Chris Taylor leading the Fallout MMO project

[Slowtrain]

Ahh yes the female supermutants with metallic breast cups, bad hairdos, and beeaotch slapping power fists. What a sight.

 

 

This seems an unneccessarily snarky response given that I was only stating that I would enjoy the opportunity to play a supermutant in a Fallout MMORPG.

 

It smells like youi have an anti-Fallout MMORPG agenda at work, but perhaps I am mistaken.

[Stephen Amber]

No, I simply think it would be difficult to make such creatures aesthetically pleasing. You know modern mmorpgs and all their player creation options... It's like 1st/2nd edtion d&d's bearded lady dwarves, which were abandoned as no one wanted to look at them much less draw them...

 

A supermutant crawling out of a vat is a bloated, grotesque monster... Not unlike the idea of a fallout mmorpg.

[mkreku]

Well, more buttons doesn't mean a BETTER game certainly. But it might often mean one that has more options and therefore more interesting gameplay.

That assumes that more options always = more interesting gameplay, which I think is highly questionable.

I think the keywords to each sentence are often and always, so let's combine them.

 

"That assumes that more options often = more interesting gameplay, which I think is highly questionable."

 

I think this is true. Why do you think they removed the leaning-around-corners function from FEAR 2, for example? Easy to implement on a keyboard, not quite as intuitive on a controller.

 

Finally someone gets it, so glad its a dev.

 

Less options more developed = good

 

More option less developed = bad

You're using a binary scale to express your opinion, yet you fail to cover all combinations. Let me add the missing parts. Assuming less = 0 and more = 1:

 

Less options less developed = superbad (00)

 

Less options more developed = good (01)

 

More options less developed = bad (10)

 

More options more developed = supergood (11)

 

 

And we all want our games to be supergood, don't we?

[Slowtrain]

No, I simply think it would be difficult to make such creatures aesthetically pleasing. You know modern mmorpgs and all their player creation options... It's like 1st/2nd edtion d&d's bearded lady dwarves, which were abandoned as no one wanted to look at them much less draw them...

 

A supermutant crawling out of a vat is a bloated, grotesque monster... Not unlike the idea of a fallout mmorpg.

 

 

Well, speaking only personally, of course, I have no problems with playing a bloated grotesque supermutant with bad breath, smelly amrpits, and stainmed underpants.

 

That sounds awesome; I never even considered it otherwise.

[J.E. Sawyer]

Well, more buttons doesn't mean a BETTER game certainly. But it might often mean one that has more options and therefore more interesting gameplay.

That assumes that more options always = more interesting gameplay, which I think is highly questionable.

I think the keywords to each sentence are often and always, so let's combine them.

I think CrashGirl is capable of clarifying what the intended reading should be.

 

I think this is true. Why do you think they removed the leaning-around-corners function from FEAR 2, for example? Easy to implement on a keyboard, not quite as intuitive on a controller.

I have no idea why they removed it from FEAR 2 but corner-leaning worked fantastically in Splinter Cell, GRAW, and (especially) Rainbow Six: Vegas.

[Stephen Amber]

No, I simply think it would be difficult to make such creatures aesthetically pleasing. You know modern mmorpgs and all their player creation options... It's like 1st/2nd edtion d&d's bearded lady dwarves, which were abandoned as no one wanted to look at them much less draw them...

 

A supermutant crawling out of a vat is a bloated, grotesque monster... Not unlike the idea of a fallout mmorpg.

 

 

Well, speaking only personally, of course, I have no problems with playing a bloated grotesque supermutant with bad breath, smelly amrpits, and stainmed underpants.

 

That sounds awesome; I never even considered it otherwise.

 

No. That's not the way rpgs work. You can't be the monster; you're supposed to fight the monster.

 

It'd be like stepping into the underdark with a mindflayer pc...

[Slowtrain]

No, I simply think it would be difficult to make such creatures aesthetically pleasing. You know modern mmorpgs and all their player creation options... It's like 1st/2nd edtion d&d's bearded lady dwarves, which were abandoned as no one wanted to look at them much less draw them...

 

A supermutant crawling out of a vat is a bloated, grotesque monster... Not unlike the idea of a fallout mmorpg.

 

 

Well, speaking only personally, of course, I have no problems with playing a bloated grotesque supermutant with bad breath, smelly amrpits, and stainmed underpants.

 

That sounds awesome; I never even considered it otherwise.

 

No. That's not the way rpgs work. You can't be the monster; you're supposed to fight the monster.

 

It'd be like stepping into the underdark with a mindflayer pc...

 

 

You're only a monster when seen from from the other side.

 

BOS paladins would be the monsters to me. I would hurl my poo at them.

[mkreku]

I think CrashGirl is capable of clarifying what the intended reading should be.

I'm sure she is. And while we're at it, maybe you can clarify the need for hyperbole to get your point across?

[J.E. Sawyer]

I read it as, "more buttons often means more options" ...break... "more options, therefore more interesting gameplay". More buttons possibly equals more options, more options necessarily means more interesting gameplay. It came across as an absolutist statement, which is why I questioned it.

 

Again, if that's not what CrashGirl meant, it's easy enough to clarify.

[Slowtrain]

I read it as, "more buttons often means more options" ...break... "more options, therefore more interesting gameplay". More buttons possibly equals more options, more options necessarily means more interesting gameplay. It came across as an absolutist statement, which is why I questioned it.

 

Again, if that's not what CrashGirl meant, it's easy enough to clarify.

 

 

No, it wasn't meant to be absolutist in the sense that having more options will ALWAYS mean more interesting gameplay.

 

There would be two problems with that:

 

1) If the basic gameplay is flawed then options probably won't save it regardless of how many options there are.

 

2) badly implemented or unneccesary options are still badly implemented or unneccesary. And while they may not hurt gameplay, they probably wouldn't help it much either.

 

 

However, often the ability to have additonal options (such as leaning) does in fact make for more interesting gameplay.

 

 

ANd as I said earlier:

 

I pretty much cut my gaming teeth on flight sims, starting with Falcon 3.0. Most of them pretty much used all 128 keys plus some that were mapped to shift and/or alt as well. In that sense, I just look at a console and laugh.

 

But to be fair, very few pc games (other than flight sims) ever really make use of more than a handful of keys anyway.

 

The mouse is much more important than the keyboard to most pc games.

Edited March 10, 2009 by CrashGirl

[J.E. Sawyer]

2) badly implemented or unneccesary options are still badly implemented or unneccesary. And while they may not hurt gameplay, they probably wouldn't help it much either.

I think this is a very good point. Cosmetic/feel good options can be fine in limited numbers, but I personally always want options to offer me something distinctly different from the other things already on the table. Rainbow Six: Vegas was full of guns that were marginally different: dozens of assault rifles with one pip more or less in their six (I think) different categories. Ultimately, those stats were pretty irrelevant compared to the attachments (especially scopes) on the guns.

[Stephen Amber]

Cosmetic/feel good options can be fine in limited numbers, but I personally always want options to offer me something distinctly different from the other things already on the table.

 

Like NWN1's radial menus?

[Slowtrain]

2) badly implemented or unneccesary options are still badly implemented or unneccesary. And while they may not hurt gameplay, they probably wouldn't help it much either.

I think this is a very good point. Cosmetic/feel good options can be fine in limited numbers, but I personally always want options to offer me something distinctly different from the other things already on the table. Rainbow Six: Vegas was full of guns that were marginally different: dozens of assault rifles with one pip more or less in their six (I think) different categories. Ultimately, those stats were pretty irrelevant compared to the attachments (especially scopes) on the guns.

 

I totally agree on weapons. Having 10 different handguns in a game that all do with 12 points of damage, all have a 12 hex range, all have 15 round magazines, all have the same ap cost, and all use 9mm ammo is silly. Maybe it does provide some variation, but aren't there better ways to give variation that are actually meaningful?

 

Even if you start playing around with the handguns a bit and make some with 12 round magazines amd some with 7 round and some use .45 acp and some use 10mm etc, are these very minor variations worth the time to implement? Do they add anything meaningful? Are you even going to use a handgun if you have a MP5 or Ithaca 12 gauge available?

[Llyranor]

Well, they'll be important if it's a gun-focused game. It's like how flight sims enthusiasts will panic if their game doesn't allow raising/lowering flaps or allow you to manually lock the tailwheel.

[J.E. Sawyer]

I totally agree on weapons. Having 10 different handguns in a game that all do with 12 points of damage, all have a 12 hex range, all have 15 round magazines, all have the same ap cost, and all use 9mm ammo is silly. Maybe it does provide some variation, but aren't there better ways to give variation that are actually meaningful?

 

Even if you start playing around with the handguns a bit and make some with 12 round magazines amd some with 7 round and some use .45 acp and some use 10mm etc, are these very minor variations worth the time to implement? Do they add anything meaningful? Are you even going to use a handgun if you have a MP5 or Ithaca 12 gauge available?

It's quite serendipitous that this topic came up right now.

 

In RPGs, I think it's fine to have "intro" weapons that are later outclassed by "big kid" weapons. For example, you go from a 9mm pistol to a 10mm pistol or a .357 magnum revolver to a .44 magnum revolver. And later on, maybe you ditch the pistols altogether and just run around with assault rifles and missiles. But I do think it's good to have something about the lower level stuff that's appealing. For example, the 10mm pistol outclasses the 9mm in every way except magazine capacity, which is significantly higher on the 9mm. The .44 magnum revolver outclasses the .357 revolver in every way except recoil, which is significantly higher on the .44. And when you get to big kid weapons, maybe using the revolvers and pistols is still useful because they are durable, reliable, and have cheap ammo.

 

But the differences should be distinct and noticeable, always. Even when you get into bigger weapons like rifles, you can still make some clear trade-offs: a low-power, high-RoF lever-action vs. a high-power, low-RoF bolt-action. They might even out to the same DPS (or MDPS or whatever the kids are using these days), but the feel would be much different to the player.

[Hell Kitty]

Easy to implement on a keyboard, not quite as intuitive on a controller.

 

Um, why is it "not quite as intuitive on a controller"? Just map that **** to the shoulder buttons, perfect.

 

I recall that in MGS3, when in first person view, L1 and L2 were used to lean, with how hard you pressed down determining how far you lean. Can't do that with Q and E. Pressing both at one did a stand-on-your-tippy-toes moves. Good times.

 

In FEAR2 specifically, I'd map leaning to left and right on the d-pad, as they are just used to switch between weapons and grenades, which you can already do with the left bumper.

Edited March 11, 2009 by Hell Kitty

[Bos_hybrid]

Finally someone gets it, so glad its a dev.

 

Less options more developed = good

 

More option less developed = bad

You're using a binary scale to express your opinion, yet you fail to cover all combinations. Let me add the missing parts. Assuming less = 0 and more = 1:

 

Less options less developed = superbad (00)

 

Less options more developed = good (01)

 

More options less developed = bad (10)

 

More options more developed = supergood (11)

 

 

And we all want our games to be supergood, don't we?

 

People also want to be rich, famous and have privacy.

 

We also want to live in a world without disease and poverty.

[Slowtrain]

In RPGs, I think it's fine to have "intro" weapons that are later outclassed by "big kid" weapons. For example, you go from a 9mm pistol to a 10mm pistol or a .357 magnum revolver to a .44 magnum revolver. And later on, maybe you ditch the pistols altogether and just run around with assault rifles and missiles. But I do think it's good to have something about the lower level stuff that's appealing. For example, the 10mm pistol outclasses the 9mm in every way except magazine capacity, which is significantly higher on the 9mm. The .44 magnum revolver outclasses the .357 revolver in every way except recoil, which is significantly higher on the .44. And when you get to big kid weapons, maybe using the revolvers and pistols is still useful because they are durable, reliable, and have cheap ammo.

 

But the differences should be distinct and noticeable, always. Even when you get into bigger weapons like rifles, you can still make some clear trade-offs: a low-power, high-RoF lever-action vs. a high-power, low-RoF bolt-action. They might even out to the same DPS (or MDPS or whatever the kids are using these days), but the feel would be much different to the player.

 

Do you think there is a point to implementing low-end weapons that either a player will ditch almost immeditealy or will never use at all?

 

Using FO3 as an example (only because we are both playing it at the moment):

 

There are three low end handguns: the .32 pistol, the "chinese" pistol, the 10mm pistol. All three of which do signifcantly less damage than any other firearm in the game. The player starts with the 10mm, but is going to ditch it quickly since other weapons that are vastly superior are easy to find. The .32 and chinese pistols are inferior to even the 10mm, so the player is never going to use them period.

 

Sure you can use the crappy pistols as weapons for cannon fodder raiders, but why bother. What's s wrong with making every weapon worthwhile and interesting and to at least some degree "futurproof". Most games only need one basic handgun and it shouldn't be such a horrible weapon that you have to shoot a raider 30 times to make his head explode. A handgun you get at the start of a game should still be useful at the end of the game. Sure, a low velocity pistol bullet isn't as good as high velocity rifle bullet for some things, and a semi automatic pistol isn't as useful as a full auto submachine gun (though they fire the same bullet) in some areas, but a well mainted handgun is still deadly regardless.

 

 

I have never been a fan of the time honored crpg cliche of starting charcters with bad gear that they ditch almost immediately. I have also never been a fan of the idea that the handgun you start the gamer with is useless by the time you're level 3. And I am really not a fan of of giving the gamer a whole bunch of useless weapons that will never be used.

 

I just think there must be better ways to spend developer time.

[Morgoth]

I liked the way how System Shock 2 handled weapons. Sure it was very unbalanced, but I liked the fact that I had to concentrate on upgrading a few weapons that I really required, as opposed to games that have plenty weapons (Deus Ex, Fallout 3 etc) but for the most part never were used.

[Hurlshort]

I liked the way how System Shock 2 handled weapons. Sure it was very unbalanced, but I liked the fact that I had to concentrate on upgrading a few weapons that I really required, as opposed to games that have plenty weapons (Deus Ex, Fallout 3 etc) but for the most part never were used.

 

I've always been a fan of upgrading or improving weapons rather than replacing them. It creates a relationship between the player and the equipment. More RPG's should do this, the character is leveling so why can't your equipment do the same?

[J.E. Sawyer]

I think the .32 revolver and Chinese pistols in F3 are particularly problematic because they are worse than what you start with and far worse than other handguns you find later on. I think Fallout 1's progression was pretty good. The 10mm pistol felt like a solid rat-exploder and sufficed until just about the point where you go visit the raiders. Ammo for the more powerful Desert Eagle .44 pistol and 14mm aren't super common at first (IIRC), so the 10mm still remains valuable.

 

I think there are ways that the 10mm pistol could remain viable in F3, but it has more to do with pistols in general than the 10mm specifically. A guy at work has been playing F3 with a mod that gives the player very large VATS penalties with firearms at close range, though the penalties are reduced quite a bit for pistols. It doesn't help much with purely real-time players, but it does make a big difference for VATS folks.

 

Also, I don't really feel (as a player) that the gear I start with should be viable at the end of the game. When I play games with tiered item progression, I like the feeling that the weapon I am using is slowly outclassed as my foes become more powerful. Seeing the new weapon, whether it's being used by some other character or sitting all shiny in a store window, motivates me to go get it. And when I do get that weapon, it feels good to get over "the hump". That doesn't mean I feel that my starting gear should be worthless garbage within 30 minutes, but I certainly don't expect to be using any of that stuff halfway through the game, much less popping caps into Tesla-armored Enclave troopers 40 hours in.

[Slowtrain]

I think the .32 revolver and Chinese pistols in F3 are particularly problematic because they are worse than what you start with and far worse than other handguns you find later on. I think Fallout 1's progression was pretty good. The 10mm pistol felt like a solid rat-exploder and sufficed until just about the point where you go visit the raiders. Ammo for the more powerful Desert Eagle .44 pistol and 14mm aren't super common at first (IIRC), so the 10mm still remains valuable.

 

I think there are ways that the 10mm pistol could remain viable in F3, but it has more to do with pistols in general than the 10mm specifically. A guy at work has been playing F3 with a mod that gives the player very large VATS penalties with firearms at close range, though the penalties are reduced quite a bit for pistols. It doesn't help much with purely real-time players, but it does make a big difference for VATS folks.

 

Also, I don't really feel (as a player) that the gear I start with should be viable at the end of the game. When I play games with tiered item progression, I like the feeling that the weapon I am using is slowly outclassed as my foes become more powerful. Seeing the new weapon, whether it's being used by some other character or sitting all shiny in a store window, motivates me to go get it. And when I do get that weapon, it feels good to get over "the hump". That doesn't mean I feel that my starting gear should be worthless garbage within 30 minutes, but I certainly don't expect to be using any of that stuff halfway through the game, much less popping caps into Tesla-armored Enclave troopers 40 hours in.

 

 

What do you think of:

 

a) as hurlshot mentioned, the idea that you can modify/augment your starting wepaons to mak them more useful as the game continues instead of introducing a bunch of entirely new weapons

 

or

 

b) the players skills directly affect the usefulness of a weapon, and as the player levels up and the skills get better the weapons become more effective

 

 

To me, it just seems there are other, more subtle apporaches to increasing weapon effectiveness than just adding more powerful drops as the levels pile up.

 

One of the things I really loved about Deus Ex was the fact that you could finish that game with same 10mm pistol and police baton that you started with. That was a lot of fun and really cool.

[Slowtrain]

I liked the way how System Shock 2 handled weapons. Sure it was very unbalanced, but I liked the fact that I had to concentrate on upgrading a few weapons that I really required, as opposed to games that have plenty weapons (Deus Ex, Fallout 3 etc) but for the most part never were used.

 

 

SS2 had 2 major weapon problems.

 

1) They degraded so fast that it was pain in the butt

 

2) the assault rifle was so far superior to all the other waapons in the game

 

But, I agree, I did like the way SS2 gave you a small number of weapons and let you work with them and with your character skills to make the weapons more powerful.

[Wrath of Dagon]

I like lightsabers. When's that KOTOR 3 coming?

[Aram]

I don't like it when games make handguns as viable as long arms at the same tier of progression. In a real gun battle, the only time you should be using a handgun is when you're fighting your way to the nearest rifle.

 

One way that I've always thought handguns could still be useful that no RPG has ever implemented is to make areas where a handgun is the only thing you can carry. A particular city has a restriction on firearms and body armor, and if you walk around with either the guards will immediately arrest you. But with some diplomacy or some bribe money or a favor the player can obtain a concealed weapon permit from a politician or sheriff. Or he can simply hide a firearm from sight, sneak by the guards, and hope nobody tries to search him thoroughly. Either way, the player is basically restricted to plain clothes and handguns, or with a perk or the right outfit might be able to conceal a sawn-off shotgun or small SMG. Handguns would be viable weapons all the way through the game, as would newer and better handguns, and wouldn't just be miniature versions of larger weapons with inferior stats.

 

This could also open the door to an extra "concealability" rating on weapons, as well as a concealability rating on the outfits the player wears as well as on the player himself. A high strength, high endurance character in a heavy coat might be able to conceal a long-barreled .44 Magnum, but a petite diplomatic character in formal wear couldn't tuck away anything larger than a Derringer without some major printing.

Edited March 11, 2009 by Aram