Feargus Urquhart at QuakeCon

[SkuLL]

ungrateful

I don't understand this. What has gratefulness or not to factor into any of this? they're trying to sell this to us (and are getting paid for it) not giving it to us for free. Whatever improvements they may implement that is to our liking must be seen as a selling point, not a favor.

Whoa, way to pull one word out of context. As far as I remember, I was talking about the magazines, saying how they are 'unrealistic', but how that doesn't make or break the game and how in fact I'll welcome them. And how this debate about what's realistic and what isn't should not be seen as ungrateful nitpicking, but rather a hearty discussion about the little things in game.

Also, I would really like not to read anything about magazines in this thread anymore.

 

[x'il]

ungrateful

I don't understand this. What has gratefulness or not to factor into any of this? they're trying to sell this to us (and are getting paid for it) not giving it to us for free. Whatever improvements they may implement that is to our liking must be seen as a selling point, not a favor.

Whoa, way to pull one word out of context.

Then define the proper intended context for it's use then.

And even though i might agree with you on the rest, when i see this:

And how this debate (...) should not be seen as ungrateful nitpicking (...)

I start to wonder... to whom should we be grateful then? and why?

 

[Faceless Stranger]

Aside from the magazines, Feargus' other statement should be looked at..

And then overall we did want to be careful about having people focus on things, rather than becoming the master of everything. But again, you want the game to be fun, so you still want to be able to get good at most things and that's really kind of the road we went.

This makes me nervous about how they are managing the skills. One of the main faults of F3 was that you could become a jack-of-all-trades by the end. It would be a shame if they kept the RPG mechanics neutered by doing it again.

 

[Faceless Stranger]

True, but I think that having content that can't be accessed unless one is proficient in a certain skill adds replay value, don't you think? Being able to see everything in one playthrough because your character is a smooth-talking/gunslinging/energy-weapon proficient thief takes away from the fun of doing it all again.

 

[LionXavier]

I kinda like that that complaining is limited to minuscule details. It means that mostly everything else seems right. It's a far cry from August 2008.

Well, I wouldn't call the FPS combat or the minigames a minuscule detail, but they are already very old news so it's logical that they're not constantly being talked about anymore.

Regarding skill books/magazines, there are two ways I can think of that would make the mechanic more justified in the game world.

1) Have lots of differently-named skill books, each of which can only be read once and then become useless (but then can be sold, which still gives duplicates some use). These might give a skill bonus of 5, possibly with diminishing returns at high levels. This still kind of breaks immersion though, in cases where a player with 150 repair can learn something from a Fisher Price Baby's First Toolset manual.

2) Have skill books only effective at lower levels, say, up to skill level 45 or 50. Think of them as training manuals: you can get the fundamentals well enough to understand the concepts behind skills, but without trying anything yourself, you're going to be limited. Capping the level skill books are meaningful up to means that players can always achieve the bare minimum required for the main storyline, while still maintaining incentive to improve by, say, adding different dialogue options, quest resolutions, or just new rewards for those who want to see and do more. I like that balance a lot, since it means you have to think a bit more about developing your character than just spamming books for the skills you aren't putting points into.

Or another possibility could be the way they were handled in the original games:

The skill bonus provided by a book is dependant on the current level of the skill the book is related to, so the lesser your skill level is the more you learn from a book. there's cap at a skill level of 90%, from which on every time you read a book you, in the game's words, "don't learn anything useful". Also, the time spent in reading the book will depend on intelligence, the smarter characters taking less time than the less smart ones.

Summing up, books provide more useful information if you know little about their subjects, aren't useful at all if you are already a master, and are easier to read if you're smarter. Oh, and also there's no problem with them dissapearing after being used, since they stop being useful (just like empty stims or empty first-aid kits, and thus useless, dissapears). It certainly is improveable, but if it works, I say don't fix it.

 

[Crni Vuk]

finally we pushed this magazine discussion in a meaningful direction

This is not the Order.

The irony A'lec ! The irony! Or do you want to tell me this discussion if those books and magazines are "realistic" or not is a usefull discussion regarding some RPGs ?

The shotgun blasts reduce your HP/general condition. That's like the most abstract thing ever. You could start talking about sieve when you start getting crippled limbs, but then again stimpaks won't heal them. It's a matter of suspension of disbelief. I don't buy any "Hmm, I'm gonna read this mag now but don't memorize it like I did with that book earlier." or "Just because games have always had it." explanations. Stimpak is filled with chemicals which heal you - the setting allows it, even if it is out of place in our world. Reading is general event, how on earth I'm supposed to turn it into some magical 5 minute boost? I think I specifically let the option open IT'S UP FOR OWN PERSONAL FUCKING INTERPRETATION how one deals with the magazines, since I realize there are billions of things I just can't be arsed to apply logic. Do I have to explain it yet again? But great you went overboard with it.

Not sure how its for others but it sounds for me at least logic that one could possibly learn more from a book then a simple magazine as long they are about the same topic of course. Just saying though.

 

[LionXavier]

Not sure how its for others but it sounds for me at least logic that one could possibly learn more from a book then a simple magazine as long they are about the same topic of course. Just saying though.

Of course it's logical that one can learn more from a book than from a mag (that would have been a perfect in-game solution); what is not logical is that what you learn from reading something is for some reason more forgettable if it was written in the latter.

 

[terebikun]

it is YOUR twitchy thumb that defines the outcome of your battles and not your ingame character's expertise with a gun.

If you take this to its logical conclusion, every RPG except for maybe Heavy Rain has sucked at role-playing combat, including Fallout 1. It is YOUR sense of tactics and strategy that defines the outcome of your battles and not your ingame character's intelligence or fighting expertise. Actually, even Heavy Rain made you time your button presses. Hm.

 

[aenemic]

it is YOUR twitchy thumb that defines the outcome of your battles and not your ingame character's expertise with a gun.

If you take this to its logical conclusion, every RPG except for maybe Heavy Rain has sucked at role-playing combat, including Fallout 1. It is YOUR sense of tactics and strategy that defines the outcome of your battles and not your ingame character's intelligence or fighting expertise. Actually, even Heavy Rain made you time your button presses. Man, fuck role playing games.

I'm gonna have to agree. video and computer games are supposed to be based on player skill to begin with, where's the fun otherwise? you might as well watch a movie if you want no significant input on how your character fares in a game.

yet I have to agree in that it annoys me when I'm playing an rpg and it focuses way too much on my reflexes - mostly this is a problem with mini-games that are timed. and I want my characters skills to play a huge role in as many parts of the game as possible. but I still want my tactical and strategic input to matter, which it does even in a real-time first-person situation.

there's simply a limit to how much character stats can decide in a game before it no longer would be fun to play. if this is what you want, you might as well play pen & paper rpg's instead.

 

[x'il]

it is YOUR twitchy thumb that defines the outcome of your battles and not your ingame character's expertise with a gun.

If you take this to its logical conclusion, every RPG except for maybe Heavy Rain has sucked at role-playing combat, including Fallout 1. It is YOUR sense of tactics and strategy that defines the outcome of your battles and not your ingame character's intelligence or fighting expertise. Actually, even Heavy Rain made you time your button presses. Man, fuck role playing games.

Player input has to enter the game somewhere. Player's sense of tactics and strategy, decision making, and only that, is the purest form of an RPG. Mental stuff, and even then it is (or should be) limited by the game rules, example: you (the player) are intelligent, perceptive, and posses your personal reservoir of knowledge, therefore, given some small details you've found during the course of the game, you already suspect, say, the location of the big bad boss lair or know what question you should ask a technician npc about mechanics in order to solve a quest, your character in-game, however, is a few steps behind you because he's a stat moron, so he can't ask the most pertinent questions, or follow a trail a perceptive character would easily find, instead he has to slowly and clumsily progress to it. And so you, the player, are stuck with him and are forced to progress at his speed, not yours.

Also, since when is Heavy Rain an RPG?

 

[terebikun]

Also, since when is Heavy Rain an RPG?

Well, it popped into my head more as an example of a game that doesn't really involve traditional player-driven combat or skills, rather than as an RPG. Now that I'm thinking about it though, it does make use of choices and consequences, and a flexible storyline. Sure there is no inventory or experience point/leveling system, but that in a way makes it a sort of negative image of jRPGs.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Not sure how its for others but it sounds for me at least logic that one could possibly learn more from a book then a simple magazine as long they are about the same topic of course. Just saying though.

Of course it's logical that one can learn more from a book than from a mag (that would have been a perfect in-game solution); what is not logical is that what you learn from reading something is for some reason more forgettable if it was written in the latter.

Depends on the information and how its written. I mean to me it sounds logic to forget something that you have from a magazine but a good detailed and well written book might contain more information which might be easier to remember. No clue. As said its not like the concept as whole is realistic or logic. But its a part from RPGs and thus to discuss it is somehow like talking about semantics (which is probably somewhat twinks and A'elcs point I guess)

 

[LionXavier]

Depends on the information and how its written.

Not really. The information affects the amount and usefulness of what you can learn, while the 'how is written' affects the difficulty or ease of understanding/deciphering/studing it. Once learnt something (that is, once gained the skill points) the only thing that affects how well you retain it is your memory capacity.

I mean to me it sounds logic to forget something that you have from a magazine but a good detailed and well written book might contain more information which might be easier to remember.

It isn't logical at all. Information is information, and if somewhere there's enough amount of useful and understandable written information to mean an increase of your skill in a given subjet, that you can retain it or not can't be logically related to where you learnt it from, be it a book, a mag, a goatskin scroll or a piece of TP.

I think that you got it righter in your previous post: "it sounds for me at least logic that one could possibly learn more from a book then a simple magazine as long they are about the same topic of course." Of course you can learn more from a book than from a mag, since the former has more data than the latter.

As said its not like the concept as whole is realistic or logic.

I for one never argued about realisticness, just about in-game coherence.

But its a part from RPGs and thus to discuss it is somehow like talking about semantics

Again, the fact that it's a typical RPG mechanic doesn't imply it will make sense no matter how it's implemented. If they really wanted an one-use item for a temporary skill boost apart from drugs, then I'd say that a magazine was a poor choice. They could have come up with more coherent things, like, I don't know, battery-charged tools for repair/lockpics or one-use trap springers a la Arcanum for example.

But one thing I can tell you for sure: trying to rationalize or build up excuses for this magazine thing is as pointless as discussing about semantics. It simply doesn't make sense from an in-game logic standpoint.

I think the big problem here is that the books are effective up to about 90% skill, because, while skills do go past 100%, they start to give significantly diminishing returns past that point, except for combat skills. When it comes to utility skills like Repair, Science etc., there are almost no situations at all in either Fallout 1 or Fallout 2 where a skill of 90% is inadequate.

And I mostly agree with you, sea. As I've already said, the original Fallout way is certainly improveable and you point out some of its most evident flaws: the huge level cap and the abundance of books.

One must know however what led to this way of implementing things to understand the origins of these flaws: Fallout way conceived as a race-against-time game, so your decisions about how to invest your limited time (like skill-increasing by reading, buying resources by grinding for money or healing by resting/healing skills) was just another component of the game balance. At the end this importance of time was palliated and ultimatelly (FO 2) eliminated, but there wasn't any attempt to modify those previously mentioned aspects in order to balance things.

So yes, I think that your proposition of reducing the cap beyond which books are useless is a good solution, and it even could be considered logical: maybe books hold plenty of information, but your skill is not only knowledge: it's that and ability; theory and practice. It's thus logical to assume that books can only help you to a point, never making you a master. Speaking of it... this makes me think that maybe it would be appropiate to have different caps for different skills, since there are definitely ones that are mainly theoretical (science) and other that are more practical (guns, combat... etc)

 

[Crni Vuk]

I can see what kind of problem A'lec and Twinks have now.

It isn't logical at all. Information is information, and if somewhere there's enough amount of useful and understandable written information to mean an increase of your skill in a given subjet, that you can retain it or not can't be logically related to where you learnt it from, be it a book, a mag, a goatskin scroll or a piece of TP. )

Its just a game ... and I think you put way to much efford in it to discredit the magazine/book relation

There are many things which at some point dont make sense when you look at it. Even in Fallout 1. But again we can not spend all of our time thinking about what is logic what is not or what is coherent when it are just small details. If we would be talking about a computer sitting in the wasteland for milenias still working or other atrocities like they happend in Fallout 3 then I agree that those kind of things can be very easily avoided. But that you can memorize a book and not what you read from a magazine. Its at some point a game mechanic. Nothing else. I cant say that I either like or disslike it. I just accept it as part of the game and setting.

 

[OakTable]

When arguements like this (The whole temporary skill boost magazines and permanent skill books are unrealistic) pop up, I find the best thing to do is just go, "It's just a game," and move on.

 

[LionXavier]

Its just a game ...

Yet you're still trying to justify it

and I think you put way to much efford in it to discredit the magazine/book relation

It's not that much of an effort when the only I do is to point out the obvious and repeat the same again and again. If anything, what is actually an effort is to try to defend and justify something so blatantly unlogical that discredits itself. A futile effort, I'd say.

There are many things which at some point dont make sense when you look at it. Even in Fallout 1.

This doesn't justify the magazine for not making sense either.

But again we can not spend all of our time thinking about what is logic what is not or what is coherent when it are just small details.

There's no need to take that much time to think about this magazine nonsense, it's blatantly obvious. And being a small detail doesn't justify it either.

But that you can memorize a book and not what you read from a magazine. Its at some point a game mechanic.

It's been said plenty of times that being a game mechanic doesn't prevent it from being unlogical. Yet you're for some reason trying to use it again as an argument. Do you see why I have to repeat myself again and again?

I just accept it as part of the game and setting.

Fair enough, but that you accept it doesn't make it make any more sense either.

 

[Crni Vuk]

of course but you cant get more "original" then the first game cant you ? And again. Talking about such details and how much they make sense is like talking about semantics.

 

[LionXavier]

Talking about such details and how much they make sense is like talking about semantics.

Well, if you think so about talking about things like the magic clothes, the Fatman or the bobbleheads, then it's up to you, I guess. What I would say it's as pointless as talking about semantics is to try to defend and justify them.

 

[Crni Vuk]

talking about the fatman and magic clothes is one thing though I could even somewhat accept those clothes at some point ... it all depends how its used. The lincoln hat giving you +5 in spech ... not so much. But a mechanic suit giving you +5 in repair. Why not. But as said comparing the over-the-top fatman which was only in the game for the simple luzl factor (or the Bethesda factor how I call it as well where everything has to work like some amusement park) and eventualy a skill factor by books and the difference to magazines is somewhat different for me.

I do even agree that from some point it might not make sense for someone I respect that oppinion. But again its a detail for me. The Fatman is not just a detail. Its some exagerated piece of equipment. And I can as well understand the intention behind the books/magazine difference. If there is some intention. Its all more or less speculation.

 

[LionXavier]

I do even agree that from some point it might not make sense for someone I respect that oppinion. But again its a detail for me. The Fatman is not just a detail. Its some exagerated piece of equipment.

Again, fair enough. But that you think that one thing is worse than the other doesn't make any of them make any more sense, don't you think?

Also, this was never a matter of a competition to decide what's the most stupid thing in Fallout; that would be just pointless. Someone else could say that for example the magic clothes are far worse and way more incoherent than the Fatman and wouldn't be righter or wronger than you. Just a matter of preference. I, for one, think that all of those details are more or less on the same level of idiocy.