Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Future Fallout Game Discussion' started by Ben Soto, Mar 17, 2016.
Maybe cRPGs, let alone Pen&Paper RPG is just not for you mate.
Go back to your popamole.
I may be wrong here but... It sounds a bit like you're giving the guy shot for likening popamole gameplay. It can be a fun game style. Tbh I thought it was impossible to fuck it up till I saw fo4. And I get the 95% you missed you missed as well. Though it usually only happens to me early on in fo1... Not sure why.
The entertainment value of popamole gameplay is irrelevant, it isn't and can't be a good gameplay style for RPGs that are trying to imitate, well, actual RPGs.
I must admit that NV is the only game I've seen pull it off even moderaty.
I'm not. I'm giving the guy shot for likening popamole gameplay in cRPGs, and that's it.
There are many factors. STR requirement not met, PER too low, target's AC quite high. And, like you said for being early on in FO1, means your skill ain't high enough to warrant the character skilled enough to hit their target properly despite of 95% To-Hit-Chance. Many say it's LCK, I say it's dice rolls.
Sure, it wasn't perfect to simulate Pen&Paper combat, but I'll say this, again and again, turn-based gameplay is good and fits more for cRPGs, alive and kicking. Underrail proved that, and some people even said that Temple of Elemental Evil had better Turn-Based combat than Underrail, and that speaks so highly of ToEE. I sincerely hope whatever Tim Cain is working on right now with Leonard Boyarsky would turn out to be a Turn-Based game.
Have you played many FPS? I've to say having played many FPS in the past and sometimes around 2015-2016, I just can't enjoy NV's combat. There's a reason why I preferred pistols, lever-action shotguns-rifles and sniper rifle in NV, and never even touch Assault Rifles, SMGs, and other burst/automatic weapons there. It just doesn't feel right going back from Dirty Bomb to New Vegas.
I used to play the Fuck out of half life. L4d was kind pretty enjoyable. And I don't play NV for the combat (though I do enjoy it). I get bored with most FPS within hours. I mostly play NV because despite it's playstyle if feels like a legitimate Rpg imho.
And so do I. But, remember, combat is an aspect of gameplay. If you want to make a game with an FPS combat, might as well go all out (instead of adding some dumb gimmicks like the V.A.T.S, thus ruining the balance as you make the game around it), but don't fuck it up by forgetting the other core elements of RPG's gameplay.
Of course, the problem rooted not in turning Fallout into a First/Third-Person Perspective, but turning it into First/Third-Person Shooter. It takes away from the combat relying purely on character's skills, and instead it's the player's skills that decide the outcome of combat.
Since you can change from First-Person to Third-Person Perspective at will, the suggested combat format would be that every time combat was initiated, the camera would change to a Third-Person Perspective, hovering from a specific angle or whatever. Alas, we didn't get to see how Tim Cain and co at Troika would handle this kind of system with their Fallout game, where you can change from top-down isometric to first person *sigh*
Look m8 I've already stated that TB combat works far better for Rpgs just from a design perspective. It suits the purpose of rpgs better. I already knew and agreed with that argument. That doesn't change my opinion on the matter. I'm totally fine with TB and FPS rpgs as long as the writing is top notch and there's heel C&C. To me fallout is far more than just a combat system. It actually works both ways imo. Obviously it works better with TB But FPSRPGS are good enough for me.
I'm sorry I have to be like this, but you can't really be like that. Remember that has been said, again and again, it was actually the wishes of the developers, i.e Tim Cain and co, to develop Fallout with TB combat in mind? While I agree that Fallout is far more than just a combat system, it's still an important, inseparable aspect that you can't just ignore and say, "Eh, it's okay, I guess?". Do you know what "Gesamtkunstwerk" is?
Basically, if you want story, read a book. If you want C&C, look for CYOA. For a proper video game, gameplay come first in mind. And when an aspect of the gameplay is not entirely working properly in conjunction to other aspects, then it's held back from being a "Gesamtkunstwerk". I might come across as a hypocrite for saying all of this, especially after I have an argument before with someone insisting how New Vegas have worse gameplay and I keep correcting him by saying it was the shooting that's worse, not the gameplay, but that time we were comparing New Vegas with Fallout 4, and now we are comparing New Vegas with the classical Fallout, and cRPGs in general.
There's a reason why the Codex were less welcoming and less tolerant toward New Vegas than us. They had a lot more experiences with RPGs and other genres, enough to calmly state that New Vegas is just as clunky as other popamole shooters and, thus, not really a good Fallout game, let alone a good RPG in comparison to other tons of RPGs. Hell, you saw how Mr Fish here would go to an extreme of scrapping New Vegas from his personal canon when fanmade Van Buren finally done, right?
I'm so sorry I have to be like this. But you ought to be more understanding to the developers initial wishes. Fallout might have been far more than just the a combat system, but still it was born with turn-based combat system in mind, and that's that. I'm sorry for coming off as lecturing you, but, really, I'm just lamenting all of this, parroting and echoing what has been said again and again by the Old Bloods.
Once again @Black Angel I get that. But fo:NV in its current state is good enough for me. Especially after the travesty that fo3 was. I'd rather it had been TB as well. But in the end it doesn't matter as NV is a great fallout game in it's own right imho.
Well guess what, I had my first experience of pen & paper RPG a few days ago. It was fun, and i would gladly do it again given the chance. But I don't think it translates well into a computer game.
Its just inherent in most gamers that they would rather rely on their own skill to beat a game, rather than luck. The classic video games which are mostly platformers and sidescrolling games don't have any dice rolls, its all about your own motor skills and hand-eye-coordination. I am no different, although I can accept a certain degree of randomness in games. But ultimately, I think most gamers would like to feel that they beat a game by their own ability, rather than dumb luck.
@Black Angel: Don't be so sore than turn-based combat is not popular, people nowadays only respect skill. There's good reason they aren't considered e-sports. The only one is played competitively is Pokemon, and even the pro players know luck plays a huge factor in it. You're being quite elitist in your opinions.
Yes, many of my favorite games are not turn-based CRPGs. I've had a lot of fun with quality shoot'em up arcade games depending on player's skill, or quality logic puzzle games depending on your thinking instead of nimble fingers or virtual dices. There's plenty of these games everywhere, old and new alike. Good turn-based digital simulation of tabletop games are pretty rare though, and since Fallout started as one of them, I'd gladly sacrifice a virgin just to see any future Fallout in the same shape and form as before.
You can withstand a lot of failed rolls with properly developed and equipped character in Fallout. Your planning, your knowledge of rules, and your decisions keeps you alive more often than luck. I find this mechanics more fair towards your intellect, and I do believe that many players are seeking for games challenging their intellect rather than nimble fingers from time to time.
Isometric turn-based or first-person RPG?
Why not both?
Conflicting design goals.
Just start farming out spin-offs to random developers. Some will make isometric turn-based Fallouts, others like Obsidian will make a New Vegas sequel, and eventually at least a couple of those will be the actual Fallout RPGs the fans wanted in the first place instead of Fallout 4.
I mean I think that's better than, say, another bleeping crafting DLC or a DLC that makes you the leader of ____ faction in the first 2 minutes, or a DLC that brings back the Master in the Commonwealth because you know one of those awful writers was thinking about it.
I misunderstood his post. I thought he meant for one game to fit into both sub-genres.
if there is isometric fallout spin-off, i hope they play it more like squad based tactical rpg with gameplay similiar to xcom and fallout tactic.
I know I say this about every game, but XCOM would be great as a full RPG with its combat system.
So far the best turn-based NON-squad based combat I have experienced is Underrail.
I say, RPGs are all about character skills, strengths and weaknesses. If you're playing a game that requires player's skill in combat, lockpicking, hacking, repairing, speech, crafting, medicine, etc, then it is not a RPG.
RPGs are all about player skill only on making and controlling your character, all the character's dealings with the world and people, creatures, situations, combat, etc should use the character's skills. That is the fundamental mechanic from RPGs, that is what all the P&P RPGs have in common and that is what all the first cRPGs also have in common.
You are playing the role of that character and interacting with the world using that character's skills and attributes. If a RPG does not do that, then you are not roleplaying that character... You are playing yourself... It is not the character who does things, it is the player and so it is not roleplaying, it is just playing.
The only player skills that RPGs use are mental, and that is why they used to be associated with "nerds" because it was more of a mental challenge than a physical one. You make your character and pick his strengths and weaknesses, then you try to survive and overcome the obstacles that the universe where that character exists throws at it, using his limitations and strengths.
If your character is dumb (lets say it has Intelligence of 1 in a Fallout game) and there is a complex puzzle in the world. The character would fail to do the puzzle even if the player is smart enough to see the solution for that puzzle and know how to do it, that is a roleplaying game.
Another example, if the character has maxed the lockpick skill, and would be able to unlock any "easy" lock with his eyes closed. But then the game still throws a lockpick mini game that the player has to play it and do it themselves, even if it is easier with maxed skill, if the player doesn't understand how the mini game works, of is distracted or something they might not be able to unlock it. That is not how the character would have done it, it is how the player does it.
People who only enjoy beating a game or challenges in a game using their skills (motor, reflex and other physical skills) do not really like RPGs.