Fallout and simplicity

[Guest]

Why is Fallout so simple? That is a question i have asked many times now. I think the answer is that its trying to be like old school p&p RPGs. However, since it uses a computer, FO is much to simple in my mind. You could easily give it that extra realism, like people actually dying from a shot in the head, or from bloodloss. The best p&p RPGs are the simple ones, in my mind, and that is because they dont take a hideous amount of time to play. But with a computer doing all the calculations in the background, you can afford to be realistic and detailed, since you wont lose any tempo. So i think FO3 should become more advanced, more realistic and more detailed.

 

[Guest]

[font size=1" color="#FF0000]LAST EDITED ON Dec-08-00 AT 01:35PM (GMT)[p]>>Why is Fallout so simple? That is a question i have asked many times now. I think the answer that its trying to be like old school p&p RPGs. However, since it uses a computer, FO is much to
simple in my mind. You could easily give it that extra realism, like people actually dying from a shot in the head, or from bloodloss. The best p&p RPGs are the simple ones, in my mind, and that is because they dont take a hideous amount of time to play. But with a computer doing all the calculations in the background, you can afford to be realistic and detailed, since you wont lose any tempo. So i think FO3 should become more advanced, more realistic and more detailed.<<

A big part of the appeal of Fallout comes from the fact that it is based on a P&P RPG. The game was created and designed with "P&P RPG" in mind. This is why many ideas on this board won't work, because they don't fit in with this model.

Yes, more realistic and detailed calculations could be done in the background. However, I tend to think BIS is going to be more worried about the new engine they will implement and recapturing the feel of the original Fallout rather than trying to change the foundation of the game without destroying Fallout 3.

 

[Guest]

The foundation is not the rules, it is the setting. And all the ideas i have put forth are from p&p RPGs, some old, some new.

 

[Guest]

[font size=1" color="#FF0000]LAST EDITED ON Dec-08-00 AT 05:23PM (GMT)[p]Simplicity isn't just a P&P thing. Just because you have a computer doesn't mean you can have "Hank-Barry was hit in the left arm by a shotgun blast, this causes 2yc5g3 bloodloss and makes a 41ga9ak23 in levels 4, 8 and 12. Because the attackers weapon proficiency level with the H&K model 41 G18 bullpup shotgun edition #32 was at 43%, d=x0,8731 equalling 46, 54, 23, 19 and 27 damage and a level 12 cripple to the lowermost part of the left arm."
Okay that was a bit overdone, but the point is that most people don't want it that complicated. Look at Pokemon Arena (or whatever) for N64, nobody knows what the hell all those numbers mean. Simplicity is the key to a good game.

Of course, you could have all those calculations in the background and present the results more simply, but...

Besides, what would be so fun with having an encounter, getting shot by a raider with a 9mm pistol and dying in one move? The fun factor is probably the most important thing the developers address in a game.

 

[Guest]

[font size=1" color="#FF0000]LAST EDITED ON Dec-08-00 AT 09:53PM (GMT)[p]What is fun with marching into the encalve and saying "I am the man of steel and level 29 so you cant hurt me you bastards", and killing them all with your bare hands?? Id rather have being easily killed. And the damage system i proposed is not that complicated, its easy to see what they mean when you see it. And yes it would be presented in a simpler, and more realistic format. Instead of "you lose 21 hit points and cripple your arm" its now "you feel a severe pain in your arm, you think its broken. Because you cant really know how hurt you are. And about dying in one move, thats why most people take cover in gunfights.