing gameplay for an eventual sequel for Fallout 2. Not funny.

[kirottu]

I wonder how upset Obsidian is that they lost the title to Bethesda?

 

They probably quit making games forever because of it!

[Gorth]

It surprised me that they (Bethesda) were willing to pay that kind of money for it. They must be very sure of their own PR skills to expect it to turn into a profitable venture.

 

They were also among the least best fits I could imagine of possible developers to do it. Not that I believe anyone could really make those who have waited a decade for it happy. And what would it take to make those people happy? Probably nothing that a company who is accountable to somebody else would be able to deliver (Hey, Bill Gates, you listening? Here is something you could burn some money on for a good cause!).

 

Still waiting for the announcement from Interplay that they now have the money to start pre-production of FOOL

[Calax]

From what I understand, the guys over at bethesda seem to be taking out that little bit of charm from the fallout franchise (you know... the one that gives you the ability to shoot sombodies groin, or watching a body esplode from a critical with a dagger)

 

if what everything reported is true and to the degree we all fear... it's going to be oblivion with guns, but if it's not nearly as bad as you fear, it'll still be a very different game.

[Oerwinde]

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.

 

I tend to cheat a lot in my games so I don't even have to worry about combat, as its usually the least enjoyable part of the game for me. Having the option to skip the whole process would be nice.

 

I still hear people talk about the fallout "feel" to a game. Did Fallout Tactics have the Fallout feel? It was a lot different, but I still enjoyed it. I guess I just don't see why the fallout "feel" needs to be rigidly defined by certain gameplay devices. I think it's more about the wotld that is created than anything else.

 

I actually really liked Tactics. I thought the additions made to the combat like cover and positions as well as the phase based option was really nice. Other than the improved graphics, improved combat, and more focus on combat, I found it to definitely have the fallout feel.

Edited July 2, 2007 by Oerwinde

[jaguars4ever]

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?

 

Bethesda critically hits FO3 in the groin for 698 damage. Fallout's child rearing days are now over, but at least the scars will make good party talk.

[Wombat]

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.

 

I tend to cheat a lot in my games so I don't even have to worry about combat, as its usually the least enjoyable part of the game for me. Having the option to skip the whole process would be nice.

Well, aren't we talking of Fall Outs not Temple of Elemental Evil?

 

Giving the wide birth of mini-games corresponding to how we put points on our characters is one of the charm of it. However, of course, even the mini-games have to give us an illusion that the world have the integrity and the feel for us to use our characters as a media to interact with it, which is my point.

[Cantousent]

I don't think it's unreasonable for someone to cite the Fallout feel of a game. How often have we heard folks say that they thought a game in one genre had the feel of a game in another? While it might be subjective, the phrase certainly has a place. Not only that, but what provides the "feel" of a game might not be the same for everyone. In fact, I doubt it is the same for everyone. I couldn't cite everything that creates the Fallout "feel" for me. What I can say is that the demo certainly had a good Fallout feel, but that doesn't mean everyone will see it the same way. If we use the word "feel" at all to discuss these games, and most of us do, then we should exhibit a certain charity when anyone uses it. That's true even in cases where we don't agree with the person's views.

 

It's hard to define a feeling, but it's easy to use it, and sometimes it's pretty damned hard to find another word that fits.

 

Now, called groin shots are definitely part of the Fallout feel, but I can live without them. It seems like game developers and publishers are more and more gunshy over ESRB content. That's too bad. Movies can tackle adult subjects. Books can sure as hell tackle adult subjects. Plays have been tackling the tough issues for thousands of years. Games? Nope. ...And that's why, no matter what game developers or publishers want to tell themselves, games will continue to be the third class citizens of the literary world.

[Calax]

A thought

 

 

if your going to have a minigame, have it make sense...

 

Like for a persuasion minigame have the character play madlibs or something similar.

for an army vs army minigame, have the fight have a BIT More depth than "rock paper scissors"

 

and for craps sake, don't make it simonsays or a twitchfest (especially if it's an rpg)(and not only because I suck at simon says)

[Pop]

The little bit about the dialogue mechanic was not encouraging, if not just for the very mention of percentages (that the player can see IN GAME!) what I liked the least about Oblivion was that the PC was less a character than a set of different statistics and numbers, and this points to more of the same in that regard.

 

I'm curious about the "limited scaling". Ostensibly, they've taken their game out of the frying pan and into the fire. Instead of everything being as difficult as would befit your character as it presently is, everything is instead as difficult as your character was when he first entered the area. What's to stop me from breaking the game by just running through the areas and attempting to level up as little as possible? Are they implementing certain measures to make sure that only players of certain experience continue on to the later parts of the game? Because that would be unlike Bethesda. For all that we know, it would be incredibly easy to rush through the game and fight a horde of crippled giant ants at the end.

 

And the groin selection is patently irrelevant. What made shooting somebody in the crotch fun? In-game, it appears to be just like any other attack. What made it fun was the flavor text. There will be no flavor text in Fallout 3.

Edited July 2, 2007 by Pop

[Tigranes]

For all that we know, it would be incredibly easy to rush through the game and fight a horde of crippled giant ants at the end.

 

The bigger problem is not of exploitation but of that happening by mistake. If you started a Bethesda-made FO2 and by mistake ventured into the Sierra Army Base at level 3 - well, that really changes the experience for you, but is it really for the better? I don't think so. Even with fixed levelling you can experience a wide range of difficulty in opponents, and at any time you can steamroll over people or get creamed. Why is it necessary to do the partial scaling, so that players are able to feel good walking over their artificially weakened opponents? That's NOT what people were asking for after Oblivion's horrible level scaling. Why not keep impossible areas impossible till the end, easy areas easy all the time, no matter what your level is when you enter? Most people never traverse even an open-ended world in so haphazard a way as to make a fixed level world stupid, and Bethesda's solution has zero advantages.

 

There will be no flavor text in Fallout 3.

 

God, I hope there is some in dialogue and descriptions of items / etc, at least.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

What made shooting somebody in the crotch fun?

 

What makes something fun for someone?

 

 

In-game, it appears to be just like any other attack.

 

In-game, it could paralyze enemies on their spot. Something that shooting at a leg or arm, for instance, didn't really do.

[Musopticon?]

And they missed the change to do the good old bend-over-in-pain animation(in previous Fallouts the shot characters would sometimes fall on their faces as well). Not to mention, is unarmed even a viable option in the world of portable nuclear weaponry?

Edited July 2, 2007 by Musopticon?

[Pop]

What makes something fun for someone?

What Bethesda isn't doing, amirite?

 

In-game, it could paralyze enemies on their spot. Something that shooting at a leg or arm, for instance, didn't really do.

The only thing groin shots ever did against my enemies was inflict extra damage or knock them out, which given headshots, makes them arbitrary. If I was able to get a good shot off to the groin, I'd be able to get a comparable shot off to any other part of the body, excepting the eyes (also missing from F3, it seems). The prospect of crippling an arm or a leg was more appealing than the slim chance hitting the groin would do anything other than provide funny flavor text. Because that's what the groin shots were all about, ****s and giggles for the Chris Farley fan in us. That doesn't mean I won't miss them, but their absence is not a human rights violation. either.

Edited July 2, 2007 by Pop

[jaguars4ever]

A groinless targeting game is no game at all.

 

Seriously guys, crotch botching is what FO is all about. Taking that away is like removing zombies from a Resident Evil game.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

What Bethesda isn't doing, amirite?

 

Any similarity you may have with a one-trick pony is clearly a figment of our imagination.

 

 

The only thing groin shots ever did against my enemies was inflict extra damage or knock them out, which given headshots, makes them arbitrary.

 

If I was able to get a good shot off to the groin, I'd be able to get a comparable shot off to any other part of the body, excepting the eyes

 

Groin shots were a viable alternative for those who couldn't pull off headshots and weren't entirely capable of slowing down an enemy through arm or leg targetting. It's only arbitrary when better choices are open, which simply isn't the case during a part of the game.

 

 

The prospect of crippling an arm or a leg was more appealing than the slim chance hitting the groin would do anything other than provide funny flavor text.

 

Shooting the groin and scoring a critical would paralyze opponents, as opposed to crippling one arm or leg but still allowing the opponent to move away - even if slower. An enemy running away isn't more appealing than an incapacitated enemy - reversing roles on the same situation would be deadly for the player, who is far better at being crippled than stunned, face down on the ground, being hit.

Edited July 2, 2007 by Role-Player

[Tigranes]

Let's look at it another way - what reason is there NOT to have eyes / groin targeting?

 

A) ESRB conscious brutality stuff. Um, isn't FO getting Mature already? Or do they think eyes/groin would count as sadistic and get bans? I don't think so.

 

B) Not enough time to make animations for all that. Possibly, it's a lot of work to do it for each opponent type. But its odd to rule it out so early.

[jaguars4ever]

What Role-Player said. Besides, bashing orphaned children in the groin with a sledgehammer or repeating shotgun is a perfectly legitimate combat tactic in the post-nuclear world. Failure to include said option will no doubt test my suspension of disbelief.

[Enoch]

I won't miss the groinshots. The only real fun part of them was the flavor text, and we already know that's out (which I'm OK with-- it was rather immersion-breaking: "Ooh, I just wasted that raider, now lets see how cleverly the developers described his pain"). Eyeshots were always silly. Unless you're inches away from the target (and the target is completely stationary), there's no difference between aiming for the eyes and aiming for the head.

 

And lets not forget that they've added the possibility of targeting the enemy's weapon. We can now practice that staple move of kid-friendly Westerns: shooting the gun out of our opponent's hand.

[Sand]

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.

 

Read what I wrote, J.E., not what you want to see. I said "nearly all aspects."

 

A die roll to see if I hit, or if I save versus a spell or able to dive out of the way of an explosion, a die roll to determine damage, or how much damage my armor soaks, and so forth. A die roll to se if my character can convince someone to do something or not do something. A die roll to see if I open the lock, or successfully bash it open, or if I am able to even notice the hidden trap.

 

No need to roll a die determine what I want my character to do, just on how successful he or she is doing it.

Edited July 2, 2007 by Sand