Obsidian making Fallout: New Vegas

[Tagaziel]

Hey suggestions:

Don't care for groin or eye shot, seems very unnecessary. Why would being shot in the groin be more painful then being shot in the stomach? If you are shot in the forehead, is it really not that bad compared to being shot in the eye?

 

I assume you're a man, if you're a woman, do this to your boyfriend. Or find a man if you're lesbian.

 

Hit yourself in the groin with a hammer, then hit yourself in the stomach with a hammer. Observe the difference. Or stream the experiment live, for posteriority.

 

The descriptions were a big part of making the game awesome.

[FabMan_UK]

Hey suggestions:

Don't care for groin or eye shot, seems very unnecessary. Why would being shot in the groin be more painful then being shot in the stomach? If you are shot in the forehead, is it really not that bad compared to being shot in the eye?

 

I assume you're a man, if you're a woman, do this to your boyfriend. Or find a man if you're lesbian.

 

Hit yourself in the groin with a hammer, then hit yourself in the stomach with a hammer. Observe the difference. Or stream the experiment live, for posteriority.

 

The descriptions were a big part of making the game awesome.

 

Most likely, you get shot in the balls, they are coming off. As such so would the huge amount of nerve endings attached that make damage to them so painful. So no different to losing a finger in pain regard. As to using a hammer, WTH? Why would I do that, WHY??? Ahem, I know what would hurt more.

 

The comedy side is undeniable though, just not necessary in the next game.

[bhlaab]

Most likely, you get shot in the balls, they are coming off. As such so would the huge amount of nerve endings attached that make damage to them so painful. So no different to losing a finger in pain regard. As to using a hammer, WTH? Why would I do that, WHY??? Ahem, I know what would hurt more.

 

Haha, I don't think they'd fly off of the body comedy-style. I think it would actually be more of an explosive burst, with all the nerve endings mangled and in bizzarre knots and staining your jeans.

[Aristes]

You people are absolutely terrifying.

[Tagaziel]

Hey suggestions:

Don't care for groin or eye shot, seems very unnecessary. Why would being shot in the groin be more painful then being shot in the stomach? If you are shot in the forehead, is it really not that bad compared to being shot in the eye?

 

I assume you're a man, if you're a woman, do this to your boyfriend. Or find a man if you're lesbian.

 

Hit yourself in the groin with a hammer, then hit yourself in the stomach with a hammer. Observe the difference. Or stream the experiment live, for posteriority.

 

The descriptions were a big part of making the game awesome.

 

Most likely, you get shot in the balls, they are coming off. As such so would the huge amount of nerve endings attached that make damage to them so painful. So no different to losing a finger in pain regard. As to using a hammer, WTH? Why would I do that, WHY??? Ahem, I know what would hurt more.

 

The comedy side is undeniable though, just not necessary in the next game.

 

I think that's unlikely, unless the membrum virile is hideously small, a bullet would most likely maim it severely and make your life a living hell, as every move would shift the stump/bloody pile of what used to be your most important extremity, stimulating the nerve endings. It'd be rather disturbing, you'd collapse, clutching your groin, screaming your throat off.

 

Would make for an amusing cell tone.

 

EDIT: Dodged the wordfilter

Edited April 27, 2009 by Mikael Grizzly

[Gizmo]

I've never understood why folks were always so enamored of called shots. For my part, I don't care where I hit them as long as I do enough damage to kill them. Now, if I would have seen a significant advantage for shooting robotic sensors in that they had a dramatically reduced chance to hit me or something, then I would be a bigger fan. Yeah, shooting someone in the leg so they walk slower and limp is nice, but not all that exciting. The gore was kind of funny, but way over the top! However, seeing someone disemballed (haha) would be interesting.

It does work that way though, at least with limbs. Shoot the mob in the gun arm and they drop the weapon. After they pick it up, their aim is horrible. Shooting the mob in the head often kills them outright, but at very least, they stop shooting at you for a second or two (hands to face animation) and that might be enough to take them down.

 

The eye and groin thing, along with the overland map, are mostly FO1/2 trappings that those folks miss in this game.

Traditionally the called shots in Fallout were all more expensive and less likely to succeed (it even seemed to me that standard torso hits actually hit more often than called torso hits ~despite having the same percentage to hit); Called shots were a deliberate gamble. The player gambled the PC's skill against the odds, for a chance at a devastating critical. The targets were not arbitrary; Each one had a fixed level of difficulty (commensurate with the risk vs gain). Leg shots could destroy the enemies freedom to move ~making repositioning very expensive, Arm shots affected their Aim, Groin shots almost always ignored the targets armor completely, while Head shots had the potential to knock out opponents and tactically this was very very useful if you could pull it off [iE. well worth the gamble] ~you could even unload their guns and steal their ammo while they were out...

 

Torso shots were the cheapest and not that great, but like the head and eye shot they had the potential of an outright kill if you were lucky. The Eye shot [as mentioned] could kill outright, but was more likely to blind, and nearly always ignored the equipped armor. These targets were of deliberately increasing [sTATIC!] difficulty, and Fallout 3 hosed all of that for a simplified proximity based chance to hit.

 

 

I've never understood why folks were always so enamored of called shots.

 

well, because it's role-playing and getting specific adds to the scenario. not only that, but the text-box descriptions of what happens to the enemy if you've targeted a certain area was a big part of what gave Fallout that "Fallout feel", knowhutimean?

Indeed, The Groin shot always had a secondary purpose (to me at least, if one must disclaim); In addition to the above, it also allowed the player to make things "personal". I can recall a few times (in a few games) when a raider or mutant hurt Dogmeat bad, and I marched the PC past other targets towards the one that hurt "my" dog, just to super sledge them in the groin (male or female), because I wanted to, even though the PC had a ranged weapon equipped, and could have shot them from a distance ~its just not the same.

 

*If you're lucky, you hit them hard, and get to watch them fly back 10 feet and get to read the text account of their injury.

Edited April 27, 2009 by Gizmo

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

How about waist shots? I mean, they're technically not groin shots, so you avoid the slight sillyness.

[Llyranor]

She takes it like a man. That is to say, it hurts.

[Deraldin]

When dealing with eye and groin shots, you have to recall that not only are we dealing with firearms, but there is also melee combat to think about. Shooting someone in the groin may not be any more effective than shooting them in the stomach, but as someone suggesting, hit someone in the stomach with a hammer and they'll likely have the wind knocked out of them. Hit them in the groin and they'll be done for a lot longer. It's a disabling shot. If you can't kill someone outright, the next best thing is to disable them until you can deal with them properly.

 

My unarmed FO2 character used groin/head shots a lot in the early game to disable characters. Melee characters are much more dependent on AP. An enemy lying on the ground in pain couldn't run away from you.

[deleteduser]

I picked a terrible time to check up on this thread.

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

Discussion of groin shot physics is very interesting.

[quasimodo]

In the first two Fallouts there was something extremely......satisisfying..... about a good blow to the groin in HtH or melee combat. I still have fond memories about freeing Tandy from the Khans by defeating Garl in the ring with a few good below-the-belt hits.

[Aristes]

In real life there's something satisfying about a good blow to the groin.

[Kelverin]

The comedy side is undeniable though, just not necessary in the next game.

Comedy is always necessary and appreciated if done well, but let's keep today's cultural references to a minimum or to none at all.

Edited April 28, 2009 by Kelverin

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

Give me the Kill Bill eye poke and I won't need any groin shots.

[TwinkieGorilla]

How about waist shots? I mean, they're technically not groin shots, so you avoid the slight sillyness.

 

"sillyness"??

 

what's silly about it? even Leonard Cohen can make poetry of the groin-shot:

 

"It's their ways to detain, their ways to disgrace,

their knee in your balls and their fist in your face."

 

 

it's human nature. the ultimate insult to the male physique.

[Maria Caliban]

re: Groin Shots

 

First, as a female, I see little difference between a shot to the belly or groin. Both of them have the potential to damage important girl bits.

 

Secondly, in a non-lethal fight, whether you shoot someone in the genitals or stomach/intestine might be important, but in a lethal one, it doesn't matter. The only reason to include groin shots is for the lulz.

 

As I don't find 'guy gets smacked in balls' all the lulz-worthy, I'm not for it. I don't mind if it's in, but it seems a waste of animation and programming resources.

 

I've never understood why folks were always so enamored of called shots.

 

well, because it's role-playing...

 

 

No.

 

Called shots have nothing to do with role-playing. The mere presence of an option for the player is not role-playing. If that were the case, Halo giving me a selection of guns is a role-playing element.

Edited April 28, 2009 by Maria Caliban

[Gizmo]

Secondly, in a non-lethal fight, whether you shoot someone in the genitals or stomach/intestine might be important, but in a lethal one, it doesn't matter. The only reason to include groin shots is for the lulz.

Getting shot [or even kicked] in the testicles can certainly be fatal. That's no non-lethal option.

 

Called shots have nothing to do with role-playing. The mere presence of an option for the player is not role-playing. If that were the case, Halo giving me a selection of guns is a role-playing element.

Eight Called shots were part of the original game mechanics; that's reason enough to retain them IMO.

*Also... can you role play a sniper without called shots?

Edited April 28, 2009 by Gizmo

[Maria Caliban]

*Also... can you role play a sniper without called shots?

 

 

You can in Mass Effect.

[Gizmo]

*Also... can you role play a sniper without called shots?

You can in Mass Effect.

I've never played Mass Effect... What's the draw for choosing to play a Sniper in that one? Edited April 28, 2009 by Gizmo

[Wombat]

As for culled shot, I think we'd probably better to separate tactical factors of aimed shots to a certain parts of the bodies of the hostiles from graphical-effects of them. Graphical-effects and gore are for a spectacle or to just show how bad-ass attack you made while carefully placed shot is something else. I wonder if I call it role-playing in the same context with social activities but I think there is a point that, with called shot option, you can slow down a hostile/hostiles who may cause massive damage in closed-combat, which probably fits an agile gunman/woman and sniper.

 

However, the question is that realistically, is it going to be translated well into FO:NW if it is based on the FO3 combat, which is the most-likable scenario?

 

I haven't played FO3 myself but, as far as I know, the problem with it is that it enables you to rush into a hostile in RT mode, switching to VATS in front of it/him/her and giving the victim hostile a headshot with around 90%, which most likely finishes off the hostile. So, why do you need to aim at less vital parts of the hostile in the first place?

 

You may insist that VATS should be fixed. However, probably, this requires a lot of works including extra animations and balancing for both RT and VATS combat although even if RT mode, it would be nice to have shot on body-parts and various effects of it. Of course, this doesn't mean only implementations but also bug-fixing on the newly added implementations.

 

To be honest, I wonder if this is worth all the trouble while I understand the nostalgia.

 

*Also... can you role play a sniper without called shots?

You can in Mass Effect.

I've never played Mass Effect... What's the draw for choosing to play a Sniper in that one?

Neither have I. I'm curious.

Edited April 28, 2009 by Wombat

[bhlaab]

However, the question is that realistically, is it going to be translated well into FO:NW if it is based on the FO3 combat, which is the most-likable scenario?

 

I haven't played FO3 myself but, as far as I know, the problem with it is that it enables you to rush into a hostile in RT mode, switching to VATS in front of it/him/her and giving the victim hostile a headshot with around 90%, which most likely finishes off the hostile. So, why do you need to aim at less vital parts of the hostile in the first place?

 

You may insist that VATS should be fixed. However, probably, this requires a lot of works including extra animations and balancing for both RT and VATS combat although even if RT mode, it would be nice to have shot on body-parts and various effects of it. Of course, this doesn't mean only implementations but also bug-fixing on the newly added implementations.

 

To be honest, I wonder if this is worth all the trouble while I understand the nostalgia.

 

There are a lot of problems with VATS that need to be fixed besides what you've said.

 

-You are nearly impervious to damage while in slow mo

-Unless you're already incredibly far away from the enemy it has very little tactical use beyond replacing the awful run and gun gameplay

-The fact that VATS uses a queue of shots means that as soon as you unleash the enemy starts moving around and that 95% chance you had on the head may go down to 0% instantly as he ducks behind a wall. This enemy movement also means that grenades never hit their target correctly.

-Melee is incredibly awkward in VATS. You can't target specific limbs, the animations bug out, whether your attack connects is based far more on (the buggy) animations than stats, and the game has no qualms with re-rooting you to another spot altogether-- one that might be completely removed from any chance of hitting the target. It's happened to me, at least.

-Slow motion gets annoying. Not a bug or a design flaw, but it's ANNOYING.

[Gizmo]

There are a lot of problems with VATS that need to be fixed besides what you've said.

 

-You are nearly impervious to damage while in slow mo

-Unless you're already incredibly far away from the enemy it has very little tactical use beyond replacing the awful run and gun gameplay

-The fact that VATS uses a queue of shots means that as soon as you unleash the enemy starts moving around and that 95% chance you had on the head may go down to 0% instantly as he ducks behind a wall. This enemy movement also means that grenades never hit their target correctly.

-Melee is incredibly awkward in VATS. You can't target specific limbs, the animations bug out, whether your attack connects is based far more on (the buggy) animations than stats, and the game has no qualms with re-rooting you to another spot altogether-- one that might be completely removed from any chance of hitting the target. It's happened to me, at least.

-Slow motion gets annoying. Not a bug or a design flaw, but it's ANNOYING.

Interesting reading... [on the subject]

http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/V.A.T.S.

Edited April 28, 2009 by Gizmo

[Mikhailian]

I'm gonna throw in a vote for called shots to the eyes and groin, and called shots for melee/unarmed.

 

Also, vats needs fixing. As of the last patch which fixed nothing, now missiles and grenades (mid flight) cannot be targeted, and neither can the npcs half of the time. I think it goes without saying that those glitches need to make like a banana.

 

On a subject completely unrelated to wanamingo groin sockets, I'd like to cast a vote for player set age and scale for the pc. It's already in the engine where you can opt to be taller, smaller, smooth skinned and young, and a few degrees of aged grizzledom. No more forcing the player to be a fresh faced teen. I would LOVE if the pc and other npcs could be fat, skinny, super hero physqued, or dwarfish; but I can settle for what the engine already supports.

[jero cvmi]

re: Groin Shots

 

First, as a female, I see little difference between a shot to the belly or groin. Both of them have the potential to damage important girl bits.

Not if the target's belly is protected by armor.

Technically, groin/eye shot was an option to go for a low chance to hit, but without armor modifiers, and a chance for instant death, or falling on the ground/disabling. It's a tactical choice. The question is, does bethesda's engine support armor modifiers in a way that it would make sense to include that kind of called shots?

 

Secondly, in a non-lethal fight, whether you shoot someone in the genitals or stomach/intestine might be important, but in a lethal one, it doesn't matter. The only reason to include groin shots is for the lulz.

As I don't find 'guy gets smacked in balls' all the lulz-worthy, I'm not for it. I don't mind if it's in, but it seems a waste of animation and programming resources.

Well, yes, the lulz were all in the text description... if it's not saying "female raider gets hit in the groin for 654 HP, her fertile days are over" or so, it's just a bloody animation, nothing funny about it.

I've never understood why folks were always so enamored of called shots.

 

well, because it's role-playing...

 

 

No.

 

Called shots have nothing to do with role-playing. The mere presence of an option for the player is not role-playing. If that were the case, Halo giving me a selection of guns is a role-playing element.

 

Aw come on.

 

It's definately not a key roleplay element, but it adds to it if you have a little imagination: A character that's cowardly, and not very good in fighting, will likely kick the groin to bide some time and run for it, while a fighter will bash the head until it breaks open, a sniper will go for the eye, etc. At least that's how i was playing it, and found the system very rewarding.

 

Anyway, it's just special called shots with various effects. I think people insist specifically on groin shots, because it's funny. Not "guy gets smacked in the balls" funny, but "In fallout 3, nobody has reproductive organs, like in Mickey Mouse" funny. get it?