Follow up

Briosafreak

Briosafreak

Lived Through the Heat Death
In the follow up of this previous news bit J.E. Sawyer has talked a bit more on the inventory for Fallout3, in here he responds to doubts made by Sammael:
<blockquote> Please read the contents of my previous posts where weight was mentioned as a restriction for encumbrance. Fifteen miniguns or anything close to it would completely halt even a 10 ST character.
Would you like a realistic volumetric and weight-based inventory? Okay, you can carry a minigun in your hands, two small sidearms, a backpack full of nothing but ammunition, and maybe a small pouch for keycards. You have no room anywhere for anything larger than a pocket bible. If you're wearing any armor, this assumes that you have a 10 ST, and you are still slowed down.
THIS IS THE FOUNDATION OF FUN! FUN! FUN!</blockquote>
And afterwards he replies to Morcalavin, which had commented "If it ain't broke, don't fix it":
<blockquote> Okay, this phrase is seriously starting to bug me. It's not a good policy for review and revision. There are a lot of steps above "ain't broke", including "sucks but works, i guess", "awful but functional", and "pretty decent, but still kind of messed up". Modern technology shows us that there's a lot of stuff that can technically work, but still suck.
2nd Ed.'s saving throw subsystem technically worked even though it was completely nonsensical. 2nd Ed.'s dual-classing and multi-classing subsystems technically worked even though they were overly complicated and had loads of arbitrary restrictions. Unless you're Karzak, would you really want to continue using those because they "ain't broke"?
If something works well, on the other hand, there typically isn't any good reason to change it. I think the inventory restrictions in the Fallout games, based on weight, work well. I think that volumetric restrictions could add another element of realism. However, if you're just going to add that layer for realism but you're not really going to put realistic limitations on that volume... I'm not sure what the player is really gaining from that. Weight-based without volume avoids inventory Tetris, which is tedious and un-fun for most people from whom I've received feedback.
"If it works well, don't fix it. If it doesn't work well, fix it."</blockquote>
So what do you guys and girls think of this sentence "If it works well, don't fix it. If it doesn't work well, fix it", and what do you think this means for the development of Fallout3?
 
It depends on how you fix it, but mabye it would make more sense to improve opon what is already there...

So many of you guys said this.

Anyways, the whole "weight based inventory" was in Fallout. There seems little change on the surface from the previous Fallouts.

But these fanboys are used to such games that involve volume-based invertories...

Onto skills: The only way I could tolerate "Marksmanship" is if it did any of the following:

1. Someone said that you should only be able to use certyan types of weapons at a certan level; i.e. pistols at 65, rifles and SMGs at 90, ETC...
2. I think that marksman could also incoroprate improved throwing weapons. Throwing knives/spears check both Marksman and Melee Weapons; Chemical (i.e. bullet-shooting guns, flamethrowers, frag grenades, or motolov cocktails) weapons would check both Marksman and Chemical Science skills; Energy weapons (Plasma+EMP granades, plasma,laser guns) check both Marksman and Energy sciences.
3. Some combonation of the above.

And yes, the mutant/ghoul playability can only work in an expansion...
 
Cart Blanch : Blank Check

Cart Blanch : Blank Check

Once the decission is made to review and revise the game system, you have to be ready to "change" more than possibly ever intended.

How much is facial, or fanciful, holding your tongue in your left cheek when picking locks, and how much is fundamental, going to a Real$Time environment, and how well it blends into a new game that will challenge fans and convert the innocent is not compartmentalized in little bags of "weapons" or "Traits" or "pack mules".

It has to work as a system or melt into a schitzoid jumble of moronic
Fed Exing and Material Handling subsystems with the REAL game being
what game killing bug will terminate the experience. Game killing bugs are a tradition in this genre whether they be Windows memory faults or
tedious experience point accumulations to get the high level perk or spell to kill the Lastest Ever Boss Foozle.

Sometimes boredom seems build in and no amount of hard headedness, one of my few virtues, will carry me on to the glorious
final cut scene, or the good old "dumped into DOS" for you traditionalists.

Expect changes, most especially when the design intent remains true to
whatever intangables made FO 1 and FO 2 great games.

Once the decission was made to create a FO 3, and not a FO 2.5
everything becomes negociable if one wants the NEW game system to work as a whole, as FO 1 and FO 2 did in their time and place, their WHEN.

If the design intent turns out to be, an IWD or BG in FO clothes, then
so it goes, and we'll play it and judge it accordingly.

If the design intent turns out to be, a splendidly brewed potable, that
fires the passions of the 'old guard' and intoxicates the uninitiated, with the solid body of the known FO and the nuances and zesty flavors of dark and dangerous unknows, then
we'll play it and we'll play it and we'll play it , and pick it apart and compare and contrast, and play it some more.

So it goes......

4too
 
The Physopathic Polock said:
It depends on how you fix it, but mabye it would make more sense to improve opon what is already there...

So many of you guys said this.

Anyways, the whole "weight based inventory" was in Fallout. There seems little change on the surface from the previous Fallouts.

But these fanboys are used to such games that involve volume-based invertories...

Onto skills: The only way I could tolerate "Marksmanship" is if it did any of the following:

1. Someone said that you should only be able to use certyan types of weapons at a certan level; i.e. pistols at 65, rifles and SMGs at 90, ETC...
2. I think that marksman could also incoroprate improved throwing weapons. Throwing knives/spears check both Marksman and Melee Weapons; Chemical (i.e. bullet-shooting guns, flamethrowers, frag grenades, or motolov cocktails) weapons would check both Marksman and Chemical Science skills; Energy weapons (Plasma+EMP granades, plasma,laser guns) check both Marksman and Energy sciences.
3. Some combonation of the above.

And yes, the mutant/ghoul playability can only work in an expansion...
Click to expand...

This is the one thing i still haven`t "bought", it really seems like a uberskill that removes options for creating more than one type of combat character. maybe how you`re proposing may work , still i need more info on this, doesn`t seem right.

If the design intent turns out to be, an IWD or BG in FO clothes, then
so it goes, and we'll play it and judge it accordingly.

If the design intent turns out to be, a splendidly brewed potable, that
fires the passions of the 'old guard' and intoxicates the uninitiated, with the solid body of the known FO and the nuances and zesty flavors of dark and dangerous unknows, then
we'll play it and we'll play it and we'll play it , and pick it apart and compare and contrast, and play it some more.

So it goes......

4too
Click to expand...

Yep, i`m keeping my fingers crossed though, and i have a feeling that we won`t be able to fully judge it until we get a sense of the atmosphere (graphics) and story.
I like or don`t mind many of the changes, still i`m not sold in others, but what i need is a better look of the whole package.

Kharn told me the RPG with a german name Sawyer talked about on the BIS boards is the most balanced CRPG ever, it helps to explain his will in tweking the system to find a better balance, i`m hopefull he can get there, but i, like everyone, still need more info to give a well informed opinion beyond what my instinct says.
 
Briosafreak said:
The Physopathic Polock said:
It depends on how you fix it, but mabye it would make more sense to improve opon what is already there...

So many of you guys said this.

Anyways, the whole "weight based inventory" was in Fallout. There seems little change on the surface from the previous Fallouts.

But these fanboys are used to such games that involve volume-based invertories...

Onto skills: The only way I could tolerate "Marksmanship" is if it did any of the following:

1. Someone said that you should only be able to use certyan types of weapons at a certan level; i.e. pistols at 65, rifles and SMGs at 90, ETC...
2. I think that marksman could also incoroprate improved throwing weapons. Throwing knives/spears check both Marksman and Melee Weapons; Chemical (i.e. bullet-shooting guns, flamethrowers, frag grenades, or motolov cocktails) weapons would check both Marksman and Chemical Science skills; Energy weapons (Plasma+EMP granades, plasma,laser guns) check both Marksman and Energy sciences.
3. Some combonation of the above.

And yes, the mutant/ghoul playability can only work in an expansion...
Click to expand...

This is the one thing i still haven`t "bought", it really seems like a uberskill that removes options for creating more than one type of combat character. maybe how you`re proposing may work , still i need more info on this, doesn`t seem right.
Click to expand...

I think marksmanship could work if the perks are acquired in game and not by-level perks. Basically take all the perks I heard he was making so you would be specialized in small guns/big guns/ energy weapons and maybe have them acquired through some quest or such... but only one could be acquired.

As for the Volume based logic... I agree with JE 100%, I hate those systems where I hvae to make sure all the different items fit into my inventory. I like how JE's been working so far and am confident he's gonna pull off some sweet gaming :).
 
Economics FO 1+2

Economics FO 1+2

Example of one change begets another.

Change the carry system and the Barter-Economics system changes.
The value of your limited booty hauling must increase. Consider it a "value added tax",( before the input of Charismatic effects: a "smile and a shoe shine" factor.) The local market prices for "all your FO needs" will reflect the "reality" of gravity-volume carry weight.

What's your TARE Weight baby? MASS 'appeal' to you all?

Less is more. Might dove tail with the lean mean austerity in the 'brave new' Wasteland, the necessity of saving the last bullet for......, and this subtle re=emphasis on shin kicking and eye gouging.

But "wait", pardon this self indulgence, I am sure there is 'talent' to develope this FO Economics mini game, muti pack mules 'n' all. A Post Apocalyptic "Civilization" series that will dwarf any nit picking over armor slots or C-NPC predelictions, if left to the delusions of granduer that travel, just behind and to the right, of our market share obcessed cousins.

"BARTER BOY"!

But, hey FO 3 will be a RPG, defacto dungeon crawls and all that,
no worries about being hijacked on the road to the Wasteland right?

4too
 
Well, first off, it's Malkavian...:wink:

Second off, yeah, I can see his point. There is a lot of room for improvement in the Fallout system, but, when I said that, it looked like Van Buren was going to fuck up everything about Fallout. Granted, no one knew much about it (I believe I said that quite a while a go), but I think we were all in a state of disbelief. "What are they doing to our precious Fallout," was the cry of the time. Also, I believe that comment was made more towards the visuals and graphics than it was towards the gameplay.

As far as what I think of "If it works well, don't fix it. If it doesn't work well, fix it", I believe that can only be interpreted as a good thing. The more we get into this, and the more details (even if they are ever so tiny) that are released, the happier I am at what's happening with the development of Van Buren.

Seems like they're doing a top notch job, so far.......

...Guess we'll just have to wait and see.

-Malky
 
JE Sawyer said:
"If it works well, don't fix it. If it doesn't work well, fix it."
Click to expand...
JE's a funny one. Most people would call something that doesn't work well as "broken" and in need of fixing, where as something that DOES work well, obviously isn't broken, hence the phrase "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!".

Inventory = Working well!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top