Fallout: New Vegas

[Slowtrain]

Is the red shield really necessary? At first, I thought that it would indicate to the player that his damage-type wasn't really effective against this enemy, but apparently it only appears when the weapon is really useless and doesn't do any damage. Shouldn't that be obvious to the player even with the problem "Is my weapon ineffective or does he have a huge amount of HP?"?

 

 

I don't want to get roped into defending the red shield, since personally I could do without it as well, but I think its one of those aids, like a health bar or ammo counter that will quickly fade into the background of the gameplay and not really be noticeable.

 

Certainly, I much would prefer to have multiple ammo types and DT in the game and have to live with an aid that tells me I need to switch from HP to AP rather than not having the multple ammo and types DT at all.

 

I think its mostly in the game for the n00bs (WHY AM I SHOOTING AT THE GUY WITH MY UBER GUN AND HE'S NOT TAKING ANY DAMAGE. THIS GAME SUCKS!!11) because of the additional complexity created by the DT and multple ammo types, so at worst its a necessary evil to be able to get those things at all.

 

AN on/off option would always be nice though.

[TwinkieGorilla]

no need for you to be dishonest. fibbing = fail.

 

you misunderstanding the words which create meaning in my posts ≠ dishonesty/fibbing. read my post again. and as much as i'd like to personally suggest you mimic the act which the character in your avatar is about to take part in...i'll explain instead:

 

* before i knew exactly what the "red shield" was all about it sounded like consolized hand-holding.

 

* Josh explained exactly what the "red shield" was all about.

 

* something still seemed a bit aesthetically cheap about it to me, but it didn't bother me as much...now that it had been explained in detail.

 

* i defended the use of the text-box in FO1/2 as appearing to me to be not hand-holding, but representative of a different sort of aesthetic.

 

* i then went on to lament and agree that this was probably about the best compromise we could get, albeit compromises are a dirty bastard inherently.

[Enoch]

I think its mostly in the game for the n00bs (WHY AM I SHOOTING AT THE GUY WITH MY UBER GUN AND HE'S NOT TAKING ANY DAMAGE. THIS GAME SUCKS!!11) because of the additional complexity created by the DT and multple ammo types, so at worst its a necessary evil to be able to get those things at all.

This seems likely.

[Gromnir]

no need for you to be dishonest. fibbing = fail.

 

 

 

* i defended the use of the text-box in FO1/2 as appearing to me to be not hand-holding, but representative of a different sort of aesthetic.

 

 

point, meet bulls-eye. some pretty wacky hardcore fallout fan rationalization there, eh? at best it represents serious intellectual dishonesty.

 

in any event, turned on or off is kinda silly as red shield provides extreme limited hand-holding... hardly the kinda thing that genuine effects difficulty slider. as others have mentioned, the red shield seems like a n00b feature.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited May 3, 2010 by Gromnir

[TwinkieGorilla]

some pretty wacky hardcore fallout fan rationalization there, eh? at best it represents serious intellectual dishonesty.

 

not really. especially if you read my posts.

 

in any event, turned on or off is kinda silly as red shield provides extreme limited hand-holding... hardly the kinda thing that genuine effects difficulty slider. as others have mentioned, the red shield seems like a n00b feature.

 

 

which isn't really any different from what i said. congrats.

[Syraxis]

Wait, multiple ammo types confirmed for NV?

 

Gotyay

Edited May 3, 2010 by Syraxis

[Gromnir]

some pretty wacky hardcore fallout fan rationalization there, eh? at best it represents serious intellectual dishonesty.

 

not really. especially if you read my posts.

 

 

 

we have, to our disservice, read numerous twink posts... gives all the more credence to our observation.

 

and as for your second point... rrrrriiiigggghhhhttt.

 

in any event, to keep on topic, am hopeful that josh addresses enoch query regarding damage types. am having a hard time believing that obsidian would utilize a single, generic damage type.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Calax]

no need for you to be dishonest. fibbing = fail.

 

you misunderstanding the words which create meaning in my posts ≠ dishonesty/fibbing. read my post again. and as much as i'd like to personally suggest you mimic the act which the character in your avatar is about to take part in...i'll explain instead:

 

* before i knew exactly what the "red shield" was all about it sounded like consolized hand-holding.

 

* Josh explained exactly what the "red shield" was all about.

 

* something still seemed a bit aesthetically cheap about it to me, but it didn't bother me as much...now that it had been explained in detail.

 

* i defended the use of the text-box in FO1/2 as appearing to me to be not hand-holding, but representative of a different sort of aesthetic.

 

* i then went on to lament and agree that this was probably about the best compromise we could get, albeit compromises are a dirty bastard inherently.

If I may ask, how is a red series of pixels MORE hand holding than letter that spell out "You hit for 0!(XX damage resisted)"? I admit to minimal knowledge of the previous fallout games, but generally a simple graphical bit of info tends to give MUCH less explicit info about things. You could get it because of Calibur of your weapon, the type of weapon, type of damage done, or any number of other things, none of which would be told to you directly by the red box, while if you did that in F1&2 you'd be explained about how much resistance there was no? So you'd know if you just switched to incendiary ammunition you'd do more, but if you just went up a caliber you'd get slightly more but not much or something?

[TwinkieGorilla]

rrrrriiiigggghhhhttt.

 

extending a silent "g" doesn't really work with what you're doing here. also, this applies to you:

 

If I may ask, how is a red series of pixels MORE hand holding than

 

i stopped reading right here. let me explain something a few of you might be missing:

 

i admitted that i misunderstood something and was being unfair and jumping to conclusions. i then went on to admit that i had a certain aesthetic bias which i couldn't explain fairly, said "meh, whatever" and then went on to lament how my vision of something that was and my vision of something that is most likely won't be rectified and such is life...and while it's unfortunate, it is what it is. all of the posts i made on 5/2/10 were said with an action of shoulders shrugging. i realize this is teh internetz! but trolling a guy shrugging his shoulders seems...ehhhh...not worth it? but hey, if it makes ye happy, who am i to judge.

 

you're fighting pointless fights here, lads. and against a member who most likely already agrees with you.

[Calax]

Thing is that you said that the text boxes were better (as well as different aesthetic) because they didn't hand hold as much, my question is how is having MORE information less handholding?

[TwinkieGorilla]

Thing is that you said that the text boxes were better (as well as different aesthetic) because they didn't hand hold as much, my question is how is having MORE information less handholding?

 

nope.

 

didn't say they were better. i said, subjectively speaking, that they felt different aesthetically...to me.

 

is this still confusing?

[Gromnir]

Thing is that you said that the text boxes were better (as well as different aesthetic) because they didn't hand hold as much, my question is how is having MORE information less handholding?

 

nope.

 

didn't say they were better. i said, subjectively speaking, that they felt different aesthetically...to me.

 

is this still confusing?

 

no. your attempt at a rationalization is very clear.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[TwinkieGorilla]

no. your attempt at a rationalization is very clear.

 

eh.

[Calax]

Look at it this though: many games have soem sort of feedback indicator to help ther player gauge the successfulness of their attacks.

 

In FO1 and 2 , you had the pip boy screen which would give you info like target hit for no damage etc.

 

 

 

Video game combat is usually an abstraction of real world combat and as such real world "rules" don't apply. So games need to give some sort of indicator on how the player character is doing with their attacks while under that particular game's system of abstraction.

 

oh, i know. like i said...my "before" and "after" impression of the red shield changed after Sawyer's explanation. it was a good explanation, and i love damage threshold (not to mention actually bringing back real Fallout rpg mechanics) but still...i dunno. the text box was like the dungeon master telling you what happened after you did something. the red shield is saying "hint: try something else!" i know it's a fine line, and it's more of an aesthetic and it's probably much more difficult to make an FPS feel like an RPG...but meh. this is what happens when you combine a spoon with a fork. you get a goddamn spork.

Generally when one mentions "Spork" one means that It tries to be both things but is ok at what it's daddy did (the spoon) but is bloody terrible at mommy's job. Thus it sounds like you're trying to say that the "real" mechanic of outright telling you something, rather than putting a small graphical icon, was the better way to go. I'm actually surprised as the red icon is probably more immersive for gameplay than, say, a giant text box saying

 

You fired hand cannon!

You Hit!

You did 0 Damage! (1035 deflected)

 

appearing sticking out of your wrist like a speech bubble... or... something. The red icon gives a simple visual cue for the player to look at to notice that his weapon isn't working due to the threshold. And it also removes some pixel measuring because you are unsure if he's actually taking damage, but only one point, or just shrugging it off, particularly on bosses with TITANIC life pools that you have to chew through.

 

I mean, it's sounding kinda like you expect something either borderlands esque (where the numbers pop out the targets head) or NWN ish (where you have a scrolling amount of text that tells you exactly how much damage you did with what and where).

 

...

 

You know part of me thinks you'd like something that does stuff akin to this simply to have a DM tell you your overall performance in a part of the game. If you're wondering, THAT is all the combat data that a computer records in ONE solitary fight with ONE mob during a 25 man raid. It records every swing, every outcome (none of the technical rolls) how much damage each one did, and what it in turn had your character do. It's VERY heavy in the meta-game of things on WoW, but still... having a simple red icon beats the bloody hell out of having to sift through something like that.

[mkreku]

The only thing I'm wondering about is why the choice to make this a red shield? Why not make it so you see little "fireworks" on your enemies armour and that whistling sound for ricochets instead? I mean, if we have a damage threshold (which I think is a great idea), it must mean that the armour is strong enough to repel certain low energy bullets, right? Why not show THAT instead of a red shield? Or does the designers think it's not obvious enough for the player to see his bullets bounce off the enemy and that a red shield is a better indicator?

[WorstUsernameEver]

The only thing I'm wondering about is why the choice to make this a red shield? Why not make it so you see little "fireworks" on your enemies armour and that whistling sound for ricochets instead? I mean, if we have a damage threshold (which I think is a great idea), it must mean that the armour is strong enough to repel certain low energy bullets, right? Why not show THAT instead of a red shield? Or does the designers think it's not obvious enough for the player to see his bullets bounce off the enemy and that a red shield is a better indicator?

 

Limitations of the engine maybe?

[Gromnir]

The only thing I'm wondering about is why the choice to make this a red shield? Why not make it so you see little "fireworks" on your enemies armour and that whistling sound for ricochets instead? I mean, if we have a damage threshold (which I think is a great idea), it must mean that the armour is strong enough to repel certain low energy bullets, right? Why not show THAT instead of a red shield? Or does the designers think it's not obvious enough for the player to see his bullets bounce off the enemy and that a red shield is a better indicator?

 

Limitations of the engine maybe?

 

as has been noted, this feature has very little impact on gameplay. how much resources is a developer gonna devote to such a feature? green shield and red shield abstractions is gonna be cheaper to implement than a more realistic animation. got multiple kinds o' armour and multiple kinds o' weapons, no? gonna use same ricochet animation for plasma rifle as for sniper rifle? the meaning of red shield is very clear and is less demanding to implement... or so we s'pose.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Oner]

When did the definition of 'gamer' change from 'someone who plays games' to 'someone who complains about everything'?

Edited May 3, 2010 by Oner

[HoonDing]

When did the definition of 'gamer' change from 'someone who plays games' to 'someone who complains about everything'?

In 1997.

[Calax]

When did the definition of 'gamer' change from 'someone who plays games' to 'someone who complains about everything'?

When "gaming" became mainstream so "true gamers" had to differentiate themselves from those who just gamed on their off time I guess.

[Oner]

I see.

[TwinkieGorilla]

Generally when one mentions "Spork" one means that It tries to be both things but is ok at what it's daddy did (the spoon) but is bloody terrible at mommy's job.

 

then you're missing a very simple metaphor. a spork is a compromise of a spoon and a fork. it is great at neither job but ok at both. as to the rest of your bawwwing post, you obviously don't get it, so just drop it. what the **** does it matter to you what i'd prefer?

Edited May 3, 2010 by TwinkieGorilla

[Slowtrain]

When did the definition of 'gamer' change from 'someone who plays games' to 'someone who complains about everything'?

 

 

When they started to suck on a regular basis.

 

When "gaming" became mainstream so "true gamers" had to differentiate themselves from those who just gamed on their off time I guess.

 

 

Or when gaming became so mainstream that a lot of what made it interesting vanished.

Edited May 3, 2010 by Slowtrain

[Undecaf]

The "red shield" is actually a relief of sorts. I was having nightmares about a textbox in the upper left corner (with a sad vault boy image) urging me to try energy weapons instead of what I was using (or what ever weapon that would be effective).

[Amentep]

When did the definition of 'gamer' change from 'someone who plays games' to 'someone who complains about everything'?

When "gaming" became mainstream so "true gamers" had to differentiate themselves from those who just gamed on their off time I guess.

 

Wouldn't that mean that true gamers consists solely of people who are paid to play games (reviewers, those in the game industry).

 

I know I only ever game in my off time and always have. Cause my "on" time belongs to others...

 

 

When did the definition of 'gamer' change from 'someone who plays games' to 'someone who complains about everything'?

 

When they started to suck on a regular basis.

 

Personally I haven't noticed them sucking anymore now than they did back in the days of the C64. Even taking into account personal taste, the signal to noise ratio on creative mediums are always going to be high in the disinteresting category.

 

When "gaming" became mainstream so "true gamers" had to differentiate themselves from those who just gamed on their off time I guess.

 

Or when gaming became so mainstream that a lot of what made it interesting vanished.

 

The only thing that's really missing in modern gaming are the days where a major release was created by four people (or one person entirely). Of course you could argue that big money has created a situation where games tend to "play it safe" and are therefore rendered bland, but in my experience that's always been an element in games - not finding a new path that works but to take what worked for the other guy and make it work for you. Clones in essence...but then how many games can you name that are Donkey Kong clones from the early 80s?