Emil comments on V.A.T.S.
- Thread starter Brother None
- Start date
UncannyGarlic
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
Exactly, yet they never addressed it. Instead they went for the symptom which is going to change depending on how many enemies you are fighting and thus is not solvable (well I guess you could use a dynamic formula but it's still missing the point).Oakraven said:
I quite honestly think that their games would be served well by minimizing the RPG elements, particularly in relation to combat. Then again, I haven't played many RT FPP RPGs (need to play Daggerfall and Ultima Underworld) so I'm not sure if they've done it well in the past or if other games have done it in a way that satisfies me (heard good things about some of them). Action game combat combined with RPGs can work, I thought that it was alright in Gothic III and good in a few JRPGs, I've just never played any FPP ARPGs that do it well.Lingwei said:
betamonkey
First time out of the vault
Oakraven said:
I do, but I haven't played it on mine. My playings of Fallout 3 were all completely legal.
And @UncannyGarlic, I'd love to break own your responses but I don't have time. I don't like to make assumptions but it sounds like you haven't played the game at all. I'll just say what it looks like and plays like are different, and while it isn't perfect by any means your criticism are not the ones that most others will share.
Xenophile
It Wandered In From the Wastes
I also wanted to note about the percentages, that the build that was leaked as many know was pretty old (August or July, I forget). So it's entirely possible it was one of the demo builds or may have a bug affecting the actual hit rates. I would also point out that the french reviewer also stated he was not playing on "gold"..
Not saying it might not be still be screwed up, but I would tend to think that the to hit percentage will be the to hit percentage. They have always stated it as such.
Not saying it might not be still be screwed up, but I would tend to think that the to hit percentage will be the to hit percentage. They have always stated it as such.
UncannyGarlic
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
You have a link for that? I'm curious because I haven't seen anything that confirms where the link is from (production line [gold], reviewer [review copy], Billy Bob @ Beth or M$'s cousin [???]).Xenophile said:
Mad Mantis
First time out of the vault
Emil said:
So, the game is not about kiting things around until your AP bar recharged enough for you to finish off the enemies? Sure if you stand still and let yourself be surrounded you'll probably die fast, but a bit of kiting and everything is right in front of you. Worked well enough in Oblivion.
Emils next post on this discussion is even more interesting:
So, there you have it. no more "Critically missed and dropped his weapon" or "had his weapon destroyed" cause its "no fun".
So it supposed to be fun to roleplay a geek who knows nothing about guns, armed with a sniper rifle? nah he wouldnt kick his opponent to the groin, that would be goofy. He'd headshot him from 50m, and the rifle wouldnt blow in his face, that wouldnt be any fun now. right?
Emil said:
So, there you have it. no more "Critically missed and dropped his weapon" or "had his weapon destroyed" cause its "no fun".
So it supposed to be fun to roleplay a geek who knows nothing about guns, armed with a sniper rifle? nah he wouldnt kick his opponent to the groin, that would be goofy. He'd headshot him from 50m, and the rifle wouldnt blow in his face, that wouldnt be any fun now. right?
Am I the only person who gets the impression that, if this project fails, Todd-o and "Fireside" Pete are going to hang this on Emil, and then, consequently, hang his fat ass out to dry? Emil presents VATS as a great concept that all people will inevitably end up using. In fact, if there's one thing they "learned" throughout development it's that people use V.A.T.S.
Really? That so, Emil? I suppose the alternative- spraying blindly(except you can't because ammunition is severely limited in the early going) with fuck-all for weapon skill- is going to get the job done? No, didn't think so. You see, they use it because they have to use it. It isn't as though they want to spend their days endlessly reloading save games until the SPECIAL-based RNG allows them to get "lucky", is it?
What was previously touted as an interesting, though totally optional, alternative to the "real time" combat(A sop put in to make those snotty, turn-based-loving, sons of bitches SHUT UP!) has now become a "do or die" proposition.
VATS is supposed to feel "natural", and considering that the game is structured as such that you will be forced to use it at every juncture, it damned well better. And in more doublespeak- in the same breath we're told VATS is supposed to be a "tactical" option, i.e. simply another implement to draw upon from your character's toolbox.
My question is- at what point does it stop being tactical, and instead become a must?
Having already been overexposed to Todd-o's relentless "Bloody mess" marketing blitz, the "visceral entertainment value" of VATS is striking me, at best, as highly dubious. And given what is shaping up to be a mandatory sufferance of this gimmick, I fear what it will really boil down to is one's own personal tolerance for tedium. But Emil is so confident(Read: Please don't roll me under the bus.), that he states-
Call me silly, but I'm going to lay odds it's the "I don't want to die in some horrible fashion every time I turn around" element. Sorry Emil. Just tossing these things out as they come to me! You know, screw it!(Goddamn it, but I think I could get used to this "being hip and edgy" thing!)
But don't go panicking just yet. Use of VATS can apparently be curtailed by using the difficulty slider. In fact, according to Emil, difficulty becomes a "non-issue". Non-issue or fait accompli?
Let's see. You can A) "choose" to play at normal, and above, difficulty- and be forced to rely on VATS. Or... B) You can play at... well... let's just hope that the "Survival Edition" comes with a drool cup, a complimentary colouring book, and crayons.
But wait, there's more!
And in an about face, after letting you know just how indispensable VATS is, Emil takes special pains to let you know just how useless VATS can also be.
See, the folks at Bethesda, knowing that you wanted an authentic "roleplaying experience" made sure to put in VATS so that you wouldn't find yourself at the mercy of twitch-style gameplay. However, during the times in which you have no AP, and thus, cannot use VATS, you will tend to find yourself completely reliant upon your own potentially-nonexistent... twitch...reflexes?(And yes, even you talky, non combatant types!)
Pardon me when I ask, "What the fuck are you people trying to say here?"
This is fucking surreal! To come out and make a case for a flawed combat system- then unintentionally deconstruct that system, then close up by stating that -we could have thought it out a bit better but in the end said "screw it" and went with what we had. And that we, the players, are all basically idiots who, when it comes to the "creative process", just don't get it.
Well he's right. I don't get it.
You can't make this kind of stupidity, this kind of arrogance, up. Or maybe you can... if you work at Bethesda.
/Takes a deep breath...
/Sighs...
To be fair, I ought to give Emil and crew the benefit of the doubt, wait until the 28th of October, pick up a copy, and try it out for myself. In all conscience, it's the right thing to do. It's what I should be doing.
But, guess what, Emil?
That's right...
Screw it.
Really? That so, Emil? I suppose the alternative- spraying blindly(except you can't because ammunition is severely limited in the early going) with fuck-all for weapon skill- is going to get the job done? No, didn't think so. You see, they use it because they have to use it. It isn't as though they want to spend their days endlessly reloading save games until the SPECIAL-based RNG allows them to get "lucky", is it?
What was previously touted as an interesting, though totally optional, alternative to the "real time" combat(A sop put in to make those snotty, turn-based-loving, sons of bitches SHUT UP!) has now become a "do or die" proposition.
VATS is supposed to feel "natural", and considering that the game is structured as such that you will be forced to use it at every juncture, it damned well better. And in more doublespeak- in the same breath we're told VATS is supposed to be a "tactical" option, i.e. simply another implement to draw upon from your character's toolbox.
My question is- at what point does it stop being tactical, and instead become a must?
Having already been overexposed to Todd-o's relentless "Bloody mess" marketing blitz, the "visceral entertainment value" of VATS is striking me, at best, as highly dubious. And given what is shaping up to be a mandatory sufferance of this gimmick, I fear what it will really boil down to is one's own personal tolerance for tedium. But Emil is so confident(Read: Please don't roll me under the bus.), that he states-
Emil Pagliarulo said:
Call me silly, but I'm going to lay odds it's the "I don't want to die in some horrible fashion every time I turn around" element. Sorry Emil. Just tossing these things out as they come to me! You know, screw it!(Goddamn it, but I think I could get used to this "being hip and edgy" thing!)
But don't go panicking just yet. Use of VATS can apparently be curtailed by using the difficulty slider. In fact, according to Emil, difficulty becomes a "non-issue". Non-issue or fait accompli?
Let's see. You can A) "choose" to play at normal, and above, difficulty- and be forced to rely on VATS. Or... B) You can play at... well... let's just hope that the "Survival Edition" comes with a drool cup, a complimentary colouring book, and crayons.
But wait, there's more!
Emil Pagliarulo said:
And in an about face, after letting you know just how indispensable VATS is, Emil takes special pains to let you know just how useless VATS can also be.
See, the folks at Bethesda, knowing that you wanted an authentic "roleplaying experience" made sure to put in VATS so that you wouldn't find yourself at the mercy of twitch-style gameplay. However, during the times in which you have no AP, and thus, cannot use VATS, you will tend to find yourself completely reliant upon your own potentially-nonexistent... twitch...reflexes?(And yes, even you talky, non combatant types!)
Pardon me when I ask, "What the fuck are you people trying to say here?"
This is fucking surreal! To come out and make a case for a flawed combat system- then unintentionally deconstruct that system, then close up by stating that -we could have thought it out a bit better but in the end said "screw it" and went with what we had. And that we, the players, are all basically idiots who, when it comes to the "creative process", just don't get it.
Well he's right. I don't get it.
You can't make this kind of stupidity, this kind of arrogance, up. Or maybe you can... if you work at Bethesda.
/Takes a deep breath...
/Sighs...
To be fair, I ought to give Emil and crew the benefit of the doubt, wait until the 28th of October, pick up a copy, and try it out for myself. In all conscience, it's the right thing to do. It's what I should be doing.
But, guess what, Emil?
That's right...
Screw it.
It's not going to fail, there has been too many re/previews extolling it as a 10/10 game, and I would imagine most console kids are going to eat it up, and suck it down.
I think that's one major disadvantage to the prefvious games being so old, the masses don't realize it's quality, and are too lazy to look into it.
I think that's one major disadvantage to the prefvious games being so old, the masses don't realize it's quality, and are too lazy to look into it.
sentorio
First time out of the vault
It's clear that the game is not going to fail, at least not in sales numbers for sure. I think preorders are enough.
I think VAST is a pretty good idea as someone else's noted above it's just like Tactics. If you've got 5 good man against 1 low creature you don't need turn based stuff just get in and kill, but if there is some situation which requires strategy then go turn based and manage every single bit in the battlefield.
Same goes for playing Might & Magic Heroes, if the enemy army is small just do auto-battle, skip etc.
Best example of this applied in Baldur's Gate series where you can pause the battle with space key and issue commands. However i don't thing Fallout 3 will be that good, I still think this is one of the good stuff in the game.
Math comments of Emil is just ridicolus RPG gaming and Fallout is about numbers & stats!
I think VAST is a pretty good idea as someone else's noted above it's just like Tactics. If you've got 5 good man against 1 low creature you don't need turn based stuff just get in and kill, but if there is some situation which requires strategy then go turn based and manage every single bit in the battlefield.
Same goes for playing Might & Magic Heroes, if the enemy army is small just do auto-battle, skip etc.
Best example of this applied in Baldur's Gate series where you can pause the battle with space key and issue commands. However i don't thing Fallout 3 will be that good, I still think this is one of the good stuff in the game.
Math comments of Emil is just ridicolus RPG gaming and Fallout is about numbers & stats!
aronsearle
Still Mildly Glowing
Pope Viper said:
Also, on other forums i show them these reviews, and the response is....
"Oh well, i'm still going to buy it because i'm bored of crysis/CoD"
Or
"It will keep me entertained until Duex ex 3"
Or
"I have a pre-order and want the bobblehead"
Seriosly, with marketing like this, they could sell shit in a box.
Pope Viper said:
1 = too many?
OXM praising it is no surprise, being an exclusive. We can expect perfect ratings from the other mainstream US magazine/sites but who knows, maybe they'll surprise us (not too much hope of that, but you never know: only GameSpy is a guaranteed 5/5 because Delsyn will give it that rating just to spite us)
Bernard Bumner
Still Mildly Glowing
Brother None said:
The fact that anybody thinks that a ten-point scale is a useful way to score a game is baffling to me. This is especially so, given that scores of 1-5/10 seem so much rarer than 9-10/10 - unless I'm the only person who doesn't believe that the games market is so overburdened with immaculate quality...
The scales, any scales not just 10-point, have been broken for ages. Only independent sites tend to use their own scales and use them consistently, and hilariously enough they're usually excluded from aggregates like Metacritic because they don't fit the mold.
And people often use Metacritic aggregates as proof of quality.
See how broken the system is? But nobody is going to interject to stop its broken ass from hauling forward as long as it keeps on working, and it does: gaming companies get extra sales, gaming journos get paid for doing their half-assed jobs.
Just read the scale like this:
10 - in the top 20 of the year
9.5-9.9 - a great game
9.0-9.5 - a good game
8.0-8.9 - an ok game
Anything below 8 - crap
And people often use Metacritic aggregates as proof of quality.
See how broken the system is? But nobody is going to interject to stop its broken ass from hauling forward as long as it keeps on working, and it does: gaming companies get extra sales, gaming journos get paid for doing their half-assed jobs.
Just read the scale like this:
10 - in the top 20 of the year
9.5-9.9 - a great game
9.0-9.5 - a good game
8.0-8.9 - an ok game
Anything below 8 - crap
You have to be a little careful with this because there are some good games that get bad scores for a variety of reasons. Recently, I enjoyed The Witcher and Mask of the Betrayer, but they received a lot of <9 scores.Brother None said:
Anyway, I think VATS looks pretty good and the vast majority of the hands-on impressions are positive (from the press and the pirates). I suspect that I will be happy with the combat if I increase the difficulty a bit.
EnglishMuffin
Still Mildly Glowing
I'm going to rely on Zero Punctuation to deliver an accurate summary of Fallout 3. The only reviews I have disagreed with him on were The Witcher and SSBB. But I could see where he was coming from in those and did somewhat agree with the points he made.
When you find someone who accurately summarizes a game that equally matches your feelings for it, you stick with them.
When you find someone who accurately summarizes a game that equally matches your feelings for it, you stick with them.
Dionysus said:
QFT
When I look at the games that get 10's and then I look at The Witcher and MotB, I know that its pointless to even look mainstream reviews.
I find that a good way to get the feel for a game is to lurk over at the Codex. It involves reading a lot of pointless crap and you really need to know who is posting, but after 20 or 30 pages a pretty clear picture emerges.
I'm hoping that VD's ITS forum will start delivering the same amount quality discussion without all Codex bullshit.
EnglishMuffin said:
Nothing negative about ZP, but that's ridicous. He doesn't review games, he dissects and burns them to pieces. There's no way for that to result in a fair, balanced view. And it's not supposed to, which is why I find it silly that some people take his opinion seriously.
D said:
You misunderstood. I wasn't saying you should read the score like that and expect it to match your opinion. I'm saying that's how scores are intended these days. If it is a great game in the reviewer's opinion, he'll give it a 9.5-9.9. That doesn't mean his opinion is the correct one.
The Witcher and MotB both do not fit in the current AAA paradigm, so they lose points by default.
UncannyGarlic
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
To be fair, non AAA titles don't fall into that scale. If there's no money behind it the rater is free to rate the game however they want and I've played a few good games that got 7s. Other than that, I agree with you fully.Brother None said: