Armor & Inventory system

Sorrow said:
I was thinking about the food and water in Fallout, I've noticed that lack of these things creates a strange detachment from the setting.
So, my character is walking around that desert trying to find some Water Chip, but doesn't need to eat or drink. For example, what's the point of existence of farmers, towns, etc.
Click to expand...

The food thing in Fallout was linked to your outdoorsman. Remember that you sometimes would stop traveling through the wasteland and got a message that you had to spend x amount of time in search for food or water. This was taken out in Fallout 2. So, in Fallout, it was done 'behind the screens'.
 
Sorrow, your theories are becoming more and more stupid with every post you make. You completely disregard Fallout design choices (which included a lot of influence from 1950s sci-fi and comics), instead opting to make a half-assed argument and defending it to the death.

Thirst and hunger systems are implemented in a behind-the-scenes fashion, as Jansen points out, in the same way that weapon and armour maintenance are.

You don't need to order your character to repair or maintain the weapon because it's done automatically and is tied to your weapons skill - the higher it is, the better you are at handling and maintaining your weapon, which results in better results when shooting people.

Same with food and water - you hunt for food and water when travelling, as you posess basic survival skills. Fallout, as Jansen said, reflected this with the "thirst damage" encounters.

Implementing a hunger/thirst mechanism like you propose would unnecessarily complicate the game UNLESS it's either optional or has a direct effect on the gameplay (e.g. you heal faster with a few rations/travel faster).

What really pisses me off is your rambling - insane theories with every post, culminating in the idiocy of your claim that the loss of GURPS was the worst that was done to Fallout. Though your latest claim, that without your new idea, the survival system, Fallout is just a set of pretty blocks cobbled together.

I understand you are unable to understand complex ideas, so let me rephrase it for the dimwitted and you, Sorrow:

Your idea is overly complicated, unneeded and would detract from role playing in the game - choices and consequences.

Because role playing isn't buying rations or water. It's about making choices and facing the consequences.

And the dillema whether to buy turkey or chicken isn't the essence of role playing.
 
I didn't know trolls were allowed to be moderators on NMA. :roll:

But anyways...

Your idea is overly complicated, unneeded and would detract from role playing in the game - choices and consequences.

Because role playing isn't buying rations or water. It's about making choices and facing the consequences.
Click to expand...

You fell right into your own bag there. "Do I take some extra ammunition, or do I take some extra food with me?" Is that not a choice and consequence situation?

"Should I take a couple extra canteens from the vault? Or do I just take the one, and hope I can come across some fresh water instead of radiated toilet water?"

Maybe this would be a good time to throw it in your face that Fallout 3 is being designed by Bethesda and thus, isn't held in check by the original design choices made in the original Fallout games. By this same thought process, one could argue that everything in Fallout 2 that wasn't originally in Fallout 1 (practically the whole game) is wrong because it wasn't originally in the first Fallout's design...

I could add words like "stupid" and "retarded" every time I mention your ideas or thoughts, but I don't adhere to the original troll's design process.

"Oh! There's more holodiscs than in the original Fallout.. that's nice.. But it's wrong!!!" Too funny...

To me, food and water can be just as valuable a resource as ammo, stimpacks, etc.. But if you're an anorexic skeleton who doesn't like to eat, then I can see how that would be emotionally damaging. xD

Heck, I could even mention the three classical conflicts. Man against man. Man against nature. And Man against himself. Hmm.. not sure if those are 100% right.. maybe there's another like.. man against society. Anyways.. food and water would adhere to the original man against nature element. (or man against himself if you're anorexic and think your character should be a skinny beanpole too)

The only games I have played where food is a bothersome aspect, are the ones involving having to take care of a large army, a ship, etc.. In every RPG game I have played, where food is an aspect, it adds some extra challenge to the game. But I guess you can't appreciate that if the only game you've ever played is Fallout, just because "teh future apoco is liek teh only ting I likes!!.. But only in BROWN!!"

I enjoy Fallout just as much as the next person. Well maybe not as much as someone who's played it through 100 times. But it's not the only CRPG in existence. I know choice and consequence gameplay is important, but adding more depth to the rest of the gameplay can only serve to increase replayability.

There can also be the choice/consequence of the possibility of eating a deathclaw egg that you could have sold for a lot of money. Heck there's tons of possibilities involving food and water items.

But anyways I'm done here because the next post will just be a repetition troll statement saying something like, "Your (stupid/retarded) ideas do not correlate to the original Fallout's design."
 
And there should meals in bars Very Happy ! Maybe, doing some quest could allow the character some meals for free, for example doing the radscorpions/Tandi quest could allow the PC to have a meal in Aradeshe'es house.
Click to expand...

Have you played Fallout 2 recently?

What you'e suggesting here was already implimented.

Look at Mom's quests in the Den,
Look at the cafe in Modoc,
Look at the find Johny quest where you got given jerky as a reward!

Need I note other bars/cafes in Fallout where you could get food? It healed you. It wasn't totally necessary but at least it was an optional flavour (get it?) of a food system - it didn't detract from the gameplay but added something to the depth when you want!
 
PaladinHeart said:
I didn't know trolls were allowed to be moderators on NMA. :roll:
Click to expand...

There's a thin line between trolling and aggressive discussion.

Besides, Sorrow pisses me off.

But anyways...

Your idea is overly complicated, unneeded and would detract from role playing in the game - choices and consequences.

Because role playing isn't buying rations or water. It's about making choices and facing the consequences.
Click to expand...

You fell right into your own bag there. "Do I take some extra ammunition, or do I take some extra food with me?" Is that not a choice and consequence situation?

"Should I take a couple extra canteens from the vault? Or do I just take the one, and hope I can come across some fresh water instead of radiated toilet water?"
Click to expand...

No, not really. A choice/consequence situation is deciding who to help in Junktown for instance, since it has a far greater impact on the game world than the player having to choose between ammunition and food.

Which can also easily take the fun out of the game, when you die of hunger for the nth time because you didn't take food, or get killed by raiders for the nth time because you didn't take ammo.

Maybe this would be a good time to throw it in your face that Fallout 3 is being designed by Bethesda and thus, isn't held in check by the original design choices made in the original Fallout games. By this same thought process, one could argue that everything in Fallout 2 that wasn't originally in Fallout 1 (practically the whole game) is wrong because it wasn't originally in the first Fallout's design...
Click to expand...

Judging by the amount of sylogisms and logical fallacies in your post, I can only assume that you are trolling unconciously. And that's not even taking your insults into consideration.

I could add words like "stupid" and "retarded" every time I mention your ideas or thoughts, but I don't adhere to the original troll's design process.
Click to expand...

To quote Barney, "Don't piss me off"

"Oh! There's more holodiscs than in the original Fallout.. that's nice.. But it's wrong!!!" Too funny...
Click to expand...

And you base this on... what?

To me, food and water can be just as valuable a resource as ammo, stimpacks, etc.. But if you're an anorexic skeleton who doesn't like to eat, then I can see how that would be emotionally damaging. xD
Click to expand...

I can take jabs at you too. But I don't. See the difference?

Heck, I could even mention the three classical conflicts. Man against man. Man against nature. And Man against himself. Hmm.. not sure if those are 100% right.. maybe there's another like.. man against society. Anyways.. food and water would adhere to the original man against nature element. (or man against himself if you're anorexic and think your character should be a skinny beanpole too)
Click to expand...

And how is that relevant?

All three are already present in Fallouts: man vs. man in the form of raiders, power struggles, xenophoby. Man against nature in the form of droughts, roving packs of dangerous animals etc. And man against himself when you have to choose whom to help, what to do and most importantly, what NOT to do.

Which is present for instance in Necropolis, where you have to make a choice, do I take the water chip for myself and ignore the zombies? Or do I help them and THEN take the water chip, ensuring their survival?

The only games I have played where food is a bothersome aspect, are the ones involving having to take care of a large army, a ship, etc.. In every RPG game I have played, where food is an aspect, it adds some extra challenge to the game. But I guess you can't appreciate that if the only game you've ever played is Fallout, just because "teh future apoco is liek teh only ting I likes!!.. But only in BROWN!!"
Click to expand...

Nice reasoning mr. Troll. Assume everyone else is wrong and only you are right.

I enjoy Fallout just as much as the next person. Well maybe not as much as someone who's played it through 100 times. But it's not the only CRPG in existence. I know choice and consequence gameplay is important, but adding more depth to the rest of the gameplay can only serve to increase replayability.
Click to expand...

How is adding a food/water system to the game increasing replayability? So far I assumed replayability meant multiple choice dialogue trees and multiple quests available to your character basing on it's stats, but apparently I'm wrong.

There can also be the choice/consequence of the possibility of eating a deathclaw egg that you could have sold for a lot of money. Heck there's tons of possibilities involving food and water items.
Click to expand...

You don't seem to understand the choice/consequence idea. It's not about basics such as "I shoot him/He shoots me", since using your logic STALKER is a perfect example of a cRPG game utilizing choice/consequence mechanics.

See? I can make flawed assumptions like you too!

But anyways I'm done here because the next post will just be a repetition troll statement saying something like, "Your (stupid/retarded) ideas do not correlate to the original Fallout's design."
Click to expand...

I suppose this comes as a surprise to you that I didn't eat babies as you assumed. Shocking, isn't it?
 
This could just keep going back and forth, and I hate to let a good topic die.. so let's just bag the whole "choices and consequences" argument. Who brought that up anyway? It's not like ammo and armor has anything to do with choices and consequences. You don't see people randomly bringing up whether or not it would impact choices and consequences when you see a discussion on guns, ammo, and/or armor.

We could also compare food to ammo and armor. I mean.. given the same argument for ammo as for food, we could just have ammo as a "roleplay" item, that you can put in your gun for the heck of it, even if it isn't needed, and doesn't really do anything. But I suppose that would be unfair of me to point out that ammo could be just as much a "purdy but pointless" object as much as any other useless object, so let's drop the ammo, armor, and food comparisons too.

What I really wanted to talk about, was how to implement a food system. All this crap about whether or not it should be included could go on forever, and not really accomplish anything.

So, rather than a "should food be in fallout 3?" Let's discuss "what if food IS in Fallout 3?". What kind of food system would you want?

Here are my ideas.

There will inevitably be food items. There's no doubt of that. Bethesda usually puts food items in their games, and Fallout had them as well. They just never really served much function.

First, there should be an unimportant looking blue-ish bar near your health that suffices as your hunger meter. It should be 24 points at maximum. After two days, it would be 0 and you'd start to slowly lose health points (at the same rate as you lose hunger points).

To help keep this from detracting from the gameplay, you can carry an optionable rations kit. You can store up to 10 to 20 days worth of rations in it.

The higher your outdoorsman skill, the more rations you can get out of your food items when they are added to your rations kit. Or you could simply go ahead and eat the item, or store it. Though storing food items will take up more space than turning them into rations. A skilled outdoorsman (100%) would get about 2 days of rations from most food items, and even more at higher levels (3 days for 125%, etc..) giving better rewards the higher your skill. Even outweighing the original food item's hunger value for the expert survivalist.

Water could be done in a similar way, like having a "ration & water" pack, instead of it just being a ration bag.

But if you're the type who doesn't like to bother with food, then this system works for you too. Your character will always automatically consume one ration every time their hunger hits 6 points, bring it back up to 18. If they have no rations and it gets to 0 points, then they will start eating any food items in their belongings, except for quest items (you'll have to choose to manually eat those, if desperate, although it shouldn't come to that).

A full rations pack wouldn't weigh much, and would be enough to keep you alive on a 20 day trek through the desert. (we already know Fallout 3 will be smaller than Oblivion, and it probably wouldn't take more than a few game days to go from one end of the empire to the other in Oblivion).
 
Well, it has been confirmed that a few skills got the axe. The problem with outdoorsman in their type of games (sandbox) is that it serves no real purpose.
 
Yeah, but I'd like to see something in return - or perhaps Outdoorsman got fused with some other skill, like Science (though this may be a bit farfetched)? Something like they did with Blade (daggers, shortsword, longswords and claymores) and Blunt (axes, hammers and maces) skills in Oblivion.
 
You have some really good ideas PaladinHeart, i like them. Hunger and being forced to sleep (if you dont want your stats to get really fucked after a few days of staying awake) would be great.. I really like when you e.g must set up a camp, it does much for immersion in RPG's imo. I used it a lot in Oblivion (modded in)..

The gluing pieces together e.g to make a sticky bomb is already in the next Alone in The Dark game, saw a preview of it and it seemed very cool.. Also something i'd like to see in FO3, i love being creative when i kill stuff ;)
 
Haldgar said:
You have some really good ideas PaladinHeart, i like them. Hunger and being forced to sleep (if you dont want your stats to get really fucked after a few days of staying awake) would be great.. I really like when you e.g must set up a camp, it does much for immersion in RPG's imo. I used it a lot in Oblivion (modded in)..
Click to expand...
So how does it factor into Fallout's universe and gaming style other than 'it wud be kewl'?
 
Who wants to play a game where he can wipe out a whole army base, but then dies of starvation? That will make more buyers throw the game to the dustbin because of the frustration of having to start over again. By the way, adding a food and sleep system will only add more realism, but it won't draw you more into the story. So why do you want to spend time eating and sleeping in a game anyway, if you already have to stop playing so you can eat, drink and sleep yourself on a regular basis?

You should also remember that there already was a food system in FO1 and 2!

P.S.: Stop yelling and insulting each other. This should be an adult discussion where you listen to the oppinions of your discussion partners, not a kindergarden!
 
Has nobody here played S.T.A.L.K.E.R? There is a food system.. you get hungry, open your menu click on the can of tuna or bread and close the menu.. Not annoying.. Kind of funny when it pops up that your hungry in the middle of a fire fight but nonetheless.. it's in the game and implemented rather well i think.
 
NOT WANT FUD!

It is awesome to picture your hardcore fine-tuned killing machine munching a sandwich, but really, getting hungry in a gunfight?
And yes, Ultima is extremely tedious, boring and full of lame chores. I liked a lot of the ideas and hated all of the implementation. RPGs shouldn't really be all that about additional bullshit.

"Hey, let's go slay the Dragon!"
"Did you brush your teeth?"
"No, I'll brush them later . . . oh crap, I have no space left for the Greatsword . . . I guess I'll just leave it here and take the toothbrush and food instead. "

Geez, awesome.
 
So what do you guys think about Strength determining Inventory weight? I've always found that tedious and annoying.. trying to find someplace to stash your stuff, running out of ammo, running back and forth between stash and vender to sell your junk. I don't really see a difference between strategically carrying and stashing your gear and something as simple as eating food every day or so.
 
As I said before, it changes nothing even if made properly and may prove annoying. So why bother?
 
I also think you should have to take a crap and piss every once in a while.
Oh, and you should also have to use clothes according to the weather, otherwise you might freeze to death. Hey, it would add a lot of realism and immursion and draw you more in to the game.
 
Ok, now let's be serious.

I have yet to see a 'realistic' RPG, which does not include a peasant with a spiked club to be able to successfully annihilate any given woodland critter, (bear, tiger, ancient dragon), which later evolves into showing all evil-doers the Righteous Side of your Blade, and then the looting, which normaly ensues. In reality you rarely, if ever, carry more than one, up to three weapons. If the game somehow did not gravitate around looting, food might be implemented. Especially in a winter setting. But the dumbed-down dungeon crawlers, that call themselves RPGs lately just wouldn't sacrifice the loot factor. They cannot.
 
patriot_41 said:
Ok, now let's be serious.

I have yet to see a 'realistic' RPG, which does not include a peasant with a spiked club to be able to successfully annihilate any given woodland critter, (bear, tiger, ancient dragon), which later evolves into showing all evil-doers the Righteous Side of your Blade, and then the looting, which normaly ensues. In reality you rarely, if ever, carry more than one, up to three weapons. If the game somehow did not gravitate around looting, food might be implemented. Especially in a winter setting. But the dumbed-down dungeon crawlers, that call themselves RPGs lately just wouldn't sacrifice the loot factor. They cannot.
Click to expand...

Hear hear. If i had my way, loot in FO2 would be a precious commodity the player can carry little of:

1) player map speed linked to carry weight - the more you carry the slower you travel on the map - thus more encounters for which you cant carry the loot
2) player carry weight reduced by 2/3
3) NPC carry weight reduced by 75%
4) Car trunk carry weight reduced by 50% and
fuel consumption increased proportionally to the weight in
the trunk

Harsh it may sound, but i think it would be both more fun, challenging and realistic
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top