Emil comments on V.A.T.S.

[Ixyroth]

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.

While his tastes may differ from mine (he hated PS:T for example), at least he's honest. That's more than you can say for these other outfits. He also doesn't assign stupid numerical scores, which is refreshing.

It'll be interesting to hear his take on FO3.

 

[UncannyGarlic]

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.

While his tastes may differ from mine (he hated PS:T for example), at least he's honest. That's more than you can say for these other outfits. He also doesn't assign stupid numerical scores, which is refreshing.

It'll be interesting to hear his take on FO3.

Well he makes fun of games by pointing out some problems and a lot of stupid things in them (some of this is opinion) but to say that he's honest about the games is a bit of a stretch since he rarely even mentions the positives (beyond a sentence or two in the games he enjoyed). His job is to be funny and to be funny he doesn't review games, he burns them to the ground.

Yes, he makes some good points. No, he isn't a reviewer and not a place to go (could be a stop among many) if you want an accurate picture of a game.

 

[Texas Renegade]

LOL wow and wow, I guess its time to destroy whatever good will I had yesterday:


Lets see where to begin, guess I will start with the todd qoute:

"2) we have a setting that dramatically reduces the damage the player takes during such an occurrence."

Ok, way too much is apparently being read into this, or way too little....

He doesn't say that they have it set where it functions that way the entire game. He says they have a setting- That could indicate several possibilities. 1 being that he is referring to a difficulty setting affecting this? Personally it makes a lot of sense if you put it on the easiest setting and VATS damage taken is reduced. I don't know if this is the case, but my FO3 positiveness jumped on the idea the second I read it.

It is just a wierd way to say it if it is a permanent thing. sounds more like an optional setting or some such.


The Emil quote about numbers:

Guys, this is Emil. He is a jolly fat man who could earn a nice living as Santa Clause during the Christmas season. His statement is purely relating to the idea that the numbers involved aren't what determines if it is fun, the actual way that it plays determines if it is fun. Seriously, I don't think it meant they disregarded the numbers.

VATS as a necessity: I haven't seen hardly any of the leaked stuff, but from what I did see, even the horribly inept guys who were playing only used VATS occassionally. Except for the meth addicts with the projection screen who were just going around blowing junk up. I think VATS is still an optional thing rather then required. It just provides a much more tactical feel to the game.

Yes, I just said that VATS looks tactical to me.

EDIT:

Ok a few more things:

I could care less about groin shots. Seriously, I never ever used groin shots in the originals. I mean really......pointless to me.

Critical failure on weapons..........It rarely happened in FO to me. It really sucked when it did. Lead to a few interesting situations.

Let me tell you, I was never so PO'd in my life as I was when I lost my weapon was unarmed, and the baddies kept attacking me rather then my 3 heavily armed companions.

I can defintely see how they could see this as a buzz kill. I have played in many games-- both mod based and actual production games, where the ability to disarm another PC was nerfed because it really negatively affected the gameplay. I see crit failures a lot of the same way.

Could they have gone either way.... sure. Do I feel it would have added to the gameplay-not really.

 

[UncannyGarlic]

"2) we have a setting that dramatically reduces the damage the player takes during such an occurrence."

Ok, way too much is apparently being read into this, or way too little....

He doesn't say that they have it set where it functions that way the entire game. He says they have a setting- That could indicate several possibilities. 1 being that he is referring to a difficulty setting affecting this? Personally it makes a lot of sense if you put it on the easiest setting and VATS damage taken is reduced. I don't know if this is the case, but my FO3 positiveness jumped on the idea the second I read it.

Good call, I've been over that quote a million times and I'm not sure how I missed that.

The Emil quote about numbers:

Guys, this is Emil. He is a jolly fat man who could earn a nice living as Santa Clause during the Christmas season. His statement is purely relating to the idea that the numbers involved aren't what determines if it is fun, the actual way that it plays determines if it is fun. Seriously, I don't think it meant they disregarded the numbers.

Actually numbers are very important in determining whether or not something is fun because it's what balance is all about. Sure, I think people jumped on this more than it warrented but it was stupid say that at the end of the day numbers don't matter and that they didn't design VATS with numbers but by playing.

VATS as a necessity: I haven't seen hardly any of the leaked stuff, but from what I did see, even the horribly inept guys who were playing only used VATS occassionally. Except for the meth addicts with the projection screen who were just going around blowing junk up. I think VATS is still an optional thing rather then required. It just provides a much more tactical feel to the game.

Yes, I just said that VATS looks tactical to me.

The horribly inept people aren't the ones to judge how useful VATS is based on how much they use it, it's far more useful to look at how often/when good players use it (if they don't like it they'll only use it when they need to, ie against powerful enemies).

 

[Bernard Bumner]

Actually numbers are very important in determining whether or not something is fun because it's what balance is all about. Sure, I think people jumped on this more than it warrented but it was stupid say that at the end of the day numbers don't matter and that they didn't design VATS with numbers but by playing.

It still isn't clear to me how the integration of SPECIAL stats works in regards to VATS.

If VATS works, then it should be a matter of simply plugging in the SPECIAL stats and tweaking the weapons stats for balance. I still haven't seen any PR explaining how combat stats actually work. It makes me feel - perhaps because I'm confused, or jaundiced by the negative aspects I've seen - that the SPECIAL has become so abstracted as to be meaningless.

 

[Texas Renegade]

Woah Woah Woah--I totally agree that numbers are extremely important in a game. I am merely saying that I think Emils comment was meant to say that if the numbers are done poorly or not balanced, that it doesn't matter how many numbers you have.

I was trying to say that I don't think he was meaning numbers don't matter as some jumped on.

I think SPECIAL is still important. They have made a big deal of using it. It could be PR garbage, but I am hoping not.

Granted on seeing how other people use VATS would be a good way to judge, but I haven't been able to find any more leaked footage in like over a week, so I haven't seen anything except the twits who played early on.

 

[lewis]

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.

indeed, go kids suck it, taste it, put that game in places you dindt know to exist, now thank god my litte brother got me to protec him against this kind of games.

now i whant to say a REAL thing about VATS and youll see its very beth-like, with VATS you can blow the head of a supermutant with a simple touch of your finger, the efect its similar to a watermelon been shot by a tank cannon, now thats some explosive action!(sarcams)

 

[UncannyGarlic]

I am merely saying that I think Emils comment was meant to say that if the numbers are done poorly or not balanced, that it doesn't matter how many numbers you have.

I'm not so sure about that, it reminded me a lot of their statement about speeding through the concept stage so that they could start building the game. I can see it going either way with what he said.

 

[Beelzebud]

If I ran a game development studio, and the guy I was paying to be a lead video game designer said something like "screw the math", that person would find themselves unemployed.

 

[EnglishMuffin]

I'm going to rely on Zero Punctuation to deliver an accurate summary of Fallout 3.

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.

Well the reason why I like ZP so much is that most of the games he reviews, that I have played, accurately portrays my own feelings towards it.

Also to say that he isn't balanced is somewhat true since he mainly focuses on the negatives of games but he does touch on positives as well. If he likes a game despite what he feels is bugs or some bad design he will say that.

Now like I said I don't totally agree with everything he says about every game, but I can relate to what he says about games more than any reviewer that I have read in the past.

 

[betamonkey]

It still isn't clear to me how the integration of SPECIAL stats works in regards to VATS.

If VATS works, then it should be a matter of simply plugging in the SPECIAL stats and tweaking the weapons stats for balance. I still haven't seen any PR explaining how combat stats actually work. It makes me feel - perhaps because I'm confused, or jaundiced by the negative aspects I've seen - that the SPECIAL has become so abstracted as to be meaningless.

You will rarely see people giving out detailed formulas and breaking down mechanics to fine detail before a game is shipped, much less even finalized. I do not recall seeing 'PR' from Interplay sending out press releases showing combat formulas. Most people probably never knew exactly how it worked until the PnP ruleset was released, or people reverse engineered the code of the game.

Maybe Interplay discussed it in some detail on their own forums back in the day, but maybe Bethesda has too. I don't read their forums enough, but I'd wager not many people here do either.

But he did come out and give a very detailed synopsis of the hows and why of VATS which frankly is a lot more than you can say about most other devs.

 

[Brother None]

All important dev posts from the BGSF make their way here. Bethesda devs rarely post on their own forum, and even more rarely (a dozen posts on the outside) talk about the game.

J.E. Sawyer et al had at least a dozen posts a day talking about Van Buren, answering any questions. I really don't think your comparison sticks.

There is a detailed description of VATS available, but for some reason they managed to keep it vague what influences VATS: skills, perception? And do my skills just influence to-hit in VATS or also damage?

Not exactly complex questions about detailed formulas, but the very basics about how it works. Unanswered.

 

[entropyjesus]

The bottom line is that the game plays as if the math doesn't mean anything. I think Emil took this philosophy to heart when "designing" Fallout 3, because it plays exactly like he says, with the exception of the part where he says the regular FP mode plays like Deus Ex. It's a bit on the jerky side when compared to even Deus Ex when you have the worst weapon skill possible.

 

[Texas Renegade]

indeed, go kids suck it, taste it, put that game in places you dindt know to exist, now thank god my litte brother got me to protec him against this kind of games.

now i whant to say a REAL thing about VATS and youll see its very beth-like, with VATS you can blow the head of a supermutant with a simple touch of your finger, the efect its similar to a watermelon been shot by a tank cannon, now thats some explosive action!(sarcams)

If you are gonna comment at least make sense. otherwise you come off sounding like a troll.

If your point is about the ease of killing some low level SMs. I still do not see the basis of this complaint. They are product of mutation, mutations themselves are terribly unstable. Not every SM is gonna be a LVL 20 100 + hp character. To believe they will flies right in the face of the Masters comments on the different effects that Vating a person has on them.

I still think VATS looks good. We shall see though.

 

[betamonkey]

J.E. Sawyer et al had at least a dozen posts a day talking about Van Buren, answering any questions. I really don't think your comparison sticks.

Fair enough. Perhaps he did. I wish I had the time to follow one game closely instead of trying to keep tabs on dozens at once. Was he as detailed in the same regard? Did you know exactly how X skill effect Y action in Z part of the game? Of a game that wasn't even close to finished? It's definitely a tight-rope walk these days. There was a time when you could converse with people and toss around ideas and not be crucified for it when something changed. I do remember some of that over the changes slated for Van Buren. I could only imagine what people would levy at BGS when they said one thing and released another. Wait, yes I can. We saw it in Oblivion, some deserved, some less so.

There is a detailed description of VATS available, but for some reason they managed to keep it vague what influences VATS: skills, perception? And do my skills just influence to-hit in VATS or also damage?

Not exactly complex questions about detailed formulas, but the very basics about how it works. Unanswered.

Well, then this is just a case of some people wanting more than others. Just a matter of demand. If most people are satisfied with how it works then they don't feel the need to have algebraic formulae handed to them to check their work like a school teacher.

 

[TheRatKing]

I could care less about groin shots. Seriously, I never ever used groin shots in the originals. I mean really......pointless to me.

Actually, Whenever I play an unarmed character in Fallout 1/2, groin shots are essential. When attacking an opponent, the head and the groin are the key areas for knocking the enemy down/unconscious. In the early game, head shots are a lot harder and so I find myself punching/kicking an enemy in the groin and having Ian/Sulik/Vic pelt him while the baddie is down.

 

[Brother None]

Did you know exactly how X skill effect Y action in Z part of the game?

Yes, if I asked. JE Sawyer was reforming SPECIAL in a lot of ways, many of them controversial, and we had huge debates over his changes to GIFTED. In each case, the math was supplied.

If most people are satisfied with how it works then they don't feel the need to have algebraic formulae handed to them to check their work like a school teacher.

Who asked for algebraic formulas? I just explained the request is about the very basic consideration the system makes, not the exact formulas.

 

[Arash]

grenades are silly in VATS, you can just throw them at the guy and he just freezes there...waiting for the grenade to explode.

in pistol fights we could see a bit of reaction from enemies at least.

 

[UncannyGarlic]

If your point is about the ease of killing some low level SMs. I still do not see the basis of this complaint. They are product of mutation, mutations themselves are terribly unstable. Not every SM is gonna be a LVL 20 100 + hp character. To believe they will flies right in the face of the Masters comments on the different effects that Vating a person has on them.

That would kind of work if that's what they did (would like some visual differentiation) and I'm sure to some degree that's what they did (there are different types of Feral Ghouls) but they didn't explain it by mutations being unstable. It also doesn't help that they assured people that they weren't going to level up and down enemies, just change their equipment and numbers, so that you wouldn't fight a a creature of a certain type (used Super Mutants or Death Claws as an example, don't remember which) of different powers. How I think they've circumvented this is by providing different "types" of creatures (Feral Ghoul, Ghoul Reaver, Mindless Ghoul, etc). It's the same damn thing but they aren't technically the same type of creature.

Besides which, Super Mutants are supposed to be super soldiers so they shouldn't be easy to take out at low level (<10ish) and in Beth lore they get more powerful and mutated as they get older (Behemoths) so it makes even less sense given fresh ones were being fought in the first game.

 

[Ausir]

J.E. Sawyer et al had at least a dozen posts a day talking about Van Buren, answering any questions. I really don't think your comparison sticks.

Not to mention it was "purely hypothetical talk about changes to SPECIAL" before the game was even announced.

Fair enough. Perhaps he did. I wish I had the time to follow one game closely instead of trying to keep tabs on dozens at once. Was he as detailed in the same regard? Did you know exactly how X skill effect Y action in Z part of the game? Of a game that wasn't even close to finished?

Yes, we knew more about Van Buren's SPECIAL without it being announced than we know about Beth's FO3 SPECIAL.