Bethesda and PnP mechanics

[xdarkyrex]

O, which? That FO1 and 2 aren't immersive or that FPP is more immersive than iso?

This is the kind of bullshit I am sick of. Tyshalle and I have BOTH said that we enjoy Fallout, and that it IS immersive. Stop lying to yourself and telling saying that it is the pinnacle of perfection and can never be improved upon. Now, the most immersive games I can think of off the top of my head, System Shock 2 and Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare were both first person perspective, and to me it clearly had a huge effect, and I find no coincidence with the view and the correlation between just how much I felt like I really was my character. Now, immersion doesn't necessarily correlate with fun, because I thought that Fallout was more fun than CoD4. But to me immersion is a very simple thing, it has to do with how beleivable your environment is, and how much you feel like you ARE that character. Fallout was a fairly immersive game, I would always get very wrapped up in my character, but for many people, myself included, the visual representation has a lot to fo with HOW immersive a game is, my guess is that Fallout probably got just about as immersive as an isometric perspective game can get, and to make strides farther in the direction of "immershun" it needs to change. You don't want that change, Tim Cain didn;t make the game for that change, strategy game fans and turn based fans are going to hate the change, but there are lots of us out there who are excited for it.

Stop making shit up, alright? It makes you sound like a fucking idiot.

snip

knowing a piece of art and knowing hte motivation between a piece of art are different in that one affrects how fun the game is and one affects the philosophical qualifications of the game. This is not a discussion of design philosophies, this is a discussion of FUN factor and personal appreciation. Your argument is essentially that they are inseperable, but let me tell you, they most certainly are not one and the same, thats is an absurd oversimplification of the end product.

Fallout was not made for the creators, it was made for the players. And the creators had a kind of players in mind. Those players like PnP rules, they like narrators, they like point and click mechanics, they like, oh yeah, turn based! Oh, the horror! It doesn't matter what YOU like, if you like Fallout, then you'd like Fallout 3 if it had the same design as Fallout. So don't come and think that just because you see something in a certain way you can tell what that something is.

I never claimed that Fallout was something other than waht it is, what I said is that I don't CARE what it is, only what it is to ME. Caring about anything else would be utterly pointless. why would I care what it is to you, or BN, or Sorrow, or Tim Cain anyone else? I don;t play the game for your guys enjoyment, I play it for MINE. I don;t play it to grasp some philosophical motive for creation, I play it to immerse myself in the story and have a good time. If I did not enjoy it, I would not have played it. If I do not enjoy Fallout 3, I will not play it. I don't have any realistic or useful reason to CARE about whether the rest of the ans enjoy Fallout 3 or Fallout, I am not in their heads and can't read minds. I only know what I like, why I like it, and what relevance the game has to me directly and indirectly. The "objective truth about art" is one of the most asinine concepts ever heard and I strongly suggest you re-evaluate the function and autonomy of this position.

As far as "LAWL IMMERSHUN" goes: the argument is old, and invalid. Games are played for what? OH, THAT'S RIGHT: fun!

I agree, but what you fail to realize is that many of us also do it for escapism, think types of immersion lend to the gameplay, or just particularly enjoy visual art (see: pwetty grafix0rz). The argument being levied here is to say that I and others essentially have no right to appreciate the game for anything outside of its original design purpose, and for that reason also have no right to want or appreciate a sequel with altered game mechanics. Fun, sir, that is what will be telling me whether I like Fallout 3. Now, certain things like functionality, comparison to the prior games, and canonical lore will probably have atleast some effect on whether I enjoy the game, but I reserve the right to appreciate the direction they have taken and to say otherwise is simply absurd.

 

[Black]

O, which? That FO1 and 2 aren't immersive or that FPP is more immersive than iso?

This is the kind of bullshit I am sick of. Tyshalle and I have BOTH said that we enjoy Fallout, and that it IS immersive

Immersion isn't necessary to a great game experience, Fallout 1 and 2 have proven that.

Maybe you were talking with another Tyshalle

Stop making shit up, alright? It makes you sound like a fucking idiot.

 

[xdarkyrex]

Well, I never said that....

But yeah, you just kicked my balls at the quoting game. Touche Black, touche.

I'm just gonna go back to my corner

 

[shihonage]

This is the kind of bullshit I am sick of. Tyshalle and I have BOTH said that we enjoy Fallout, and that it IS immersive. Stop lying to yourself and telling saying that it is the pinnacle of perfection and can never be improved upon.

Fallout is not perfection. Of course it can be improved. But that would involve expanding it, evolving it's gameplay mechanics.

Of course, if Bethesda chose to expand on Fallout's core gameplay mechanics, i.e. maintain a level of strategy in combat, it would require for them to work on a slick implementation of a 3/4 view a la Van Buren.

Since that conflicted with their plans to make the game first-person, they eliminated Fallout's core mechanics entirely and implemented the castrated combat mode that is currently known to exist in Fallout 3.

The end reason for making the game first-person is supposedly IMMERSION. What is IMMERSION to Bethesda ? Judging from their prior works, immersion means graphical effects, high polygon counts, top-notch audio,

To me, immersion means a world that seems to be alive. A world that doesn't blatantly break suspension of disbelief the moment you turn away from a linear path. A world where I can employ a multitude of strategies toward everything from combat to solving quests. A world where my character's nature affects his or her interactions.

Bethesda chose to focus on what I personally consider to be a superficial direction, They moved the game to first-person, with apparently an unusable 3/4 view, which makes turn-based combat impossible to implement, and suits itself far better toward the realtime-with-gimmick they got there now.

It is just one of the ways in which they're taking the franchise and focusing on the superficial instead of what really matters to someone like me. Their dialogue system is also already known to be castrated in ability compared to that of Fallout. Why ? Because they want to have top-notch audio with their much-flaunted Liam Neeson and who knows who else.

Simply put, they focus on pretty, which, due to game engine, resource and programming limitations, forces the dumb. If pretty matters to you more, if pretty is what constitutes IMMERSION for you... if you'd rather hear the same 5 lines from a Deathclaw in glorious Dolby 5.1 sound instead dealing with 25 dynamically changing lines represented by text, then yeah, you're gonna love Fallout 3.

 

[Sorrow]

and Sorrow... find a new phrase "strawman" is so 6 months ago.

Are you serious?
Strawman argument is a name for a type of logical fallacy, not an internet meme .

 

[Morbus]

knowing a piece of art and knowing hte motivation between a piece of art are different in that one affrects how fun the game is and one affects the philosophical qualifications of the game.

You are right. Once the creator creates the piece of art, it's no longer part of himself. Still, as you said:

This is not a discussion of design philosophies, this is a discussion of FUN factor and personal appreciation.

Which leads us to another question: what personal appreciation matters the most? That of the target audience or that of a side audience who just happens to be the usual target audience of the studio that bought the franchise?

Your argument is essentially that they are inseperable

Not it's not.

I never claimed that Fallout was something other than waht it is, what I said is that I don't CARE what it is, only what it is to ME. Caring about anything else would be utterly pointless.

I refuted that point in the same post you quoted.

The "objective truth about art" is one of the most asinine concepts ever heard and I strongly suggest you re-evaluate the function and autonomy of this position.

I'm sorry, I don't remember saying anything like that at all...

Anyway, please focus on my arguments and not on things I haven't said:

Otherwise I'd go over at Valve's forums and complain about HL2 because it's not all alienish and laboratorical like HL1 was. Because I like HL for that, but that's not what it's really about... Or I'd go over at Rockstar's forums and complain that GTA isn't tongue-in-cheek anymore and that there are no more in-car-auto-weapons. Because I liked GTA for that! But, again, that's not what it's about... Do I have the right to complain just because I see things a certain way? No! It's not my game, I'm not a fan, and I don't go over there bother the game's fans... I stay on my corner and complain about the badly done sequels of the games I like. And you should do the same.

 

[FeelTheRads]

This is the kind of bullshit I am sick of. Tyshalle and I have BOTH said that we enjoy Fallout, and that it IS immersive.

Oh, really? Let's see....

Immersion isn't necessary to a great game experience, Fallout 1 and 2 have proven that.

And yes, stats and turn-based combat are less immersive than real-time combat where the statistics are all invisible, behind the scenes. I'm not even going to elaborate, because the only way somebody can't understand that is if they're lying to themselves. Stupidity isn't even a factor there because I don't think it's possible to be that stupid.

Apparently Mr. Tyshalle Dumbass doesn't think Fallout is immersive. How could it be when it's not first-person, it's not real-time and it doesn't have Pixel Shader 3.0, right?

Plus, really, we don't give a crap whether you like Fallout or not. It's completely irrelevant. Liking it doesn't give you the freedom of spewing out absurdities like these.


Tell me, what do you call it when you feel you're in the gameworld, when you feel you're one with the character, when you're afraid of the consequences of your actions, when you care about what happens with your character and other game characters?
I call it immersion.

What do you call it when you're put into a FPP?
I call it FPP.

 

[Mord_Sith]

To me, getting immersed in a game equates to when I forget about the time playing a game, and when I look at the clock next it's several hours past and I ask myself "Wow, where'd the time go?"

Right now SR2 is doing that for me, it's a flipping top down, so trying to say that ONLY FPP can possibly immersing is screwy at best.

CoD4 is immersing to you? Yikes lad you really are distracted easily, it's a flipping shooter, it's meant to waste time on for half hour to hour stints. I find staring at my blender more immersing than CoD4 on a regular basis!

 

[Brother None]

Honestly, darky, now you're just starting to dig your own hole. Which is bad, m'kay?

 

[Tyshalle]

As far as real-time goes, well, that change necessarily requires an entirely different sort of mechanics than turn-based, and generally, you can't make the same sort of choices and decisions because you don't have time, and because the mechanics don't allow for them. It's like chess: can you really say that a real-time adaptation, with knights and soldiers running around hacking at each other, would involve anywhere near the same thought and strategy? You might find it more interesting, but people who enjoy playing chess will, quite understandably, probably not be impressed. They enjoyed playing chess, not a (poor) attempt at simulating "real-life battles" with superficial resemblances to their game.

They do have speed-chess, which works on exactly those principles. Adding in adaptation and instinct and impulses doesn't mean it's any less intelligent. There's an argument to be made that it actually requires more intelligence, as it requires you to make better decisions faster. It's not like the winner of a match of speed-chess didn't use his brain during the course of the game. Now given, speed-chess does allow for stupid mistakes to be made, and it can get sloppy, but that doesn't make it less intelligent by default. It just adds to the depth of the game.

Anyway, the real issue is that Bethesda's system IS, in fact, dumbed-down and simplified. There's no need to make an argument for this. If you played Morrowind and/or Oblivion and honestly believe these are good, intelligent combat systems in any sense, then we're not going to find any common ground. Adding a pause function linked to Action Points and a slo-mo head-gib camera is not, I don't think, going to make it suddenly terribly awesome or even add any amount of real strategy.

Maybe, but, and maybe I'm playing semantics here, but there's a major difference between calling Real-Time/FPP stupid, and calling Bethesda's systems stupid. Bethesda's systems might be stupid, and they might even be connected to the FPP/RT stuff, but I think we'd both agree that even if they kept the ISO/TB stuff a lot of their systems would still be considered stupid.

Also, quit trying to equate FPP with "immersion." Really. Just stop.

No, I won't, because FPP, by default, is more immersive than any other perspective. Any disagreement with this is simply wrong. That doesn't necessarily mean that there aren't some truly unimmersive FPP games, and it doesn't mean that there aren't some spectacularly immersive third-person perspective games. But by default, seeing out of your character's eyes is MORE immersive than looking at the back or the top of your character's head. It is what it is, I'm not going to argue that anymore.

Even then, I don't see how an FPP perspective where I have no peripheral vision, I can't move my head, eyes, or appendages independently of my torso, my weapon is always sticking up in my vision in the exact same position, etc. and so on is really all that "immersive."

Christ, more of the inane "I don't have peripheral vision!" bullshit.

Great music, great writing, great art (which, coincidently, the original Fallout had all three) all contribute much more to "immersing" me in the game world than the viewpoint.

Me too, we're in absolute agreement here. But that doesn't change the fact that First-Person is more immersive, by default, than Third-Person. And again, I find Fallout 1 to be far more immersive than say, STALKER, which despite being first person and being a decent game in its own right, and far more atmospheric than Fallout, just isn't really captivating me and making me feel like my character has much of an identity. I never said that all games with First Person Perspective are more immersive than games without it, but, personally, if someone made a modification of Fallout 1, which had literally everything be the same except it was 3D First Person Perspective, with real-time combat, maybe it would be a worse or better game, but it would definitely be a more immersive game, and it would definitely be a game worth playing, IMO.

Keep in mind that I'm not suggesting that the more immersive game is the better game. It is what it is.

I'm not one of the Crazy-Obsessed Fans as you call them, in fact I think I belong more to the Looking Forward FO3 Fan, but one of the things that atracted me to the original fallout was the isometric view and the turn based. I remember seeing a magazine with some screens and some info about the turn based battle, and thinking "I want that".

Sure, me too, though I played Fallout 2 first, coming in a bit late on the whole franchise (I think I picked it up in the year '99 or 2000). But still, Fallout 1 to this day is still in my top 3 all time favorite games.

Beg pardon? that doesn't make much sense dude, just because to me photos haven't been able to replace my imagination my imagination isn't as good as I have been boasting?

I was teasing you. You were talking about how your imagination can bring text alive, and you can really smell smells just by reading about them, but then you went on this whole diatribe about how, essentially, you couldn't do the same with photographs.

I personally, am not so cynical about images as you seem to be. I remember, back when I actually did play MMO's, walking around old-school Star Wars Galaxies and really feeling intensely gratified with wandering around some of the cliff-sides, seeing the sun-rise and what not. Just because the images were there in front of me didn't mean I wasn't using my imagination. I think your imagination isn't just limited to bringing text alive.

But regardless, I was just poking fun, don't take it so seriously.

I am not bitching about good graphics in general, my perception of graphics is that they are directly proportional to the quality of storyline put into the game, the lesser the graphics the better the storyline as they aren't relying on the graphics to tell the story for them and vice versa.

And I'd mostly agree with you. I think there are a few games that have spectacular storylines combined with amazing graphics and even more amazing gameplay (Half-Life 2, for instance, though it has one of the most under-rated stories ever since it's too subtle for most people). But yeah, for the most part games have gone the same route as Hollywood movies. The bigger the budget, the worse the script. But I mean, there's a lot of really crappy low-budget games out there too, so while I think the experience you're talking from is useful, I don't think it's enough to base actual arguments on, especially when talking in absolutes as you seem to do.

By the way, it isn't cool to pick on people about their grammar, you got the idea of what he was trying to say, yes it was a bit of an attack, but there are a lot of people on these forums that english is a second language, so I ask that you don't grammar-nazi us to death plzkthx.

lol

When immersion means only FPP and awesome graphics, as defined by the media and the PR, it really has absolutely no value whatsoever.

Okay, but what word am I supposed to use, then? I mean, when talking about immersion as more than just a PR buzzword, people like me who actually believe immersion means more than just that flakey-bullshit, what are we supposed to do? I'm not going to not use that word just because it's been raped to death.

Drawing conclusions from this, any game that isn't first-person or doesn't have awesome graphics can't be immersive no matter what, right?

Not at all; see above.

Go play doom, and try to tell me that it's more immersive than fallout, just because it's FPP.

Immersion has nothing to do with the angle that you are viewing the game world from.

I think you're right on the first mark, but wrong on the second. Immersion doesn't require First-Person Perspective, but First-Person Perspective does put the immersion level up a few notches. In no way does that mean that FPP games are more immersive than ISO games, or whatever, obviously tons of things factor into that. I'm just saying, by itself, seeing through the eyes of your character is, without a doubt, more immersive than seeing the back or top of your character's head.

I'm not even saying this is better. In games where there has been an effective choice between 1st and 3rd person perspectives, I frequently go with 3rd person. Even if 1st might be more immersive, sometimes 3rd just feels better, or plays better, or looks better, or whatever.

I wouldn't, for instance, want to play Max Payne in first person. Part of the fun is watching your dude act like he's Chow Yun Fat in a John Woo movie.

Effective use of sounds, scripting, and AI have more to do with Immersion than perspective ever will.

Sure. The benefits of first-person perspective in terms of immersion are finite. And there are benefits to both. I wouldn't want to play Command and Conquer in first person. I wouldn't want to play Half-Life 2 in turn-based, third person isometric viewpoint.

Fallout was plenty immersive. But the more we talk about it the more I'm coming to realize this is really just arguing semantics at this point.

I'm not a rabid, obsessed Fallout fan, but even I can make the relatively simple deduction that Beth has no buisness calling this fallout 3.

Ah crap... I hope this isn't going to be one of those "we wouldn't bitch if they hadn't called this a sequel, but instead a spin-off" sort of arguments....

I bought Tactics for what it was. A squad based tactial combat game. I had no illusions that it was a sequel. Therefor, my expectations of the game were lower than those I would have had if they had marketed it as Fallout 3. I DID NOT even bother with the mind boggling douchebaggery of POS.

Ah, crap. It was.

Look, a name is just a name. If you played Oblivion and you thought it was the stupidest fucking thing you've ever played, and you look at Fallout 3 and you think it's going to be Oblivion-with-Guns, then why the hell don't you just assume that because the game is getting a complete overhaul by a completely different company that makes games you don't really like very much, that maybe Fallout 3 is just a spin-off game, or the attempts of an evil corporation to whore out the franchise for a few more bucks?

I mean, you're essentially calling this a spin-off anyway. Why flip out so much over a single digit being added to the end of the name? Seriously, all this: "It implies that it's a direct sequel! But it's not!!!11" nonsense really needs to stop. This is not a rational argument. This is an argument of a nitpicky bag of asses trying to justify their feelings when no real justification is required.

If you don't like the game, then don't like the fucking game. If you think it's a rape of the franchise in ways Brotherhood of Steel could never dream of, then hate the game all you want. But don't make up extra excuses to try and paint Bethesda as some evil corporation as a result of them calling this a sequel, rather than Fallout: The Mindless First Person Console Shooter for Complete Retards Who Love To Throw Their Money Away. Because this isn't a rational argument or reason. Calling it pure buttfuckery bullshit does butt-sex lovin' bull feces a complete disservice.

Your logic is flawed. I CAN'T talk about homeworld because I only played the game. If I wanna talk about it, even if it's just on a random forum, and NOT make a fool out of myself, I'd have to read about it... Otherwise, well, I'd just be making a fool out of myself. If I wanna talk about something, I gotta know what I'm talking about.

I think that, if in order to truly understand and know a game or a movie you have to do more than just play the game or watch the movie, then they have failed. I'm not saying that knowing designer intention is bad or not useful, especially if you want special insights on their intentions, but to tell someone that they don't know what they're talking about because they've only played the game is kind of dense.

It also leads to situations like this one, where the designer's intentions is argued against what the player (in this case, me) actually took from the game or cares about.

Games are played for what? OH, THAT'S RIGHT: fun! Not realism/"immersion", though many seem to forget it. Not for PURTY SPARKWY GWAPHICS, though graphics are of course expected to be reasonably good by modern standards. So: even if you believe you can prove FPP is more "immersive" than "iso" (which you cannot, as that would be a subjective matter), you must surely realize that there is no meter for "fun."

That's kind of the point. Some people enjoy candy and popcorn. Others enjoy swordfish steak and puerco pibil. Don't start with the fun vs. realism shit, because some people require realism in their fun the same way that some people require turn-based gameplay rather than real-time. Some people just need popcorn, mindless fun. Some people (like me) can do either, but recognize the differences between popcorn and filet mignon.

This isn't an argument in favor of FPP, by the way. But don't tell me why people play games, because the reasons people consider fun fun differ dramatically from person to person. Which should go without saying, but this is the internet.

Maybe you were talking with another Tyshalle

I think the problem with using the word "immersion" so much, is that it occasionally gets used in the wrong context.

I had meant that Fallout 1 and 2 were great games without the visceral experience inherent with FP/RT. I do consider both games to be immersive in that I feel both caught up in the world and in my character himself. But I don't really feel like I lived and breathed the world of Fallout on the level a FPP game could give me.

The end reason for making the game first-person is supposedly IMMERSION. What is IMMERSION to Bethesda ? Judging from their prior works, immersion means graphical effects, high polygon counts, top-notch audio,

To me, immersion means a world that seems to be alive. A world that doesn't blatantly break suspension of disbelief the moment you turn away from a linear path. A world where I can employ a multitude of strategies toward everything from combat to solving quests. A world where my character's nature affects his or her interactions.

I think Bethesda's version of immersion means all of that. Though I will say that I think they're more willing to limit the player in ways the other games weren't, which is worrisome. Far more worrisome than what perspective the game is going to be in.

Immersion isn't necessary to a great game experience, Fallout 1 and 2 have proven that.

And yes, stats and turn-based combat are less immersive than real-time combat where the statistics are all invisible, behind the scenes. I'm not even going to elaborate, because the only way somebody can't understand that is if they're lying to themselves. Stupidity isn't even a factor there because I don't think it's possible to be that stupid.

Apparently Mr. Tyshalle Dumbass doesn't think Fallout is immersive. How could it be when it's not first-person, it's not real-time and it doesn't have Pixel Shader 3.0, right?

I've explained the first quote, so I won't bother doing so again. The second one in no way says that I don't think that Fallout was immersive, simply that those game mechanics were less immersive/realistic than what they could have been.

Also, I'm relatively certain that at no point in time have I been arguing in favor of the best graphics in the universe for this game in order to acheive immersion. I do think that the better the graphics, the more tick marks up the immersion scale, but that doesn't mean a beautiful game is necessarily going to be immersive.

To me, getting immersed in a game equates to when I forget about the time playing a game, and when I look at the clock next it's several hours past and I ask myself "Wow, where'd the time go?"

That's a different kind of immersion entirely. I hope you see that.

 

[Mutoes]

many of you propably know of this allready but immersion (at least according to wiki) is categorizised in these types

From wiki:

Tactical immersion

Tactical immersion is experienced while performing tactile operations that involve skill. Players feel "in the zone" when perfecting actions that result in success.

Strategic immersion

Strategic immersion is more cerebral, and is associated with mental challenge. Chess players experience strategic immersion when choosing a correct solution among a broad array of possibilities.

Narrative immersion

Narrative immersion occurs when players become invested in a story, and is similar to what is experienced while reading a book or watching a movie.

Staffan Björk and Jussi Holopainen, in Patterns In Game Design, divide immersion into similar categories, but call them sensory-motoric immersion, cognitive immersion and emotional immersion, respectively. In addition, they add two new categories:

Spatial immersion

Spatial immersion occurs when a player feels the simulated world is perceptually convincing. The player feels that he or she is really "there" and that a simulated world looks and feels "real".

Psychological immersion

Psychological immersion occurs when a player confuses the game with real life.



maybe bit off topic but seems that people are talking about this in this thread.

 

[Morbus]

They do have speed-chess, which works on exactly those principles. Adding in adaptation and instinct and impulses doesn't mean it's any less intelligent. There's an argument to be made that it actually requires more intelligence, as it requires you to make better decisions faster. It's not like the winner of a match of speed-chess didn't use his brain during the course of the game. Now given, speed-chess does allow for stupid mistakes to be made, and it can get sloppy, but that doesn't make it less intelligent by default. It just adds to the depth of the game.

Let's have speed turn based then. As an option. Oh, look: Worms (the game) already has that Awesome for party plays.

Your logic is flawed. I CAN'T talk about homeworld because I only played the game. If I wanna talk about it, even if it's just on a random forum, and NOT make a fool out of myself, I'd have to read about it... Otherwise, well, I'd just be making a fool out of myself. If I wanna talk about something, I gotta know what I'm talking about.

I think that, if in order to truly understand and know a game or a movie you have to do more than just play the game or watch the movie, then they have failed.

Ah, the common misconception. Stupidity allows for that, conscience, however, shows you how you have to have a background for your opinion about anything. Try going like that for a professional environment, I don't know, scientific environment, commenting on some physics theory without reading about what others have to say about it... Try and see how badly you'll fare. This is not science, of course, but still, it's a binary outcome: either you speak with logic, or you make a fool out of yourself.

For you, it's the second. What you're saying is, to put it simple, "I don't need to know other people's opinions to have my own" and while I except you to agree with the concept, it's COMPLETELY wrong...

And I'm not discussing it anymore: get a clue.

I'm not saying that knowing designer intention is bad or not useful, especially if you want special insights on their intentions, but to tell someone that they don't know what they're talking about because they've only played the game is kind of dense.

Well, maybe, and I apologize if that's the case, I didn't get my point through. Imagine my father, who's never played a damned videogame in his life, playing Diablo 2 from the beginning to the end, and then I'll tell him to write about it. What do you think he will say? Do you think his opinion should be taken into account? Of course not, because he has no references. And that works for everybody: the more references you have the more your opinion should be taken into account.

It also leads to situations like this one, where the designer's intentions is argued against what the player (in this case, me) actually took from the game or cares about.

You care about nothing but yourself.

 

[Deleted member 53669]

I'm starting to think that everyone on this forum needs to get laid.



Tyshalle Wrote:

No, I won't, because FPP, by default, is more immersive than any other perspective. Any disagreement with this is simply wrong. That doesn't necessarily mean that there aren't some truly unimmersive FPP games, and it doesn't mean that there aren't some spectacularly immersive third-person perspective games. But by default, seeing out of your character's eyes is MORE immersive than looking at the back or the top of your character's head. It is what it is, I'm not going to argue that anymore.

Umm, Isn't the purpose of role-playing to play a character not like yourself? Then what purpose does FPP have anything to do with immersion unless your playing CounterStrike? The feeling of customization with your PC is gone with FPP. You cannot see the armor you are wearing, the way your character looks and ect. FPP makes the game feel like your playing yourself in this world, not playing someone else, which is the point of role-playing.

Me too, we're in absolute agreement here. But that doesn't change the fact that First-Person is more immersive, by default, than Third-Person. And again, I find Fallout 1 to be far more immersive than say, STALKER, which despite being first person and being a decent game in its own right, and far more atmospheric than Fallout, just isn't really captivating me and making me feel like my character has much of an identity. I never said that all games with First Person Perspective are more immersive than games without it, but, personally, if someone made a modification of Fallout 1, which had literally everything be the same except it was 3D First Person Perspective, with real-time combat, maybe it would be a worse or better game, but it would definitely be a more immersive game, and it would definitely be a game worth playing, IMO.

Keep in mind that I'm not suggesting that the more immersive game is the better game. It is what it is.

If that's your opinion, why fuss about FPP?

But regardless, I was just poking fun, don't take it so seriously.

Alas, when one feels out-numbered and his will fading... he results to "Joking" If you were joking, your a dick.

Quote:
By the way, it isn't cool to pick on people about their grammar, you got the idea of what he was trying to say, yes it was a bit of an attack, but there are a lot of people on these forums that english is a second language, so I ask that you don't grammar-nazi us to death plzkthx.


lol

DUMASS




This whole topic doesn't seem to be going awaywhere. Darky, Tyshalle, See you in another thread where I would probably agree with you

 

[meatbot]

Ah, crap. It was.

Look, a name is just a name. If you played Oblivion and you thought it was the stupidest fucking thing you've ever played, and you look at Fallout 3 and you think it's going to be Oblivion-with-Guns, then why the hell don't you just assume that because the game is getting a complete overhaul by a completely different company that makes games you don't really like very much, that maybe Fallout 3 is just a spin-off game, or the attempts of an evil corporation to whore out the franchise for a few more bucks?

I mean, you're essentially calling this a spin-off anyway. Why flip out so much over a single digit being added to the end of the name? Seriously, all this: "It implies that it's a direct sequel! But it's not!!!11" nonsense really needs to stop. This is not a rational argument. This is an argument of a nitpicky bag of asses trying to justify their feelings when no real justification is required.

If you don't like the game, then don't like the fucking game. If you think it's a rape of the franchise in ways Brotherhood of Steel could never dream of, then hate the game all you want. But don't make up extra excuses to try and paint Bethesda as some evil corporation as a result of them calling this a sequel, rather than Fallout: The Mindless First Person Console Shooter for Complete Retards Who Love To Throw Their Money Away. Because this isn't a rational argument or reason. Calling it pure buttfuckery bullshit does butt-sex lovin' bull feces a complete disservice.

I think you missed my point, as I followed up later in my post. If you take away from the basic components and feel of an already established product, turn it on it's head, and slap the name on it, it DOESN'T make it the *same product but upgraded and polished for the new age*. We can go round and round on this.

What I was attempting to drive home is this.

1) Are there people who are going to hate this no matter what Beth does?

Sure, and I can't really stand with them on that, but I can't stand against them either. Beth has told plenty of flat out lies to the fans, enough so that some are justifiably pissed with Beth, regardless of the next title they put out.

2)I can never recall (even though it's been claimed by more than one troll) anybody here saying fallout was perfect as it was.

None of us are claiming that it couldn't use some serious polishing (same as my ten year old car), and some serious engine work. Most of us ARE saying that a huge change of format is not going to give us something that looks or feels like the car we loved driving. If the 3000gt logo got bought by Ford, and they did the maintenance now, I better not bring it in for service and get back an F-150 supercab.

Oversimplified, but the analogy fits.

Lastly, I'm not going to argue the Immersion aspect. It's subjective on both sides. It's about what YOU get out of it. If you feel FPP is more immersive to you, great. If someone here feels ISO is more immersive to them, then GREAT. Maybe I feel a paper hex map is more immersive to me because I imagine myself a general in his headquarters poring over troop deployments. Purely subjective and both sides can argue that to death.

I'm not even calling you wrong, Tyshalle, not anywhere really. I AM saying just this.

Coming onto a forum who's fans are notorious for rabidly loving the game in it's format for a myriad of reasons, and telling them they're wrong for that (if that is even what you're saying) is IMHO the HEIGHT of arrogance.

I already stated I bought Tactics expecting exactly what I got, and I enjoyed it. If interplay had said, "this is it, this is the future of the fallout franchise, piss off." I would have been friggin PISSED, because that ISN'T what I wanted the fallout franchise to become... I bought JA for that. If they had ported it over to an RTS format, I would have been just as pissed. I bought tactics for the novelty of a squad based game in the world I enjoyed, period, not as a sucessor or replacement for Fallout RPG.

I've been a lurker on these forums for a looooong time, and as you can see by my post count, I don't speak up often. *might* I buy Beth's product as I currently envision it? MAYBE. I'm kinda pissed at all the lies and general idiocy that have come out of them over the whole deal.

I'll still be pissed if this is the way they have decided the franchise WILL be, no matter what. It would take a KICKASS, MINDBLOWING FPP game to alter my opinion on that. I don't see it, and I haven't seen it from their previous titles. (which I have nowhere called giant, flapping, piles of shit in golden wrappers)

So,

Yes, I can enjoy and get wrapped up in a FPP game.
Yes, I can enjoy games that have the title from an established franchise and change format.

But i'll be damned if someone is going to tell me it's a sequel to an existing title. I can think of another HUGE example... Anyone who blasted Blizzard with emails for years about wanting starcraft 2 would have been PISSED (and many were anyway) if Ghost had been touted as the sequel.

M

 

[Ravager69]

I'm starting to think that everyone on this forum needs to get laid.

True, true.

 

[Sorrow]

Tyshalle - So, you are talking about one specific type of immersion, namely spatial immersion, while there are many others, while ignoring all other types and you are telling us that we are wrong, when we talk about other types of immersion?

But what when turn based combat and stats allow the player to immerse himself better into a character that has drastically different physical characteristics than him?
Will FPP RT allow me to become someone with very good reflex? Will it allow me to play someone that has very good sight?
Will it allow me to immerse myself into a character that is extremely agile?

What if I find games that force me to steer my character with keyboard (both FPP and isometric) instead of point & click unrealistically cumbersome which breaks the motoric immersion for me?
To me walking is a mere act of will just like in point and click, while games like Ultima VII, Eschalon, Entomorph or FPP games force me to use a crude controller to guide my character in a cumbersome way.

Also, quit trying to equate FPP with "immersion." Really. Just stop.

No, I won't, because FPP, by default, is more immersive than any other perspective. Any disagreement with this is simply wrong. That doesn't necessarily mean that there aren't some truly unimmersive FPP games, and it doesn't mean that there aren't some spectacularly immersive third-person perspective games. But by default, seeing out of your character's eyes is MORE immersive than looking at the back or the top of your character's head. It is what it is, I'm not going to argue that anymore.

Even then, I don't see how an FPP perspective where I have no peripheral vision, I can't move my head, eyes, or appendages independently of my torso, my weapon is always sticking up in my vision in the exact same position, etc. and so on is really all that "immersive."

Christ, more of the inane "I don't have peripheral vision!" bullshit.

You are trying to push a completely arbitrary viewpoint here. FPP may add some notches to the immersion, but at the same time technical limitations can push it more notches down. I.e. FPP may force a viewpoint for characters head, but at the same time add a lot of things that painfully remind that one is a guy sitting before a computer that is struggling with controls and has limited sensory input from the other side of the screen.

 

[shihonage]

I think Bethesda's version of immersion means all of that. Though I will say that I think they're more willing to limit the player in ways the other games weren't, which is worrisome. Far more worrisome than what perspective the game is going to be in.

The point of my rather lengthy post was that the key parts of game's presentation (such as an FP view perspective and audio-only dialogue) are bound to, and dictate, the way game will actually play. Both serve to reduce strategy and choice in a game like Fallout.

Bethesda focusing on these superficial, presentation parts first and foremost is only the tip of the iceberg. A hint of what's to come.

 

[Tyshalle]

Ah, the common misconception. Stupidity allows for that, conscience, however, shows you how you have to have a background for your opinion about anything. Try going like that for a professional environment, I don't know, scientific environment, commenting on some physics theory without reading about what others have to say about it... Try and see how badly you'll fare. This is not science, of course, but still, it's a binary outcome: either you speak with logic, or you make a fool out of yourself.

I am backing up my opinion, I'm simply choosing to use examples that don't come from the developers of Fallout 1, as their intentions are largely irrelevant to Fallout 3. The things that I'm saying aren't baseless, I'm even using Fallout 1 and 2 as examples. I'm just choosing to go purely by the games themselves, rather than any documents beyond the game, such as things the developers have said in the past or whatever, as I've decided for myself that their opinions on some of these specific matters are largely irrelevant.

That's not the same thing as picking and choosing what facts I'll listen to, and what facts I won't. It's your opinion that the original Developer's intentions matter to the core of what "Fallout" is. I don't agree. That's what this sums up to. Don't pretend this has anything to do with the scientific method or a lack of backing up arguments, because it doesn't.

Well, maybe, and I apologize if that's the case, I didn't get my point through. Imagine my father, who's never played a damned videogame in his life, playing Diablo 2 from the beginning to the end, and then I'll tell him to write about it. What do you think he will say? Do you think his opinion should be taken into account? Of course not, because he has no references. And that works for everybody: the more references you have the more your opinion should be taken into account.

Um, it depends on what we're talking about. If we ask your dad to write about fucking Diablo 2, then he's got a great reference: Playing the fucking game.

References only matter if they're relevant to the discussion. If I were to ask you to prove that homosexuality is immoral, and you bring in one of those Westboro psychopaths to speak while holding up one of those "GOD HATES FAGGOTS" signs, sure, you have a reference, but that doesn't mean it should be taken into account. Likewise, if we're talking about the core of what is Fallout, which is largely subjective, and I say that the core of Fallout doesn't lie in its game mechanics but instead is in the open-ended gameplay, the lack of good vs. evil mentality, consequences for every action but complete freedom of choice, and you come back to me and say "Well, the developers built the game from the ground up with the game mechanics at the forefront of their collective minds," I'm sorry, but that doesn't mean anything to me. The developers intentions, much like any piece of art, ultimately only matters up to the point that it gets into its audiences' hands. Then they take whatever they want from it.

You wonder why Bethesda is butchering what you think is the "core" of Fallout and then damn their audacity for still calling it Fallout, and I respond that they simply don't see the same things you do as the "core" of Fallout.

The only reason this is a problem is because it provides a solid kick to the nuts of your argument, which seems to be strongly supported by the original developers' intentions.

You care about nothing but yourself.

Umm, Isn't the purpose of role-playing to play a character not like yourself? Then what purpose does FPP have anything to do with immersion unless your playing CounterStrike? The feeling of customization with your PC is gone with FPP. You cannot see the armor you are wearing, the way your character looks and ect. FPP makes the game feel like your playing yourself in this world, not playing someone else, which is the point of role-playing.

Completely wrong on basically all accounts. A simile that should only be taken in the smallest of ways -- in other words, I'm not trying to say that this is a solid example, it's only meant to give a visual -- would be that Third Person Perspective is indeed like table-top role playing, while First Person Perspective is more like LARPing, or acting. Third-Person provides a clear line between you and your character, whereas First-Person allows you to actually pretend to be that character.

The point of role playing is to play a role. Getting to see your shiny armor has dick to do with role playing, or else text-based and table-top role playing would be completely fucking worthless. When you have a penny representing your character on the board, you don't get to see your outfit either, so don't give me this bullshit.

Alas, when one feels out-numbered and his will fading... he results to "Joking" If you were joking, your a dick.

Hey asshole, be less of a complete fucking dipshit in the future. This isn't about me feeling out-numbered, as I wouldn't come to fucking NMA and start a semi-Pro-Fallout 3 argument if I gave a shit about being outnumbered, would I? And I made it pretty fucking clear that the "joke" was the way I worded comment. I went on for a fucking paragraph explaining all the reasoning for why the comment was valid, and only semi-apologized for wording it in the snarky manner that I did.

I think you missed my point, as I followed up later in my post. If you take away from the basic components and feel of an already established product, turn it on it's head, and slap the name on it, it DOESN'T make it the *same product but upgraded and polished for the new age*. We can go round and round on this.

Fair enough. No real need to go round and round, because I agree with you. And while I can see how the name "Fallout 3" could be misleading, I think it's only misleading for about zero-point-five seconds before you look at one frickin' screenshot and compare it to Fallout 1, at which point you realize that this is a completely different animal.

I think Fallout 3 is still an apt title, however, as it's still being marketed as a role playing game, not an action game, and they're saying it's a continuation of the Fallout storyline. We can dance on whether that makes it a sequel or not, but ultimately, it's still just a name.

Coming onto a forum who's fans are notorious for rabidly loving the game in it's format for a myriad of reasons, and telling them they're wrong for that (if that is even what you're saying) is IMHO the HEIGHT of arrogance.

I'm not telling anyone they're wrong for loving the game exactly as it was. I'm really just saying that their reasons for hating Fallout 3 aren't nearly as mature/intelligent/logical as they seem to think they are.

Tyshalle - So, you are talking about one specific type of immersion, namely spatial immersion, while there are many others, while ignoring all other types and you are telling us that we are wrong, when we talk about other types of immersion?

Uh, no. If you're talking about something different from what I'm talking about, then I don't really care whether you're right or wrong. Having an opinion on a different subject is fine and dandy, but whether you can lose track of time while playing Fallout 1 really has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

Will FPP RT allow me to become someone with very good reflex? Will it allow me to play someone that has very good sight?
Will it allow me to immerse myself into a character that is extremely agile?

Sure, why not? Depth of Field isn't something new to videogames. Simply have the blurred effects be dependent on your Perception Skill. As far as reflexes go, yeah, that works too, the less your agility is, the slower your character reacts to your commands.

Given, that can wind up feeling a bit hammy, but it's doable.

 

[shihonage]

Sure, why not? Depth of Field isn't something new to videogames. Simply have the blurred effects be dependent on your Perception Skill. As far as reflexes go, yeah, that works too, the less your agility is, the slower your character reacts to your commands.

Given, that can wind up feeling a bit hammy, but it's doable.

We've had hints of that in System Shock 2 with its "shaky hands" aiming. I think Deus Ex also tried something similar, but I'm not sure. It was really annoying if you ask me - having a game mess with player's realtime input. Frustrating as hell.

 

[Tyshalle]

I don't disagree.

I think in Chronicles of Riddick you'd actually have a pause if you switched directions while moving, as if your feet had to adjust to it.

It was subtle, and kind of cool, but a bit annoying too.