How to Build on Fallout 3

[Lexx]

I was "immersed" very hard into Incubation, when I played it the last time. It's turn based combat, and the hell, it's great. :>

Beside this, "immersion" is such a ugly word nowdays.

And you know what? I am going to play Incubation now. :>

 

[archont]

I personally define immersion as a set of game features that allow a player to make decisions and experience their consequence in a believable and consistent way.

When I fire a gun, I want to feel recoil and see shells flying. When I use a medkit I want my character to play a little animation of bandaging himself. When I talk to NPCs I want to have options that follow the thinking, more or less, of what my character as I see him would say in that situation and also then allow me to feel the negative or positive consequences of that action.

The feedback part may be consequential to the game (storyline choices) or purely cosmetic (feedback in Far Cry 2 or Metro 2033).

Of course immersion is a word with a definition so wide that defining it would be difficult, if only because it's an end impression, not a base component of any work. But suspension of disbelief would be one of the most important aspects.

As such I find Fallout 1/2 combat less immersive than in, say, Stalker. But still more immersive than in Fallout 3.

 

[MrBumble]

I personally define immersion as immersion.

Immersion is cool, but it's definitely not what I mainly expect of a good CRPG.

Immersion is cool in great Survival Horrors ( Silent Hill, Fatal Frame ) and sure is a plus in CRPGS but it shouldn't be an excuse to downgrade essential roleplaying mechanics.

Besides, there are ways to achieve "immersion" while serving the game : coherent universe, unforgettable characters and a game that reacts to the player character's presence, not revolves around it.

 

[Arr0nax]

On the contrary, I think immersion is indispensable in a "role playing" game.
Role playing mean you identify yourself to your character. Fallout 1 and 2 are immersive games in that the world feels real and coherent and because it succeeds to make you identify yourself to the fate of your character.

Thing is, first person view definitely adds to immersion when done right. I would cite Vampires : Bloodlines as the best example of this phenomenon.

So I don't find it an ugly word, to me it's central in what makes a game good. The problem is more in the way it's being used by the industry to qualify games that are totally ANTI-immersive like Fallout 3. Because you can't feel part of the festival of ugliness and disconnected bits of dumb dialogue this game is. It just feels like an ugly boring 3D game, quite the opposite of immersion.
To discriminate between a good immersive game and its contrary, I would put it like it :
The second feels like a game and just a game, while the other feels like a world that you discover through the scope of the game.

 

[Verevoof]

There can be good games that aren't totally immersive , or at all. Immersion does not define a good game. A player can be immersed in a virtual environment, and still just want to get the hell out of there and let the uninstalling begin.

 

[Arden]

I get immersed if the setting of the game (or book, or movie) is believable (as in internal consistency not realism) and gripping. Immersion is something that gets created, not something that exists in itself. In a shooter recoil, heavy breathing and certain animations can create immersion. In a RPG the story, the world and your place in it can create immersion, in a movie good actors etc.

Bethesda (and others too) seem to take the view that, since first person view is per se immersive, you can add it to FO2 (changing everything to accommodate that feature) and thus get a lot of immersion in FO3. They fail to understand that immersion isn’t an ingredient you can add, together with some awesomeness, a bit of cool and fun and with that create a good game. What they also failed to understand is that immersion is very, very easy to break. The door slamming, the phone ringing, some stupidity arriving out of nowhere without making sense… and there goes the immersion.

Any work of art or form of media can create immersion. But only if its done well, in fact I think that immersion is a good way to measure the quality of a product. Obviously, if something is good, you get immersed and you want some more of it. Beth couldn’t do good so they went directly for immersion. Do you want some more?

And that’s why I don’t buy into that "evolving the genre" or "merging of two worlds" mentality. Its as if the publisher of "watership down" called in Adams and said: "well, its pretty good, and rabbits are cool but if you would add some shootouts and some kinky shagging it would be a hell more immersive, dontcha think?"

Still, i guess that Obsidian will show once again, that with the same ingredients available to them they are able to cook up something far better than Bethesda.

 

[archont]

Arden: FPSs aren't immersive by default. FPSes just provide more opportunities for the creation of immersion. A top-down isometric view puts distance between you and your character, while FPSes make you the avatar. However without the proper techniques, it's only a change of camera position.

 

[Arden]

Arden: FPSs aren't immersive by default. FPSes just provide more opportunities for the creation of immersion. A top-down isometric view puts distance between you and your character, while FPSes make you the avatar. However without the proper techniques, it's only a change of camera position.

Thats exactly what im saying. FPS can be immersive, ISO, third-person... whatever. There is no immersive perspective or non-imersive perspective. Only people who think there are such things like bethesda. FPS makes you (the player) the actor, ISO makes you think the actor is that guy on the screen. None of it guarantees immersion. To be immersive the game needs to be good regardless of its mechanics.

 

[cogar66]

Since they have the engine already, a year is just fine. Could be a nice game, except, if they keep VATS, in all honesty, I won't be able to play it.

VATS is the most jarring, immersion-killing gameplay subsystem I've ever had the displeasure of using.

Kotor 2 was built on the same engine as 1 or was tweaked as far as I can tell.

 

[Santoka]

Yea, turn based combat is full of immersion....

You don't have a clue what "immersion" is. I can be immersed by a well written book. That's just black words on a white piece of paper. The entire room around me can be replaced by the images conjured by a well written book.
The style of combat in a game has no bearing in "immersion." I find Fallout 1 to be every bit as immersive as a game like Half-Life 2, or Final Fantasy 6.

Reading Nietzsche's Birth of Tragedy is not really immersive, it's pretty abstract. But, Thus Spoke Zarathoustra is immersive, less abstract, and it sinks you in the symbolic world of Nietzsche's thought. And it's a far more accomplished work. Yet they're both interesting books with black words on white paper.

The whole point of turn based combat with eagle-eye perspective is abstraction, and abstraction(to pull out) is polar opposite of immersion(to sink inside/ under the surface). The point of turn based combat with eagle-eye perspective is to take you away from the action, from the reality of your character and let you toy and enjoy the godlike tactical fun.
What immerses the player in FO isn't the combat system or the view, it's all the other details : story, writing, written descriptions, soundtracks, sound design, visual design, visual references and most of all, the player's imagination. But turn based combat with eagle-eye perspective does not sink you inside the reality the game is trying to represent, it pulls you out of it.
Sure, you can argue that this system immerses you inside the gaming experience,that it gets you sucked into the game, and I'll agree, but that's just not the way I understand immersion in the present case, because that system grabs you away from the world your character is experiencing. Immersion would be trying to bring as close as possible to that world your character is experiencing.

You've never been spooked while cleaning up the Great Wanamingo Mine, have you ? You can see the whole map and where enemies are, and you can take all the time in your world to decide of your actions. Well, I'm sure you would have been spooked, even if just a tiny little bit more, in real time from a fps point of view, because you would have been, even if just a tiny little bit more, immersed in the world your character is experiencing.

Is it better or worse ? That's up anybody's taste, but by definition, turn based combat is abstraction.

Immersion is cool, but it's definitely not what I mainly expect of a good CRPG.
Immersion is cool in great Survival Horrors ( Silent Hill, Fatal Frame ) and sure is a plus in CRPGS but it shouldn't be an excuse to downgrade essential roleplaying mechanics.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[Per]

I like to be immersed in essential roleplaying mechanics.

 

[fedaykin]

I found Fallout very immersive. I almost felt like I was actually living IN a post-apocalyptic world.

 

[Judici]

I’m confused. I thought immersion was something that only Baptists do.

 

[Brother None]

Man you guys are silly. Everyone knows the definition of "immersive game" is "game with a budget over 20 million dollars, 80% of which goes to voice acting and graphics". Duh.

 

[UncannyGarlic]

I personally define immersion as a set of game features that allow a player to make decisions and experience their consequence in a believable and consistent way.

Good for you but your made up definitions do not change the accepted definition of the word.

Of course immersion is a word with a definition so wide that defining it would be difficult, if only because it's an end impression, not a base component of any work. But suspension of disbelief would be one of the most important aspects.

No, it's got a pretty specific definition. The factors which put one into a state of immersion are what vary from person to person but those factors could be quantified (I'm positive that some have been, just like some have been in films and writing).

Thing is, first person view definitely adds to immersion when done right. I would cite Vampires : Bloodlines as the best example of this phenomenon.

I disagree. First person perspective may help you immerse you into your character or, more precisely, feel like you are there (ie in the game), but it doesn't mean increased engagement in a game. Gameplay and writing are probably the two most important factors in immersion, even more so after a certain level of graphic quality and a soundtrack which fits the game. Part of the problem with the word immersion is it's different meanings, it has one meaning which means to be entirely submerged into something but that's not really the most fitting use for the word in the context, the most fitting definition is being deeply engaged/involved/absorbed with something.

Arden: FPSs aren't immersive by default. FPSes just provide more opportunities for the creation of immersion. A top-down isometric view puts distance between you and your character, while FPSes make you the avatar. However without the proper techniques, it's only a change of camera position.

So you're suggesting that professional FPS gamers are more immersed in their games than professional RTS gamers?

I’m confused. I thought immersion was something that only Baptists do.

Hahah, thanks for summing up the debate.

 

[Tagaziel]

The whole point of turn based combat with eagle-eye perspective is abstraction, and abstraction(to pull out) is polar opposite of immersion(to sink inside/ under the surface).

The problem with this reasoning is that it bases on the assumption that real time combat is not an abstraction.

Here's what kills it: every game, sans the most realistic simulators is an abstraction of reality.

Also, dictionary definitions an argument not make. Try harder, you must. Else fail, you will.

The point of turn based combat with eagle-eye perspective is to take you away from the action, from the reality of your character and let you toy and enjoy the godlike tactical fun.

Maybe that's true for you. Doesn't mean it's an objective fact. For instance, myself. I don't enjoy the godlike perspective, I enjoy the feeling of vulnerability as I try to survive each encounter, especially when I'm low on health, stimpaks and ammo.

It's just as immersive for me as blasting a mutant apart in STALKER.

What immerses the player in FO isn't the combat system or the view, it's all the other details : story, writing, written descriptions, soundtracks, sound design, visual design, visual references and most of all, the player's imagination. But turn based combat with eagle-eye perspective does not sink you inside the reality the game is trying to represent, it pulls you out of it.

Bullshit.

If that's a fact, then why the games that were most gripping to me were Fallout, Arcanum, Beyond Good & Evil, Planescape Torment and KOTOR2? All non-FPP titles, yet I was far more immersed in their world than in that of the FPP games I played (and I play a lot of them).

Sure, you can argue that this system immerses you inside the gaming experience,that it gets you sucked into the game, and I'll agree, but that's just not the way I understand immersion in the present case, because that system grabs you away from the world your character is experiencing. Immersion would be trying to bring as close as possible to that world your character is experiencing.

And that's no problem for isometric or TPP games.

You've never been spooked while cleaning up the Great Wanamingo Mine, have you ?

Yes, I was. Curiously, Fallout 3 was never scary for me.

You can see the whole map and where enemies are, and you can take all the time in your world to decide of your actions. Well, I'm sure you would have been spooked, even if just a tiny little bit more, in real time from a fps point of view, because you would have been, even if just a tiny little bit more, immersed in the world your character is experiencing.

Not really. It all depends on the craftsmanship of the authors, the perspective is irrelevant.

Is it better or worse ? That's up anybody's taste, but by definition, turn based combat is abstraction.

Except real-time combat and FPP are abstraction too.

 

[Santoka]

Yea, it's all light from a screen, I know, thank you Magritte.
(I never assumed the contrary, having myself written "the reality the game is trying to represent")
But the purposes are different.

Also, dictionary definitions an argument not make. Try harder, you must. Else fail, you will.

Two definitions is a good start for an argument, it only needs some conclusion, which I provided. It's a good start, and far better than the repeated raw statements of your awesome personal tastes and experiences ; your only point in your post is a false assumption.

For instance, myself. I don't enjoy the godlike perspective, I enjoy the feeling of vulnerability as I try to survive each encounter, especially when I'm low on health, stimpaks and ammo.

That has absolutely NOTHING to do with the combat system or the view. It's a feeling of vulnerability, and as you wrote, you can also get it from STALKER... I never stated immersion was absent from any top down game. Nor did I state you couldn't get different feelings from them. I merely state that Turn based combat + Top down view are not immersion tools, they're higher abstraction tools.

What immerses the player in FO isn't the combat system or the view, it's all the other details : story, writing, written descriptions, soundtracks, sound design, visual design, visual references and most of all, the player's imagination. But turn based combat with eagle-eye perspective does not sink you inside the reality the game is trying to represent, it pulls you out of it.

Bullshit.
If that's a fact, then why the games that were most gripping to me were Fallout, Arcanum, Beyond Good & Evil, Planescape Torment and KOTOR2? All non-FPP titles, yet I was far more immersed in their world than in that of the FPP games I played (and I play a lot of them).

I fail to see the contradiction ! It just gripped you in another way. Doesn't prevent FPP from being a major immersion factor.

You've never been spooked while cleaning up the Great Wanamingo Mine, have you ?

Yes, I was. Curiously, Fallout 3 was never scary for me.

I intentionally didn't use FO3 as a comparison.

You can see the whole map and where enemies are, and you can take all the time in your world to decide of your actions. Well, I'm sure you would have been spooked, even if just a tiny little bit more, in real time from a fps point of view, because you would have been, even if just a tiny little bit more, immersed in the world your character is experiencing.

Not really. It all depends on the craftsmanship of the authors, the perspective is irrelevant.

Use of perspective IS craftsmanship of the author. Just look at the good breakthroughs in horror cinema, subjective camera, Sam Raimi's floating camera etc... When done correctly, the good use of the good perspective gives results no other craft could.

Except real-time combat and FPP are abstraction too.

Turn based combat + TPP aims at more abstraction, RT + FPP aims at more immersion, all of this within the very abstract construct that is "playing video-games". Happy ?

 

[GreyViper]

Kind of amusing finding out Beth fanbois have doubts in Obsidian. One thing sure Obsidian was weak in models and bug hunting, give them a finished engine and let the concentrate on story then I think they will shine at their brightest.

 

[Ausdoerrt]

I "like" this whole argument. There isn't such a quality as "immersive" in a general sense, nor are there any immersive qualities. Immersion is fully subjective.

Man you guys are silly. Everyone knows the definition of "immersive game" is "game with a budget over 20 million dollars, 80% of which goes to voice acting and graphics". Duh.

You don't say.

 

[Viliny]

I don't get all this talk about how first person is any way superior in creating immersion...

After mapping and making stuff for various games in the past i find myself somehow... not enjoying first person games that much anymore.

I just walk around and see the game world but i can't stop but see the bits that it's all put together with... seeing a fancy part of a level and then start thinking how the mapper probably put it together in the map editor etc etc... Have a really hard time not seeing the "matrix code" when playing games novadays.

This is where isometric comes into play - works A LOT better for me. Also doesn't have every little ugly details and/or model up in your face so it leaves a little to the imagination.

Fallout 1 and 2 along with games like Jagged Alliance 1 and 2 and then a whole bunch of other older games really left me with a lot of good memories. Memorable and immersive...